listen … this is so dan … this is SOOO!!! DAN!!!! just … acknowledging things without saying anything at all. i love him so much i’m actually crying right now wtf … i felt this way so often last year when he started casually talking about boys being cute in nearly every live show and video, when he made the sexuality comment in his diss track and dressed in fucking sequins and wore rhinestoned hats .. and i feel it again. he’s the king of just existing and having that be enough, no pomp and circumstance necessary. rejecting labels!! existing outside of the spectrums and the binaries!!!! resisting social categorization!!! refusing to be othered by a society that still always sees heterosexuality as the default and the norm. sometimes dan is lowkey the most rad. what a good dude. i love him <3

anonymous asked:

I once had someone say to me that ttrpgs can be split into "combat focus" and "social focus". I'm new to the tabletop scene and wanted ur opinion on this since ur in the industry

Complete balderdash, like all hard binaries - though it’s admittedly a common fallacy, and the reason why is a fascinating bit of tabletop roleplaying history.

See, back in the 1990s, there were basically two major tabletop RPGs popularity-wise: Dungeons & Dragons, and Vampire: The Masquerade, with everybody else fighting over third place. As one might expect, this situation soon precipited as massive, hobbywide Nintendo-verus-Sega style pissing contest about which game was the best.

The approach that was eventually settled on by the pro-Vampire side was to try and hedge Dungeons & Dragons out of the competition by defining the term “roleplaying game” in such a way that it excluded D&D. True roleplaying, they contended, was a freeform activity with minimal or no mechanical engagement, and rolling dice was a crutch for the creatively lazy. Since D&D involves nothing but rolling dice to hit monsters with swords, the argument continues, obviously it’s not a roleplaying game at all, but just a tabletop wargame with delusions of grandeur. This is known today as the “role-playing versus roll-playing” fallacy.

(In the interest of complete accuracy, a form of this argument had already existed within the D&D community itself; however, the notion that the propensity to favour “roll-playing” over “role-playing” was an intrinsic feature of particular games, as opposed to a mere habit of particular players, wasn’t popularised until this era.)

The situation isn’t nearly so contentious these days - thankfully, the tabletop roleplaying community has largely mellowed out! - but the fallout remains in the form of the “social versus combat” binary, which is really just a more polite form of the old “role-playing versus roll-playing” binary, attempting to divide games into “social focus” (implicitly rules-light, low engagement, and freeform) and “combat focus” (implicitly rules-heavy, high engagement, and regimented).

The truth of the matter is that a game’s approach to rules design tells you essentially nothing about its narrative focus. You could have a breezy, rules-light game about kung fu monks kicking each other in the head, and you could have a rigid turns-and-tokens system about Congressional politics, and the former would have “combat focus” while the latter would have “social focus”, for all that their rules are put together in a manner that’s exactly the opposite of what the orthodoxy of those terms would have you expect.

  • what "gender is a social construct" means: binary genders are not the be all and end all, everyone's gender identity is valid regardless of their assigned gender at birth, people should have their gender respected
  • what "gender is a social construct" doesn't mean: gender doesn't exist therefore it doesn't matter and i can use any pronouns for trans people because i'm really clever and take everything literally so long as it proves my point

Honestly “You have to pick one of these two identities we made up as a society instead of one I think was recently made up or else you are mentally ill,” is actually a very amusing argument. Animals don’t have genders, they have sexes yes, but there is nothing gendered. It’s an exclusively human thing. It’s purely social. Yeah, Non-binary is made up, the concept of man and woman (and specific energies your religion may assigned to them) are entirely made up too. Which is why if you actually look at indigenous cultures around the world you’ll find plenty of references to more than two genders. Because we made it all up in the first place.

That’s how we do all of our cultural shit. We make it all up. Saying someone is delusional unless they identify with this concept that we fucking made up is absolutely hilarious and the opposite of “logical”.

It’s like people bitching about made up words. Do you even KNOW how languages are made? They’re fucking made up. We make noises in patterns and assign meaning to them. All of these words on this page are made up too.

The fact that people don’t recognize these concepts in the witchcraft community is sad, but unsurprising given the obsession with gender that Wicca seems to have. I feel bad for the sensible Wiccans that have to deal with the ignorance coming from their own religion, tbh.

  • a random 4 year old girl going through my line at work with her mom: hi. what's your name?
  • me: my name is jack.
  • girl: are you a boy or a girl?
  • me, internally: do i risk freaking out her mother by saying "neither" and prompting more probing questions about my gender from a strange child which will then launch me into an extensive lecture on gender as a social construct and transgender and nonbinary identities and how my gender is so outside the socially accepted binary that "neither" is really as close as i can simply explain it???
  • me, out loud: a birl

Yes, Virginia, there are radfems who aren’t TWERFs, who put things like “TERFs fuck off” in their headers, and reblog all the positivity posts about trans wlw. 

IMHO, this is one of the main ways that TERF rhetoric and philosophy becomes widedpread in the community. People think that the only dangerous or fucked-up part is hating/oppressing trans women, and vehemently oppose that (rightly!) while adopting pretty much everything else. 

And then other folks come across the “pretty much everything else” and don’t realize where it comes from, because THEY’RE not reblogging from TWERFs, THEY’RE yelling at any TWERFs they find… and they don’t realize they’re reblogging from people who don’t realize they’re following TWERFs. 

Image is an off-center (sorry) venn diagram titled “The Venn Diagram of Radical Feminist Tumblr,” on a pink gradient background.

The pink left-hand circle is T(W)ERFs, and the only item that’s ONLY in that circle is:

“Opposes trans women because they are considered ‘men,’ and supports trans men because they are considered women. 

“(Note that ‘support’ here only means 'misgenders and tokenizes them and pressures them to detransition,’ and can mean 'ruthlessly doxxes them because all trans people are bad’)”

The pink right-hand circle is “Anti-TWERF Radfems.” The only item that’s only in THAT circle is “Opposes trans men because they are men, and supports trans women because they are women”.

The center, where the circles overlap, i.e. the beliefs common to both groups, includes: 
* Opposes non-binary genders and doesn’t think they exist, or thinks of them as slight variations on male and female
* Thinks of genders as being defined by oppression
* Thinks of sexual orientations as primarily being defined by their oppression, and sees oppression as moving them closer or farther from “straight”
* Opposes sex work and the sex industry
* Opposes BDSM and “kink”
* Thinks of patriarchy as the main root of oppression
* Thinks of socialization as being binary and separate - you only get either male or female socialization
* Opposes inclusion of GNC people under trans umbrella b/c thinks of “trans” as implying transition
* Thinks of women/girls as universally positive, men/boys as negative, sometimes w/exceptions for men/boys who are oppressed or allies
* Values “prioritizing” women, in a way where the more your personal life focuses on women, the better you are perceived by the group

This is just what I’ve observed from reading Tumblr; please feel free to add or correct things. 

please note:

The single ideas on the outskirts are not less harmful than the list of ideas in the center. 

Opposing Trans Women, specifically, represents an entire platform of fucked-up ideology, harassment, misgendering, etc. (Currently, it particularly represents pushing really hard for bathroom laws and against letting young people of any gender transition; consistently portraying trans women as sexual predators and as violent; and, mainly outside of Tumblr, an ableist push to keep autistic people from being allowed to identify as trans and to transition.) 

Opposing Trans Men is significantly less fucked up because it at least doesn’t include misgendering binary trans people, (although it usually still includes misgendering nb ones), and because it’s not used to legislate against trans people, harm autistic people, or push to prevent anyone from transitioning. (It does, however, often include portraying trans men as sexual predators and as violent.) 

(Plz also note: not all radfems embrace or care about every single item in the center; these are the most common points I see them sharing. Many of them will focus on just one or a few issues, often in addition to more common feminist positions such as reproductive freedom and opposing misogyny.

The inclusion of more common positions often serves to make the radfem positions seem more positive/harmless – “this person is totally right about X, therefore New Idea Y must also be true!”

I’m not using TERF/TWERF interchangeably above, btw. I’m specifically distinguishing between TWERFs who hate trans women and TERFs who think they’re not cissexist, but whose hatred of men somehow only gets expressed at trans men, and who join TWERFs in shitting on nonbinary people - usually but not always with an exception for nb people who identify as “woman-aligned/female-aligned”.)

spinningthehamsterwheel  asked:

I've seen a bunch of posts and info about Vlad and Nathan, but managed to miss pretty much anything regarding Ursula (like, I didn't even know she had scars). Do you have centralized character info in a post somewhere?

Ursula is intentionally kept as a mystery because her character arc is central to the plot. But I do have a few things I typed up when people asked so I will repeat them here for anyone interested:

Ursula is of mixed descent. Everyone thinks she is going to look a certain way because of where she is currently living in the world. But when asked “when did you move here” she does this sort of slow blink, and goes “Oh, no. I never moved. You all did.”

My girl’s watched continental drifts and stars being born. She’s got no time for your colonial whitewashing bullshit.

Like Vlad and Nathan, she is also bi/pan and doesn’t care much for the social constructs of gender binary. She’s considerably older than Vlad and he’s somewhat embarrassed by this. Nathan continues to give zero fucks and courts her like she’s 20 something. She’s wryly amused by this.

She was once the lover to an Empress whose kingdom sunk beneath the ocean. She was on the other side of the world when it happened. She still looks for the lights some nights.

In her present form she’s short and stocky. Her hair is the color of dark honey and curls wildly if left to its own devices. It reminds Vlad of early renaissance paintings, and he’d like to paint her some day. Nathan likes watching her braid it. He buys her silly little trinkets to lace through the plaits. Ursula who has worn crowns, treasures all of them.

She eats almost as much as Nathan and never says no to honeycomb. If comics existed she’d read them. In their lieu she greatly enjoys reading the new publications known as Penny Dreadfuls—both her and Vlad collect the same author and by happy coincidence each have copies of chapters the other does not. They’re trying to get Nathan interested but he’s not a fan of fantasy. A world with only humans is just too unrealistic. Not to mention worryingly speciest.

She bears a lot of scars. She does not hide them.

She has a natural talent for the theatrical and in another life walked the stage. She likes plants but gardens begrudgingly. She’s forgotten her original name but doesn’t mind.

She has been alone for a very long time.

Explaining Molly as a "Mirror"

Since I’ve been asked about this specifically a number of times I thought it would be helpful to just make a post.

So “Molly is John’s mirror” not some clever subtext that someone in the tinfoil hat brigade discovered. It is, in fact, a very old trope of the “Ms. Male” or “Distaff counterpart” that certain fans are applying here.

Basically it means taking a male character, slapping a female signifier on him, and voila! Same shit, new character.

One of the most recognizable examples is Ms. Pac Man. In order to appeal to the female market. Media Execs simply slap a lipstick and bow on whatever they happen to be making at that moment and hey! look! inclusivity! Buy our stuff, dumb ladies!

Here are some reasons why this is problematic:

1. It diminishes the female character’s role to her relationship with a male.

2. It does not leave room for dimension as this character is not her own person. She is merely a “girl version” of someone else.

3. It reduces female identity to shitty gendered signifiers (pink, frills, sparkles etc…)

Usually this goes hand in hand with the “Smurfette principle”. Where women are tokenized as the “girl” in an all-male cast. She may be a character that has other qualities but the one given highest import is that she is female in a way that remains very rigidly within the scope of the social gender binary.

This is not how Molly Hooper was written. She’s being read that way by fans who have a lot of internalized misogyny that they are projecting onto her character.

So far the only overlap I have seen is that Molly likes ugly jumpers and she’s nice.

But Molly wears ugly jumpers far more often than John, yet it’s a characteristic that belongs to him by default?

And let’s be honest, John is really not that nice. I mean sometimes kinda, but only if there’s something in it for him. (eg: getting to be the “hero”, flirting with women, looking superior to Sherlock) but apart from that, he’s just kind of a jerk who treats his non-neurotypical friend like some lovable “idiot savant”. Any one of us who met him in person would probably instantly label him as a “fuckboy” because well… the shoe fits.

Molly has a level of kindness that is completely unprecedented. Her kindness and loyalty are her trademark characteristics and I, personally think, that it’s very not good to hand that off to John just to make him seem better or to apply more validation to a fan-made narrative that actively works to erase female characters.

It’s definitely something to unpack and examine.

Why is it that transmedicalists want to keep non-dysphorics from identifying as trans?

Hoo boy, this is going to be quite a sensitive topic. People are definitely going to have an issue with what I have to say on this one way or another, but I have to answer nonetheless. Hopefully people will be mostly civilized.

My only request is that you at least make the effort to read thorough and think about it before even making a comment.

Keep reading

My name is Maël, I am 22 years old, I would be 23 years old in July.
I am FTM socially, non binary, deep inside me I do not recognize myself in the gender stereotypes of men and women, so I have no gender.
I did my coming out trans at 14 years old, during my teens being trans was not easy, but I felt that I had another problem, that besides being transgender, my brain functioned in a very strange way for others.

I learned two years ago that I am Asperger, it is a form of autism. The word autism can be frightening, but since I know, it is a kind of liberation, I know why my brain has a certain way of functioning that is very often misunderstood by the people around me, and why all too often I do not understand the world around me.

Today I have been on testosterone for more than 4 years, I had a top surgery and a hysterectomy, I judge my medical transition finished.
No I don’t want to do any operation at the level of my genitals, I am happy like that, I am finally happy, I knew in time to find happiness in my transidentity, in autism, in the fact that I have no gender. All these differences I managed to extract the best, instead of being ashamed.

No matter how you live your transition, no matter if you want to do this or that operation, no matter what genre you identify with, Nobody knows better than you who you are, live who you are in the depths of you and show it to the world.

the degree to which a lot of trans kids perceive their gender as totally intrinsic to their personality and self probably has a lot to do with the negative reaction to radfem stances such as ‘abolish gender’ - they don’t see it as an attack on an oppressive social system, but a statement that confirms their false belief that radfems are violent and want them to suffer/not exist. because to them gender=a fundamental part of who they are, if not the entirety of who they are, an inseparable part that informs everything else of their concept of self. this is a consequence of the crucial distinction between seeing gender as something individual, internal and something to discover about yourself rather than a socially imposed binary enforced based on biological sex to enforce heteropatriarchy.

star-crowned-prince  asked:

I would also like to point out that Vader is generally liked by the guy fan base while Kylo seems to have a more girl fan base and as nerd culture would have it anything liked by women is to be frowned upon/ criticized. It's dumb like I'm a dude I've definitely beefed with other guys asking why they hate certain things like kylo because I don't think it's fair that a certain part of the Fandom is treated like crap cause of their gender

I was about to go to bed and had an answer to this all written up but my computer decided to be cheeky and randomly restart so I’ll make this brief.

I do think that Kylo havinga female following will invariably have male backlash cos that’s… how things have always been (not saying it’s right, just accurate). It’s fucked, but yeah I think that’s definitely a contribution.

I do think a lot of the Kylo haters are female, however, as the most staunch resistance appear to be the anti-reylo folk. I’m not in the fandom but just what I’ve seen in passing I’ve seen so much tearing down and rending of flesh over it, it’s been really astounding. From what I’ve seen, so much of it has been “Rey deserves better than that evil abusive fuck” and I think that follows a lot of the same “if’s hip to call men gross” stuff you see on tumblr. There’s such an “us vs them” mentality in that that I feel like people’s ability to extend compassion to people privilaged in other aspects has eroded. Essentially “Kylo Ren is whiny because he’s a white male and therefore doesn’t have anything to complain about.” Which plays into the “angsty teen” trope I mentioned before.

(Christ, this is the closest I’m every going to get to using the word “misandry”)

All that said, I do believe that Vader vs. Kylo’s story arc is designed to appeal to male and female audience as we’re socially conditioned in that binary. Of course Vadar, inpenetrable and emotionless and poweful, is lauded by male fans. He represents the male ideal. But he’s also emotionally vacant to the audience, and the brute force power source is something that women have been conditioned AGAINST seeking. We don’t get a foothold into what’s going on in Vader’s head, so there’s less to actually work with.

Meanwhile, Kylo is emotionally meaty, which is the arena that women are sorta trained to be the masters of. He’s still strong, but his methods are more indirect. He feels less like a tank and more dexterous and acrobatic. He’s conflicted, he has obstacles. His worth is not intrinsic.

The major difference between male and female protagonists in the majority of works is that female protags are expected to earn their RIGHT to power, while males are instrinsically deserving. The hidden princess narrative vs the chosen one narrative. It’s the same reason you only hear ‘gary stu’ in terms of fanfiction, and even then rarely, vs a female protag being called a mary sue in original published works literally all the time. 

Vader, in the original trilogy, was a sorta expected power. He started as a threat and he was overcome. Kylo, conversely, showed weakness and never fulfilled the uncomplicated, direct power fantasy as Vadar did. Kylo is very much a feminine archetype for this reason, and a lot more close to what women are given to relate to, as well as more substantial emotionally, which is something women respond to more on average than brute strength and “badassery”.

(all of this said, I should hope I don’t have to explain how this is extremely generalized and based on binary gender expectations that are bullshit, so if your a lady reading this and thinking ‘fuk u I love badasses and Vader rocks kylo smells like poo’ then…… I know. I’m just specifically talking about that false dichotomy and passivly absorbed gender roles which must be destroyed *W*)

I feel like a similar feminine-not-female character was Loki, and would love to hear from @galadhir their thoughts on a compare/contrast between Loki, Kylo and Hux because I feel like they like Hux for a similar reason they like Loki (competence and ambition), but the general fandom of Loki trends toward the woobification and lack of emphasis on competence that you might see with Kylo (focus on vulnerability). How gender intersects with fandom vs. canon appreciation sounds like it could be ver neat! Thoughts on that, Galadhir, if you’re up to it?

Disappear pt. 3

Fandom: Sanders Sides
Pairings: Platonic Analogical and Logicality
Warnings: None

Summary: Logan pushes himself to his limit and faces the consequences.
[Part 3/3]

part 1 part 2

Tagged: @existental-crises@jordisama @cookieartcannon @maya-tl @thestoryofme13

It took two hours and a lot of positive encouragement, but finally the last of the black wisps cleared the air and reconnected with Logan’s being.  He sat up slowly and stretched his newly-formed arms.

“Everything seems to be in order,” he noted, bending each finger in succession, “Thank you for your aid, I do appreciate–oof!

Patton was on Logan in an instant, pulling him into a rib-crushing hug.  “Never do that again, do you hear me?  It’s irrational for Logic Mode to have a ‘No Emotions’ rule, so never go into it again unless you erase that dumb rule.”  Logan wondered how much longer his body could endure the strength of this hug before his corporeal form puffed back into smoke.  Virgil seemed to understand and pulled Patton off him carefully.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Hey sorry if it's weird to ask you this but, I think I'm probably bisexual but I think I'd prefer to label myself as queer. Is that okay to do? It's all so confusing for me but for some reason I don't feel 100% comfortable saying I'm bisexual. Yet queer feels right? Is that something a lot of people say or is it weird to just say you're queer? Ahh sorry this ask is a mess

i don’t think it’s weird at all. ‘queer’ as a label is liberating for me personally bc it challenges straight people’s expectations for me to define to them in exactly which ways my sexuality is other or different from the norm. it also feels nice bc it is so general, it leaves room for movement and growth, room for my decision to mostly be with women/women-identifying ppl/gnc ppl even though i can be attracted to cis men, disinvites questions about my romantic history w mostly dudes, etc. it also just frees me from thinking more deeply about what my sexuality actually is exactly, bc tbh the question doesnt rly hold a lot of importance to me. there’re so many details that factor into that equation (i’ve had great loving relationships w dudes, but i only get off to the thought of women. i would be v open to dating ppl outside of the gender binary. idk if i experience romantic attraction the same way with dudes as i do with not dudes. i pretty much never feel physically attracted to men just by looking at them but i do with women. i dont even rly believe in the concept of defining attraction by the categories of ‘men’ and ‘women’ bc the way most people perceive that feels very genital-centric but it also feels weird to define my attraction to ppl by gender presentations like femme/masc bc it still perpetuates a socially contrived binary and also why would someone’s choices of, like, clothing and hairstyle, or their socially conditioned gendered behaviors and traits inform whether i can and can’t fuck or fall in love with them????? wtf even is sexuality tbh??? and the questions go on and on from there.) the reality is that there’s a lot of nuance and complexity to the way attraction, both sexual and romantic, manifests and i mostly just don’t care to dig too deep into that question, nor do i think it would be possible to actually land upon any firm answers to it. i’d rather just leave it at queer and i feel very content with that. more specific labels like bi or pan are rly helpful for some ppl bc specificity can be comforting, and it can feel rly nice to know that there’s a word to encompass your experiences, but i’ve just never felt a strong pull towards those words, and that’s why i tend to use queer mostly if i need a label (but at the same time i won’t be mad if ppl use bi or pan bc they’re technically accurate too i guess.) 

ah, i’m sorry i didn’t mean to go into so much detail about my own experiences but i wanted to show you that i very genuinely feel drawn to ‘queer’ as a label too and that you’re not alone in that by any stretch of the imagination. all of this is to say that there’s nothing weird about preferring a more general term to define yourself, there’s nothing wrong with not wanting to define yourself at all. it’s definitely a label i’ve heard many people use, especially people who are a bit older (a good number of my peers in their 20s and even older). sexuality is just one small part of who you are, something that can be fluid, something that doesn’t need to (and inherently can’t) conform to any rules or expectations or norms outside of yourself and what your brain/body choose to do/feel w any given person. the words you want to use to discuss it as a general concept or as part of your identity are purely up to you and your choice and whatever resonates with you the most <3 wishing you all the best!!! xx

Friendly reminder about the history of the term"Gender"

▶The word was introduced as a sexology term in 1955 by John Money (referring to the difference between masculinity and femininity) and was previously only used to describe grammatical categories

This John Money was the man responsible for the tragic case of David Reimer, whom was given a sex reassignment after a botched unnecessary circumcision and was raised as a girl under Money’s guidance an supervision.

▶Money’s theory was that “Gender” depended on nurture (how one is raised) rather than nature (i.e. Biological factors).

(Furthermore, despite this claimed belief, Money did in fact administer Reimer with hormone therapy)

During Money’s sessions with David (then called Brenda) and twin brother Brian Reimer, he had them examine phographs of adult human genetalia as well as each others private parts and simmulate sex acts with eachother (the latter a currently disputed fact).

David Reimer immediately DE-transitioned once he learned the truth and commited suicide with a shotgun in 2004(2 years after his twin brother died from an overdose of anti-depressants).


▶The tragic failed experiment on Reimer CLEARLY disproved Money’s “theory of gender neutrality” which is what feminist today commonly refer to as “gender is a social construct”.

▶In conclusion, a quote from David Reimer himself:

“I was never happy as ‘Brenda’.
And I’d slit my throat before I’d go back to that.”

Source: 6:00-6:50

There are only 2 genders, and they depend on biological factors. Deal with it.

anonymous asked:

Do you know of any resources about those debunked arguments? Socialization, gender etc. I'd like to read more about it!

It’s 4:30AM here, and my brain is fried from a lack of sleep, so if you don’t mind, I’m going to ramble a bit.

The notion of a universal female/male socialization binary was debunked ages and ages ago along with the related notion that we only ever receive one of those binaries (it’s very well established that we take in all messages, we sort and process them for relevance, based on the value we attribute to the socializing agents, reproduce them in difference ways depending on context, etc.). And that’s not even mentioning the impact of neurodivergence on socialization processes. Like, I haven’t heard a sociologist seriously peddling any of those ideas in…well, since I left high school ages ago. More common within feminism, but even then, there’s usually an asterisk implied that it’s a hell of a lot more complicated, and an assumption that they’re speaking specifically of general patterns within cis populations.

Literally every sociology class I took discussed that at least in part, and how socialization is multi-faceted, complex, involves internal and external processing, etc., most of my profs referencing intersectionality while describing it, so…like, I’m pretty sure there’s a heck of a lot of material out there on that, and how there’s no singular experience of womanhood or universal distinct female socialization that occurs the same way and imparts the same information across all regions and cultures and demographics. Like, I severely doubt that my little mediocre university here in Canada is the only one using the books and readings we did. 

I’m sure I could go find a few dozen textbooks that discuss it (I’d look at my own old textbooks if I wasn’t using my parent’s basement 300km away as a mini storage unit for a lot of my books, given I lack the furniture and space to hold them), but, like, it was something that was present in all my readings involving socialization in any sociology class that brought it up, and even in my applied psych and group psychology classes. Only place I read otherwise were two or three of my gender studies classes when we’d study some second wave feminist writings.

Privilege is something where some folks still cling to the old 1950s-1960s views on how privilege functions, back when theorists happily reproduced notions of oppressions all being separate and distinct from each other, and when theorists were neck-deep in cissexism and refused to actually consider trans and NB people’s existences.

Since then: 

  • the notion of a singular, universally transmitted socialization has been debunked, which troubles some of the assumptions and conclusions
  • Intersectionality has been accepted as the primary valid framework on which to understand lived experiences and power relations, further troubling notions of universal privilege. Because if we can accept that misogynoir is real, and that black women are socialized in different ways than white women are, we must also accept that black men are socialized in different ways than white men, which provides the question of how that intersection of power and marginalization impacts a black man’s ability to harness male privilege, and to which degree, in which regions/cultures/contexts/etc. This of course doesn’t mean privilege isn’t real, but it’s more complex than “You’re a man, you will always have X privileges over women”, for instance.
  • Cissexism has risen to the forefront as a framework to understand trans people’s lived experiences and oppression, which inherently troubles and challenges the notion of “male” and “female” states within the old privilege model (which they accepted as essential and immutable, when sex is actually socially constructed and far more fluid and variable), particularly when describing trans people prior to coming out, since it’s clear that trans people generally do not experience socialization remotely the same as how cis people tend to (and there is obviously always plenty of variation there as well). For instance, any notion of socialization-borne privileges of being “male” for trans women get necessarily called into question, given our socialization trends are significantly different than cis men’s.

Like, I’m sure I could find plenty of external sources saying the same stuff (maybe minus cissexism, which would be limited to trans people’s writings, usually not in academic texts or journal articles, but still perfectly valid) as I wrote above. if I had the energy to run a 20 page google scouring I would, but I don’t. needless to say, though, it’s not exactly farfetched, niche ideas. Folks have been challenging and proving wrong those simplistic notions of socialization and privilege for decades.

Oppression dynamics don’t function as two clearly defined groups with one holding power over another. In most cases there’s many groups, each of which has a different relationship with oppression vs privilege, with one group being largely privileged and the others experiencing oppression in different ways. Oppression and privilege based on sexual orientation and attraction isn’t just about homophobia. This is why ace/aro exclusionism based on the idea that they *can* hold prejudice against us is flawed. I can hold prejudice against trans people, and the privilege of not experiencing transphobia is something i have to be mindful of. And i will hold a-spec people accountable for not being homophobic just as i try to hold myself and other cis lgb+ people accountable for transphobia. It’s not just that you’re shit on for being attracted to your own gender, in straight society you’re required to feel sexual and romantic attention to another gender in the first place. Now that’s not the same experience with oppression as i would get for being gay but it’s a systemic axis of power nonetheless. So yes a-spec people can externalize lateral oppression but that does not mean they do not themselves experience an oppression. Externalizing an oppression does not put a person on the top of the social ladder and that has never been true, because oppression dynamics are not a social binary of just two groups. Now, if you’re making a space or a dialogue that’s about homophobia specifically, then absolutely make same-gender attraction a prerequisite to having any authority in the discussion, and you can make it a safe space specifically for those who experience same-gender attraction, and same for being trans as a prerequisite for trans spaces and discussions. But the lgbt+ community is by definition an aggregate community of many different experiences and it’s unreasonable to expect that every single person in the community has the *same* experience with oppression. It’s just unreasonable.

anonymous asked:

gender is a social construct and the binary definition we live with is the direct result of western ideals and colonialism and is actively damaging to both men and women and people who identify as neither of those genders for reasons we don't need to be informed about in order for their existence to be justified. now shit the fuck off with the invalidation.

Thus ends the discourse. Any new asks about this will be deleted.