rutdeleu:

metapianycist:

womantic:

can people please stop with the lesbians not liking dick = transmisogyny or gender essentialism (lol you clearly don’t know what that means) mentality because that is lesbophobic as fuck

Nope because lesbian means attracted to women. If a person argues that it ALSO means “not liking penis,” the person is equating “woman” with not having a penis. And that’s misgendering, biologically gender essentialist, and transmisogynist.

p.s. it’s not lesbophobic to call out transmisogyny among cis lesbians

There is a huge difference between an individual person having individual anatomical preferences and that being attributed to a group. Orientation is about gender identity, not anatomy. For some people, it might also be about anatomy, but that is an assumption - not a requirement for the word. A woman interested in women can identify as a lesbian even if a woman she is interested in is a transwoman or if she is herself or if both of them are.

If a woman identifies as a lesbian and doesn’t have any interest in transwomen, that’s fine. That’s a personal preference. Nobody can dictate to her what she should or should not be attracted to. But it’s not related to orientation and gender identity, it’s related to features that individual finds attractive, just like having a thing for short hair or freckles or a “type” such as “tall dark and handsome” or “short and curvy” or any other preference.

There is no rule that a lesbian has to find all women attractive. There IS, however, a rule that a woman is a woman regardless of what her birth certificate might have said; if she calls herself a woman, then she is.

I am going to respond to your bolded statement, because I take issue with it. Personal preferences can be based on prejudice. It is very common for people to state preferences like “I am not attracted to black women,” when what is probably going on is the person has not yet been attracted to a black woman and believes this is because they have an innate preference against them, rather than that racism could be influencing their apparent preferences.

In the rest of the paragraph with the bolded statement, you categorize being trans as being a similar thing as having short hair or being curvy. Being trans is not a visible trait that is immediately perceptible like those other traits you categorize it with. Being a trans woman is not a visible characteristic because there are cis women who have visible characteristics considered by cis people as features of trans women—being tall, having a deeper voice, having a larger shoe size. (My mother is such a cis woman on all three counts.) Trans women as a group are not distinguishable from cis women as a group by looks. A preference against trans women as a category is not a preference based on looks, because if it were solely a preference based on looks, there would certainly be trans women of the person’s “type.”

So the statement “I am a lesbian, and I am not attracted to trans women,” is a preference statement that is most definitely based on prejudice against trans women. Unlike statements such as “I am a lesbian. I also do not want penis involved in my sexual activity”—which are an explanation of the person’s sexual organ preferences without equating a sexual organ preference with a gender preference.

25 May 2013 51 rutdeleu Permalink

On Gender Identity

tonimiko:

Gender identity, though completely different from sexual orientation, shares one common thing: It is a spectrum. The commonly believed gender binary is our way of easily categorizing people depending on what genitals they were born with. If you are born with a penis, you are expected to do “boy” things, and eventually “manly” things. Likewise, the same applies if you are born with a vagina—you are expected to do “girly”, and then “womanly” things.

Listen: what’s down there has nothing to do with how we are up here. Our organs do not define us. Whereas social gender roles are a purely cultural thing, psychological gender identity is something different altogether.

Some examples:

Cisgender: The norm. A person who acts and behaves like “their gender”, as society dictates.

Transgender: A person born into the body of man, but believes he should have been a woman, is transgendered. She is a woman. The definition also applies to men born into the body of a woman.

Agender: Not having either gender identity, male nor female.

Androgyne: Feeling right in the middle of the male/female spectrum, or gender neutral. Not to be confused with agender.

Genderqueer: An umbrella term for all gender identities that are not cisgender.

Uh, actually everything but “agender” and “androgyne” in this list is either inaccurate or dead-wrong, and there is some really serious misgendering in your definition of “transgender.”

Explanation of why the misgendering is rude and otherwise awful: I was never a woman. Do not call me “she” under any circumstances, even if you’re describing me prior to recognizing I was not a girl/woman. Because I was never a woman, my body was never “the body of a woman.” Additionally, trans women were never men, unless the individual herself explicitly says so; do not call her “he” under any circumstances, unless she gives you explicit permission. And if you’re not a trans woman yourself, don’t refer to the body of a trans woman as ever having been “the body of a man”; it’s the body of a WOMAN regardless of its parts.

Some better, less wordy, non-misgendering, non-dysphoria-inducing definitions:

cisgender: a person who identifies as the gender they were assigned at birth

transgender: a person who identifies as a gender different from the one assigned at birth; this includes but is not limited to male-to-female transsexual people (trans women) and female-to-male transsexual people (trans men)

genderqueer: an umbrella term for non-binary (neither 100% man nor 100% woman) gender identities

Disclaimer: These definitions do not represent the possible gender experience of everyone. Many non-Western cultures recognize non-binary genders and gender transitions as possible experiences and thus people in such cultures would not necessarily conceive of themselves as transgender in their own cultural contexts.

25 May 2013 9 tonimiko Permalink

womantic:

can people please stop with the lesbians not liking dick = transmisogyny or gender essentialism (lol you clearly don’t know what that means) mentality because that is lesbophobic as fuck

Nope because lesbian means attracted to women. If a person argues that it ALSO means “not liking penis,” the person is equating “woman” with not having a penis. And that’s misgendering, biologically gender essentialist, and transmisogynist.

p.s. it’s not lesbophobic to call out transmisogyny among cis lesbians

25 May 2013 51 womantic Permalink

Shut the fuck up with this bullshit

lennat:

metapianycist:

iwilleatyourenglish:

metapianycist:

lennat:

“Asexuals are slut-shamers!”

“Allosexual aromantics are sluts!”

“Bisexuals reinforce the gender binary!”

“Transgender men are misogynist!”

“Transgender women are misandrist!”

“Pansexuals are whores!”

[make it stop gif]

It’s not even the regular phobic bigots spewing this shit anymore, people.  IT’S MEMBERS OF THE NON-HETERONORMATIVE COMMUNITY.  STOP TEARING YOUR SIBLINGS DOWN.

hold on there re: bolded.

Trans men can be just as disgustingly misogynist as cis men. They are men, full stop, and to deny they can be misogynist is fucked up. Pointing out when a trans man is being misogynistic is important and not “tearing down” anyone. Misogynist trans men are the ones tearing others down.

i think the op was referring to when some people claim that trans* men are really just women with internalized misogyny that they act on (IF ANYONE BELIEVES THIS FUCK YOU I’M SORRY BUT FUCK YOU) (bolding and underlining by op)

but yeah, trans* men can be just as misogynistic. if anyone doesn’t believe me, please just look up some of the heinous shit that chaz bono has said

OP, please clarify, because treating women like shit and being full of male entitlement are just as prevalent among trans men as among cis men.

OP here.

Thank you, Iwilleatyourenglish.  That is exactly right.  

All of these attitudes, not just the one about transmen, state that if you (insert itendity/sexuality/etc. here) then you are (insert said form of terrible thing here).  They also imply that said (a)sexuality/gender identity is the cause of said terrible thing.  These attitudes are sick, bigoted, and wrong.  Worse, they are all stereotypes that are very prevalent from within a community that should be supporting each other in the face of outside adversity.

Thank you for clarifying. It is most definitely fucked up when people say things like “You’re not FTM, you just have a lot of internalized misogyny.”

(I’ve personally never heard of people saying “You’re not a trans woman, you just have a lot of misandry” though. It’s really fucked up if people say that, but assholes seem to prefer different and even-more-fucked-up ways of invalidating trans women.)

25 May 2013 68 lennat Permalink

Shut the fuck up with this bullshit

iwilleatyourenglish:

metapianycist:

lennat:

“Asexuals are slut-shamers!”

“Allosexual aromantics are sluts!”

“Bisexuals reinforce the gender binary!”

“Transgender men are misogynist!”

“Transgender women are misandrist!”

“Pansexuals are whores!”

[make it stop gif]

It’s not even the regular phobic bigots spewing this shit anymore, people.  IT’S MEMBERS OF THE NON-HETERONORMATIVE COMMUNITY.  STOP TEARING YOUR SIBLINGS DOWN.

hold on there re: bolded.

Trans men can be just as disgustingly misogynist as cis men. They are men, full stop, and to deny they can be misogynist is fucked up. Pointing out when a trans man is being misogynistic is important and not “tearing down” anyone. Misogynist trans men are the ones tearing others down.

i think the op was referring to when some people claim that trans* men are really just women with internalized misogyny that they act on (IF ANYONE BELIEVES THIS FUCK YOU I’M SORRY BUT FUCK YOU)

but yeah, trans* men can be just as misogynistic. if anyone doesn’t believe me, please just look up some of the heinous shit that chaz bono has said

OP, please clarify, because treating women like shit and being full of male entitlement are just as prevalent among trans men as among cis men.

24 May 2013 68 iwilleatyourenglish Permalink

Shut the fuck up with this bullshit

lennat:

“Asexuals are slut-shamers!”

“Allosexual aromantics are sluts!”

“Bisexuals reinforce the gender binary!”

“Transgender men are misogynist!”

“Transgender women are misandrist!”

“Pansexuals are whores!”

[make it stop gif]

It’s not even the regular phobic bigots spewing this shit anymore, people.  IT’S MEMBERS OF THE NON-HETERONORMATIVE COMMUNITY.  STOP TEARING YOUR SIBLINGS DOWN.

hold on there re: bolded.

Trans men can be just as disgustingly misogynist as cis men. They are men, full stop, and to deny they can be misogynist is fucked up. Pointing out when a trans man is being misogynistic is important and not “tearing down” anyone. Misogynist trans men are the ones tearing others down.

24 May 2013 68 lennat Permalink

cupcakemichi:

captainjerkway:

survivorwaver:

captainjerkway:

metapianycist:

So I can’t quite put my finger on why, but I really don’t like it when cis people refer to themselves as “cisfemale” or “cismale” rather than cis women or cis men. Contracted into one word as opposed to two, and using female/male instead of woman/man. I can’t yet process why this bothers me so much. (Anyone willing to take a crack at it would be appreciated.)

it makes a more direct assumption that female = woman, and further alienates trans* people, sort of emphasizing that they’re “different”

also, any time people automatically go to female and male when they could use woman and man is gross

idk about the contracted into one word thing except that ciswoman and cisman just seems like bad grammar to me, so … cis-woman or cis woman and cis-man or cis man would be much … more pleasing to this particular pedant

The only thing that bothers me about it is that it sounds kind of weird but I don’t see a problem, except if someone is using it to mean something offensive but the problem in that case are not the words but the meaning and use.
In cases like this I only judge if a term is a problem in the way it’s normally used and I never saw this being used before so I have no way of knowing.
Maybe it’s personal preference?

(I have to admit that I don’t know why using male and female is gross. I will look into it.)

mostly it’s a sexism thing

a lot of people refer to “a female” or “cisfemales” or just “females” whatever, and it’s gross because it’s used in the same way that someone would say “a man” or “men” or “cis men”. “Female” is used to separate women from their personhood and that’s gross

also, though i’m not quite qualified to speak on it

using “male” has a similar thing going in terms of transmisogyny, radfems will refer to trans* women as males and basically just be gross that way and separate them from the fact that they’re women, it reduces them to their biology

so IN GENERAL when someone uses male and female without a good reason for doing so, when man and woman would serve the same or better purpose, i get itchy

And also putting “cis” and “woman” (or man) together makes it one word. So instead of “cis” being an adjective, it’s become part of a noun, making “ciswoman” different from “trans*woman”… which isn’t good. I, as a cis woman, am as much of a woman as a trans* woman, and vice versa. I know it doesn’t bother some trans* people at all, but I know lots that it does, and this is their reasoning (in my impression) so I always write it as two words. 

And all of the above about how using scientific/biological terms removes personhood and is really gross.

Reblogging because I have excellent followers.

24 May 2013 26 cupcakemichi Permalink

highfemmelowbrow:

If you’re shocked that Babeland is a Cathy Brennan supporter, keep in mind that they are a for-profit company that makes most it’s money from straight people and people with very mainstream politics who could give a fuck about transmisogyny or any type of anti-oppression.

Did y’all not know that Babeland directly profits from 50 Shades of Grey? They jumped right on the bandwagon and started selling the book in stores with a cheap ass “fetish” kit that contains two satin ribbons and a sleeping mask. That book is a glorified tale of stockholm syndrome, coercion and abuse under the guise of BDSM. It is most definitely not a pro feminist piece of literature and the excerpts I’ve read are intensely misogynistic.

It’s worth mention that the “gender expression” section of Babeland is stocked with toys and porn that’s virtually all geared towards faab people.

I guess I’m just shocked that everyone’s so shocked that Babeland supports transphobic people, because in my experience they’ve done nothing to indicate that they ever gave a fuck.

24 May 2013 36 highfemmelowbrow Permalink