i see it so i See it I see Thart with me EyeBals

when i see it i Look at it Put my eyes on it with My sightballs I look with my look balls and see It so in front of me

do you even care for our dear friend ? the 3d printed gizz boy? do you want to let him into your life. do you wish to include him into your heart

I join the Discord server

I mute the Discord server

I'm never seen again in the Discord server

Every few months we have discourse about trans women calling people eggs and every time it's mostly TME people and their pet trans fem /derogatory deciding the rest of us are evil Baeddels who hate men and are basically TERFs.

Just once can y'all treat trans women with literally any respect?

uh uh uh.

ive had a character who's been designless for a long time and i finally gave her a design. her name's zoe. zoe ellison. character on the right. she's trans. when i finally figured out what i wanted her to look like i went "oh. lol. she kinda reminds me of susan taxpayer" and so naturally uhhhh susan taxpayer is zoe's gender envy and thats why she has taxpayer vibes (to me).

susan taxpayer (left) belongs to @punkitt-is-here

oh also modnay cat only under read more. i. sat and watched him dance for a solid 10 minutes. i forgot i was the one who made him. i. modnay

RAGHHHHHHHH I LOVE THIS SO MUCH FOR REALLLLLLLL RAHHHHHHH THIS OWNS!!!! I LOVE THE FUNNY ORANGE SO MUHC

You're telling me this band is called "butt hole surfers"? I mean geez,, where do they come up with this stuff ! 😂

for a while there i was sympathetic to tumblr because of how much they’re in debt; i was kind of like “well of course they’re absolutely desperate for new users, they literally need the money or else tumblr goes down forever”. and then suddenly today it hit me that there’s actually no fucking reason for that debt to be causing these ui changes? the userbase has been INCREDIBLY clear about what they want from tumblr over the years, not to mention clear about the fact that even twitter people don’t need this place to look like twitter. it actually would be very… EASY? for them to just make changes in a direction people would actually be HAPPY with?

for fuck’s sake there were people trying to organize a “crab day” for tumblr despite tumblr doing nothing but telling us to go fuck ourselves for months on end. there were people spending hundreds of dollars on check marks just for the glee of MAKING FUN of twitter. can you IMAGINE how much money this userbase would donate to tumblr if they actually made ui updates geared toward what people have been asking for?

if tumblr actually crowdsourced ideas or even just LISTENED to their userbase it may have been possible for them to make way more money than they’re begging for now, they just insist on trying to drive their actual demographic and loyal userbase out for literally no reason

Why are we so scandalized by the thought of something being transmisogynistic? A piece of media featuring a transmisogynistic joke does not to be written off as irredeemable, nor are you a bad person for enjoying said media. Someone saying or doing something casually transmisogynistic without knowing does not automatically make them a monster, it just means they need to learn and move on. Institutionalized transmisogyny is something we all live with and have to deal with, and the purpose of understanding it better is so that, hopefully, someday, we won’t have to.

You don’t need to put such a heavy moral weight on understanding institutionalized transmisogyny and you don’t need to get defensive when it’s pointed out to you.

saw a stupid post on my dash and now i feel like swinging a bat at a hornets nest

when people say transandrophobia doesn't exist they aren't saying trans men don't face specific experiences of transphobia, they're saying that there is not a form of combined oppression that occurs at the intersection of being trans and being a man, because being a man is not a trait people are oppressed for. there is no systemic androphobia or misandry in the first place, so it cannot be compounded upon with the addition of being trans. all bigotry trans men are subjected to because of their gender is the result of transphobia.

in contrast, transmisogyny is more than just "transphobia aimed at trans women". the term exists to describe the way that in addition to transphobia (which affects all trans people) and misogyny (which affects all women), trans women are subjected to a unique oppression that is greater than the sum of its parts where those two forms of bigotry meet. to use the term transandrophobia when you ARE talking about "transphobia aimed at trans men", you're just displaying your lack of understanding about why the phrase transmisogyny exists at all.

yes, the transphobia aimed at trans men often looks different from transphobia aimed at trans women. yes, transmascs deserve to be able to discuss the specific ways they experience transphobia. but it's still important to be cognizant of the implications behind the words you use to describe it. "transandrophobia" inherently implies the existence of unadulterated androphobia affecting all men. to dismiss that fact by saying it's Just Semantics is to say you don't actually care about the term that transandrophobia came from and it displays a willful apathy towards the true meaning of transmisogyny.

The “transmisogyny card”:

not an Actual Thing that trans women can use to win arguments.

in fact, a trans woman suggesting that something on tumblr is transmisogynistic is far more likely to receive absurd amounts of aggression and threats of violence in response than she is to be listened to and respected.

i do genuinely think  I Am A Transwoman. I Am In The Closet. I Am Not Coming Out. should be like. required reading for anyone trying to make claims about gender politics.

1. This text is mediocre at best, absolutely not mandatory reading for anyone who wants to speak on gender politics. This is not a useful or insightful article.

2. You’re [the OP] cis and should really be promoting better quality writing by trans women than this.

3. Men in fact do suck and women venting about this doesn’t negatively impact trans women by itself. It does when it makes transmisogynist assumptions about trans women but shit-talking men is not inherently a transmisogynist act. We don’t need to tip-toe around the feelings of a select few who feel alienated by this because uwu I had a boyhood and have male friends and kissed a few boys once and might be trans even though I’d never admit it. That’s not an interesting, thoughtful or practical position to take.

Sorry to tell you this but plenty of trans women through our own personal experiences have come to similar “misandrist” positions as cis women. Is that transmisogynist too? Is that suppressing eggs? No, that’s ridiculous to say.

4. This is just petty but I’m sick and tired of the small and meek trans who doesn’t want to be noticed by the world. You have to buck the fuck up. They’ve threatened genocide yesterday so you need to be a tough bitch or a powerful motherfucker but you cannot be invisible, you cannot be small, you cannot be meek. The time for that was never but especially now we don’t have time for that as a community.

The author of the linked post in OP is going through a pretty severe case of internalized transmisogyny. The post is basically “i want to be a woman, but I’ve resigned myself to living as a man forever, and therefore i feel bad when women say mean things about men.” It’s not very insightful.

It’s a long-winded justification for repression. It literally restates the fears about transition most transfems have due to internalized transmisogyny, “if i transition I will be an ugly unloveable freak that will never be recognized as a woman and at best be condescendingly humored etc, etc” Except the author seems to agree with them and sees them as solid arguments not to transition and instead repress forever. It’s bullshit, my brain told me those things back when I started to crack my egg, and I proved them wrong. Like the author of this piece is free to live her life as a man, but her arguments for it are not good at all.

The justifications for “misandry” being a thing we should care about is the author identifying with men in a denial of womanhood. Trans women who actually live as a women naturally have a different perspective.

Like If I have been in a similar place, I felt uncomfortable with misandry rhetoric back when I was a repressed egg, in ways I could not put my finger on. Although I had more sense than to whine about my personal feelings about it in public. And the real reason was that such rhetoric felt unpleasant to me was because it made me think about the categories of man and woman and to which I belonged. And the answer of “man” gave me dysphoria, except I couldn’t recognize this because of my repression.

This article feels like it comes from a unhealthy mindstate of repression and massive internalized transmisogyny. The most insightful line in the entire thing is “what you’re reading is essentially a diary entry.” It’s a statement of some rather ugly feelings and thoughts, not some insightful essay about gender. If there is some lesson to take home from it, it would be to fight transmisogyny so it becomes much easier for trans women to transition.

And like spreading that as some kind of gospel truth about gender feels pretty ghoulish. It’s only widely spread because it is a trans woman arguing for misandry being real. We say “listen to trans women”, and then TME people will pick the few trans women who share their terrible opinions to listen to. Blaire White has made an entire career out of this.

I think a lot of progressive social justice people believe terfs are bad, and they’re right about that. But I don’t think they understand what’s the actual problem with their thinking beyond “they are transphobic/transmisogynistic” or how their ideology even means. Which is why the word “terf” is so often misused. Like people think basic feminist analysis like “we live in a patriarchy and misogyny is a serious problem” or “misandry don’t real” is terfy or think that terfery is just “thinking men are bad”. So I’ve seen trans women accused of being terfs for doing basic feminism or making misandry jokes.

That sort of thing is often a form of transmisogynistic bullying, but I think those people do think the problem problem with terfs is that they hate men. But hot take, the real problem is that they hate women.

The central tenet of radfemism is that cis women’s biology is the cause of women’s oppression and patriarchy. It's an explicitly anti-intersectional view, in which misogyny is the primary oppression, as old as humanity, and "the model for other (lesser) forms of oppression". This causes transmisogyny, as radfems argue only cis women are oppressed because of their biology. But it also relies on the just plain misogynistic idea that women are weaker. And it ultimately reifies patriarchy. Radfems believe biological sex is immutable. And if patriarchy is caused by biology and biological sex is immutable, there is no way forward to actually destroy patriarchy. Patriarchy is in this worldview not caused by social, material and political conditions and thus defeatable, since we can change those conditions by feminist struggle, but a biological constant. And if biology is destiny, we are then stuck with patriarchy.

To the extent that radfems were ever sincere in their feminism, this is a theory that leads to a dead end for feminist struggle.

And so the struggle turns against other women. Radfemism today essentially consists of activism whose main goals are fucking over trans women and sex workers. There really is no other way for it to go. They have no strategy for actually fighting against patriarchy, so they put down other women, whether it be trans women, sex workers or even other cis women who disagree with them and who the radfems condemn as brainwashed “handmaidens”. There is also a lot of moralist bullshit over porn and kink. Fighting against the patriarchy is hard, committing misogyny in a patriarchy is easy, and they have chosen the path of less resistance.

Radfems love man-hating rhetoric because it’s performative. Man-hating rhetoric has no practical effects, because misandry is not a systematic form of oppression. Men’s individual misogyny can become part of a systematic oppressive force, misandry can not, it can only remain as words from individual women.

It’s performative even if sincerely felt. I do understand feeling resentment as a woman towards men as a class. I know myself how fear just from being threatened by men easily turns into resentment. But it can’t actually do anything, it’s just letting off steam. It’s especially obvious how performative it is in the phenomenon of heteropessimism, in which there isn’t even any personal change behind the man-hating rhetoric. Heteropessimists are straight women say heterosexuality is bad because men are bad, but they usually don’t quit doing heterosexuality.

Radfems are into it because they don’t do any meaningful practical feminist activism, so performative displays of class resentment against men is what remains to keep up appearances. This class resentment is a replacement for practical action. It’s larping as a feminist. “We don’t do any actual feminist activism, but we say we hate patriarchy and men as a class a lot, so it’s allright.” It’s a form of appearing radical when radfems are actually being a conservative force.

Feminism is in part a struggle for women’s rights. And in the transmisogyny masquerading as feminism that is radfemism, cis women’s privileges over trans women becomes the women’s “sex-based” rights that they are fighting for. It’s fighting to maintain a privileged position in patriarchy, for the right never to see a trans woman in a public space.

And I do mean that they fight from exclusion from public spaces in general. When you can’t safely use public bathrooms, it severely limits your ability to move about in public spaces. A trans woman barred from the women’s bathroom can’t use the men’s, not without immense risk of assault. Trans people are faced with the choice to either remain in their homes or detransition. And that’s the point of bathroom bans, remove us from public spaces. A changing room ban is essentially a ban from doing normal human things like swimming or using a public gym.

Radfems ultimately collaborate with patriarchy in a shared struggle to uphold transmisogyny. They provide a secular, pseudo-progressive and pseudofeminist justification for transmisogyny, and that can be useful in winning over cis people to the struggle against trans rights. That’s why the patriarchy gives them funding and space in the “debate” over trans rights. It’s to provide a “feminist” reason to exclude trans women from womanhood and denying trans people healthcare.

That's why there is a terf-to-fascist pipeline. When someone associate with (and are funded by) reactionaries, their "feminism" is mainly focused on hurting trans women and sex workers and their definition of womanhood rests on biological essentialism and motherhood, it's easy to go from self-proclaimed feminist to outright fascist.

Even the radfem criticism of gender roles can turn into reactionary thinking. Radfem criticism of high heels, porn and make-up and emphasis on biological sex and motherhood is easily compatible with reactionary ideas. A common theme in reactionary thinking is that modern sexualized femininity is degenerate and how women need to return to motherhood and define womanhood through their reproductive/ biological role.

And there has always has been a connection between radfems and the reactionary pedo cult that is catholicism. Janice Raymond was literally a former Sister of Mercy and she was taught by Mary Daly who was a theology professor at a Jesuit college. They brought the transphobia and sex-negativity of catholicism into their "feminism". Raymond is an early example of radfems working with the far-right, as she worked with the Reagan adminstration to deny trans people healthcare. Of course radfems worked with christian conservatives in anti-porn crusades around the same time. The idea of genderism or gender ideology that radfems seems to have started with conservative catholics.

Radfems often justify their actions by arguing the exclusion of trans women from female spaces is just aimed at protecting women from “dangerous men”. So it’s justified as a fight for women’s rights and aimed at “men” in general, but that’s disingenuous. Cis men aren’t hurt by radfem exclusion. They still have bathrooms they can use. They can’t be hurt much by radfem activism because we live in a patriarchy and misandry isn’t real. In fact they benefit from the transmisogyny that radfems spread.

Misgendering trans women as men to exclude them from women’s bathrooms (and by extension from public spaces all together) is part of that disingenuous rhetoric to relabel transmisogyny as feminist struggle. That is the other function their man-hating rhetoric serves. Radfems often claim to hate men, but what they mean by that is often that they hate trans women. When your average radfem's utterances consist of like 95% transmisogyny and what they advocate for only hurts transfems, not cis men, it's hard to interpret their "i hate men" statements any other way.

I think a lot of well meaning progressive people are too willing to take radfems at their word at this. They try to explain radfemism as “women who hate men, think trans women are men and thus hate trans women”. That is an essentially an individual psychological explanation that doesn’t give enough weight to systemic transmisogyny. Even if the psychological explanation is true for many individuals, if an individual radfem sincerely hates everyone amab in general, their individual psychology doesn’t matter much in the larger scheme of things. What they think or believe is not as important as their actions on a systemic level. And we can’t ignore the impact of systemic transmisogyny on their thinking, which we can’t say for misandry.

The transmisognyistic actions of radems ultimately enforce the systemic oppression of transmisogyny whereas misandry has no systematic oppression for them to reinforce. Misandry to the extent it is real is an individual psychological trait, transmisogyny is systemic.

I just linked to this in a post, but I want to highlight it more explicitly. This guide is really illuminating, and if you are not a trans femme you should still read it too, because we all need to know what transmisogyny affected people are constantly going thru and how much danger we can present to them and how we fail them as bystanders

something that bothers me about the concept of transandrophobia is that it's often defined as the intersection between transphobia and misogyny, which just isn't true. there's already a word for that intersection, and that's transmisogyny.

I see a lot of trans men who believe in the movement argue that their oppression is largely defined by misogyny, and I can definitely see where they're coming from. one common complaint I see from trans men is that they'll never be able to come out or transition because their family will punish them for "giving up their womanhood," essentially valuing them for their femininity instead of recognizing and accepting their inherent right to live according to their own desires. this kind of misogyny, where people refuse to view you as a fully independent person capable of making your own decisions about your life and your body due to the value they perceive in your potential desirability to men, is the foundation of patriarchy. and it's incredibly painful! knowing that many people won't take you seriously because they view you as a woman is frustrating!

it's just... that experience is not unique to trans men. that's just plain old misogyny. it's the same logic underlying the constant attacks on reproductive rights: if you have a uterus, then your destiny is to become breeding stock for men and be a dutiful housewife and mother for your husband's children, so you're not entitled to make choices about your body that would inhibit your ability to do so, such as getting a hysterectomy or having an abortion. it's not even unique to people who were afab; because of ray blanchard's transsexual typology, most trans women for decades were unable to access gender affirming care at all if they were unable to meet a very restrictive definition of womanhood that was entirely determined by their potential sexual desirability and willingness to be subservient to men, and ONLY men.

sure, it is blatantly transphobic to deny a trans man's right to self-identification, and it's misogynistic to refuse him this on the basis of his desirability to men. and I have no doubt that that's deeply painful! but the fact that these two forms of oppression are happening simultaneously does not mean they are intersecting. in order for that to be the case, they would have to compound on one another and form something new which is greater than the sum of its parts.

that's what transmisogyny is. because yes, people deny our right to self-identification, and decide our worth by our desirability to men, but transfeminine oppression is so much more than that. despite what people say, they don't really see us as men; they see us as a threat to the patriarchy because our mere existence stands in stark opposition to the notion that manhood and masculinity are superior to womanhood and femininity. they don't fully see us as women either, though; our inability to bear children means that we aren't entitled to the very few benefits afforded to cis women, so we have no place in society. as a result, we exist as women that you can abuse without consequence. we exist as fetish objects; just things that you can fuck when you're looking for an "exotic" sexual experience.

I'm more than aware that there are trans men who don't define transandrophobia as the intersection of transphobia and misogyny, and some even outright reject the notion that they experience misogyny at all, on the basis that it's misgendering. I can certainly understand that point of view, but the alternative definition would imply that misandry is a widespread form of oppression, which is undeniably false.

what I find most troubling, though, is that trans men who do state that misandry is real then assert that trans women's oppression is at least partially built upon it. I shouldn't have to state this, but if you're going to reject the notion that misogyny is a cause of your oppression on the basis that it's misgendering, then I have every right to reject the notion that misandry is a cause of mine.

that's really the problem with people who believe in transandrophobia, though: they're entitled. rather than recognize the common ground they have with others and stand in solidarity with them, they monopolize the conversation to claim that the oppression they experience is wholly unique. by doing so, they're able to talk over women by positioning themselves as experts who understand the subject far better than we ever could, which allows them to have a taste of the male privilege they feel they've been wrongfully deprived of. that's precisely why most transandrophobia truthers are white; trans men of color generally have a better understanding of intersectionality and are usually aware that this form of male entitlement will never be available to them because the racism they experience will result in them being perceived as a threat if they ever try to speak over white women.

trans liberation will never be achieved so long as you try to appeal to the patriarchy in the hopes of advancing in the gender hierarchy. even if you succeed, you will always find your new position is conditional; step out of line, be too trans, and it's gone. if you really want all trans people to be free, you need to acknowledge the people who have it worse than you and fight for them. if you want fellow trans men to have the freedom to come out and transition, you need to actively combat misogyny - even the kind that doesn't affect you personally: transmisogyny. if you want that freedom to be extended to all trans people, not just the white ones, you need to understand racism and stand against it whenever you see it. real liberation only happens when the white supremacist patriarchy is burned to the ground, so grab a torch.