"They’re all males in the game. We usually try to avoid the females because what do you do with a female Turian? Do you give her breasts? What do you do? Do you put lipstick on her?"

Mass Effect 3′s art director, Derek Watts (via gaarrus)

… The efficient thing about the video game industry is that it often generates its own satire.

(via gunpowderandspark)

oh my god

someone pls stop the cishets

(via presidentbear)

(via bubonickitten)

"So really, what actually constitutes a “male” or “female” body? Does somebody need to have a certain number of sex characteristics in order to fit into this binary? Is it chromosomes? Is it hormones? Is it something about gonads, maybe genitalia? Or, are the strict categorizations of “male” and “female” bodies not as useful as some might think? As this same piece argues, gender is not based on sex assignment. Rather, the reverse is true: sex assignment is based on gender. The construction of sex is but one other way to impose gender roles upon people while denying the variance in bodies. Sex has been constructed so that it serves the ends of a white patriarchy. TERFs are then reinforcing this same exact structure when they police the borders of womanhood by invoking gender essentialism (by way of biology and socialization) to exclude trans women. Their approach is nothing short of white supremacist, colonial feminism, and transmisogyny naturally follows from that approach. TERFs actually challenge nothing about patriarchy, but they reinforce the same oppressive tenets they claim to combat: misogyny, white supremacy, and more. The feminism of TERFs might as well be called patriarchal feminism."

Socialization arguments are transmisogyny by Ashley Allen (via postgenderfemmerobot)

(Source: lisaquestions, via missmarymax)




The thing is, if trans women acted or behaved in any of the ways radfems would like us to believe, this wouldn’t be a black and white issue for me.

Radfems want you to believe that trans women take womanhood AWAY from cis women somehow, that they dismiss experiences cis women have had, that they deny that women who happen to be cis experience any oppression at all.

Radfems want you to believe that trans women are violent because they cherry-pick times when a trans woman has expressed completely justified anger at radfems who misgender them, fail to recognize their basic human rights, want them gone from safe-spaces and call them rapists.

It’s not bends of the truth, it’s blatant lies.

Honestly, it’s so manipulative that I find radfems to be pretty much on par with MRAs.

They claim to be all about helping women, but the number of women they hate exceeds far beyond the number of women they will ever help in their lifetime.

I have absolutely no issue saying that I believe radfems hate women.

And then they coddle their little “baby radfems” (and the use of the word “baby” in the context of activism really fucking bugs me to be honest) into developing the same values.

Sorry, radfems, you’re not going to fool me.


— a “genderist” “libfem” *eats lipstick and writes a half-assed manifesto with liquid eyeliner*

A lot of trans women do regard terfs and mras to be pretty much the same thing, yeah.

Was it b8l who said that TERFs treat trans women the same way men treat women?


A bunch of Piers Morgan’s tweets on Janet Mock


I think the reason a lot of white cis abled women have trouble with intersectionality is because they’re used to parsing “feminism” as “centering myself”.

Which, I mean. It’s good to finally be able to center oneself and one’s needs after a lifetime of being told you exist only for men. I get that. It’s powerful, and necessary.

But, being white, cis and abled, these particular women have enough privilege* not to understand the oppressions that other women face. And so, they learn to parse any decentering as misogyny.

Which is why, when trans women and/or WoC and/or disabled women explain that, actually, privileged women shouldn’t center themselves in marginalized women’s communities/issues/etc., they accuse us of being “anti-feminist” and “sexist” even though they’re the ones being such.


*Not the best word, I know, but my brain isn’t thinking of any other.





Ok y’all, Gail Dines has a long history of skewing, exaggerating and making up claims, diminishing the agency and voices of sex workers, just generally ignoring a lot of marginalized people if they don’t further her career, and being a transphobe and supporting other hateful transphobes. Google any of this; it’s fairly easy to find.

I know that some gifs are being made easily accessible on here, and that the content in them tugs at our justice-loving hearts. But A) you can’t trust her agenda or her numbers, and B) you’re supporting TERFS when you pass her work around. The valid points have been made better by other people; they just might not have gifs yet.

Here’s a graphic people can circulate:



In case anyone needs a refresher, Jeffreys is the person who wrote “transsexualism should be seen as a violation of human rights.

Or how about this from her former assistant:

i had gone from weighing in on the bottom end of the recommended weight range for a girl my size and age, to teetering at the top of it, and she was encouraging it, why?  to this day i still get the heebie-jeebies, thinking perhaps she wanted me fatter to officially be a part of the “anti-porn club.”

size was not the only aspect of my body dines had an opinion on.  i wanted tattoos and to stretch my earlobes (i have two large pieces of ink now and ears stretched to 3/4″), but whenever i talked about body modifications, dines would get a look of disgust on her face and tell me that was a way of internalizing my abuse and re-victimizing myself by permitting the infliction of pain (it is easy once you know her perspective on this, to see why she is so vehemently opposed to BDSM – and why my interest in kinky sex wasn’t something i ever felt comfortable defending or even really discussing with her).  even wearing choker necklaces made out of hemp became a choice that dines took issue with: the chokers evoked the aesthetic of a bondage collar.  i remember the day i sadly removed a black leather choker that said “live in love,” in embroidery, because she chastised my style choice.  i’d found it in a bathroom stall during the greatest trip of my life, out west to Portland, Oregon.  i was honestly surprised she could find any issue in something so clearly *not* fetish-y.

and then, of course, the management of body hair.  any maintenance of body hair, whether it be plucking my eyebrows, shaving my legs, or waxing my bush, was subject to detailed analysis, and, quickly determined to be submission to patriarchal oppression.

Gail Dines is not a feminist hero. She (like Cathy Brennan) would be just as at home amongst conservative evangelicals as she is amongst radical feminists. She’s as concerned with controlling women and controlling women’s bodies as she is about “porn culture.” She treats women like they are just tools in her fight, or else objects of scorn. She recommends people read horrific transphobes like Sheila Jeffreys and calls her “excellent.”

she’s also a raging whorephobe, check out her tag (some very generous person has screencapped some of her facebook posts for you!)

Gail Dines is shit, stop reblogging her

(via punwitch)



Objectification of women and normalization of abusive men in one stroke, in a children’s movie. (Probably also appropriation of AAVE but that’s outside my experience, so.)






This is too perfect. Only thing missing is the divination rod for psychic karyotyping.

Excuse me, divination utensil. “Rod” is too patriarchal.

See, stuff like this only hits a small portion of the problem. It’s funny, but why is this always aimed at women who work to uphold the patriarchy rather than patriarchy itself?

Because men don’t use feminism to oppress trans women. Cisgender (almost exclusively white and affluent) women do.

They’re victims of patriarchy too, to a certain extent, in that they feel like hurting other women will get them ahead, a very patriarchal and capitalist concept in the first placr.

So we should have more sympathy for those who cause harm than the people they harm? There’s more than just patriarchy going on, and denial of that fact is part of the problem.

Also, I’m kinda gonna look like a mixed version of this lady in 20 years, so there is that, too. Well, but with pants and a Flavor Flav clock, which ain’t no amulet.

Though the women’s lib pamphlet from 1976 joke was damn funny, it again runs with a depressing reality: most radical fauxminists aren’t even that familiar with feminism. 

It’s time to focus on the real problem, the real thing killing trans women and hurting us all: patriarchy. Not a bunch of women who laugh at being queer through their insulting, hateful “political lesbianism”, not at the very small cadre of radical fauxminists who take up space on behalf of white men, not on the things distracting us from the real problem.

There isn’t any one “real” problem, and insistence that patriarchy is the “real” problem is what allows affluent cis white women to continue to oppress the women beneath them.

I mean, last I checked, the “potty police” laws have been proposed and espoused by white men when they’ve been proposed. Defense of bathroom policing came from white cishet men like Rudy Giuliani and Mike Dukakis. Why aren’t these people under the microscope?

They are, constantly. Just because one image doesn’t attack them directly doesn’t mean they’re being ignored.

Step yo game up. 

Stop making excuses.

Cis women sure do love to pass the buck when it comes to finally calling them on their bullshit. If it was just patriarchy that was the enemy, we wouldn’t call it transmisogyny, we’d just call it misogyny, FFS.

Cis women like that tend to externalise patriarchy.  They forget they’re part of the system.  We’re all part of the system.  It makes them feel better to think that patriarchy is out there somewhere where men are *waves hands in the distance* instead of having to deal with the reality of the ways they act to uphold it.  It’s easier to oppose something if you think you have no part of it.  I understand that.  But it’s not true.

Also, in case they’ve forgotten, transmisogyny is a form of misogyny cos trans women are women.  Misogyny can be committed by anyone.  Part of my problem with feminists is they don’t address the misogyny from women, including themselves.

(Source: bitterorchard, via punwitch)

PSA to trans activists





If you insist that lesbians are “transphobes” simply because they prefer to sleep with and/or date actual biological females, you are a fucking homophobe. Simple as that. 

Lesbians are attracted solely to women. That is exactly what the term lesbian means. No, you don’t get to define what “lesbianism” means for actual lesbians. That is bullshit.

Lesbian erasure is absolutely disgusting, and if I see one more individual call lesbians “transphobes” for preferring women over trans women, I am going to scream. Fuck off, stop dictating lesbian identities and attempting to control their sexualities. 

Also, you’re not “femme” if you’re a trans female. Stop it. Not only are you appropriating feminity by presenting as a female, but you are also appropriating lesbian culture by incorrectly utilising the term “femme”. You are not femme. 

Why hello there!

I’m not certain that you understand that a PSA is a Public Service Announcement, and that, as a public service, it is intended to apply tot he Public — which is a vast melange of people of many different sorts, not just a particular that you happen to be an uninformed incompetent regarding.

 It just so happens that your first assertion is predicated on a logical fallacy: argued that because something is ‘natural’ it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal. In this case, you argued that because the women lesbians are attracted to are biological, and biological is standing in here as a statement of what is valid, justified, inevitable, good, or ideal, that trans women are not possible as suitable women (this being why you used the term “actual”) despite their being just as biological as other women.

Since this fallacy is the basis of your calling them a homophobe, you are using a fallacy dishonestly as the basis for your assertion that they are homophobes, while simultaneously employing an ad hominem to attack the character and qualities of people who are, to a large extent, lesbian and bisexual themselves within a ciscentric framework.

All of which lies within a single paragraph that is, itself, an argument where you misrepresent the arguments of other people for the purpose of making it easier to attack (a strawman) and/or making yourself seem more reasonable in so doing.

All of which is phenomenally dishonest.  tsk tsk.

You are correct when you say lesbians are attracted solely to women. Indeed, since trans women are women, many lesbians are attracted to trans women, since, well, they happen to be lesbians between one quarter to one third of the time themselves.

Not that I am, in that instance, using your description, which happens to fall in line with the description created by the ciscentric patriarchy for that particular concept. I say happens to fall in line as I’m being relatively polite to you about this, when it is apparent that your goal in posting the above statement is to act as a form of fallacy where you made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument.

Which, I will note, makes the entire piece dishonest, but that’s a separate issue.

I will tell you that if your definition of women doesn’t include trans women when you speak to the notion of who you are attracted to that you are, in fact, holding on to a transphobic idea that is based in aversion, anxiety, and intense dislike, as well as actively denying to another human being the very basic core principle that governs human rights of human dignity.

Furthermore, I will note that you are almost certain to use your anxiety, aversion and intense dislike as lenses through which you will view your ideology, and that you will then use that ideology — as you have done here — to justify your own animus, aversion, and anxiety.

You may now start screaming.  I will not, however, engage in sexual activities at your behest, as I generally prefer to do such consensually and I do not give you any to order me what to do sexually.

You are correct when you say that being a trans female does not, inherently, make you femme.  However, there are many trans women who are femme, myself included, and while you might like to think that I am appropriating something ascribed to me by society at large, you would be wrong.  Far be it from me to deny you the right to be wrong, especially when I find it more satisfying to simply point out that you are wrong in doing so, that you should just sit there for a few moments and embrace being wrong, and that I am also certain you will refuse to admit that you are wrong because someone who belongs to a class of people that you have a high degree of anxiety, animus, and aversion to just told you that you are wrong.

I am a woman.  I cannot, therefore, appropriate muliebral elements, since they already are part of me. I could, and have, virile elements, in the past, but that really didn’t work out to well for me since I am, after all, a woman.

You do not get to decide for me if I am a woman or not. Your attempt at policing my womanhood is, itself, an act of oppression that serves the very severe forces of Patriarchy, as well as Ciscentrism. 

When you police other women, for anything, you are doing the work of the patriarchy, and, worse, you are attacking the individual Agency of those women, which they are using in a manner that they find the best possible means for them to resist that same Structure called Patriarchy, instead of the Structure that is patriarchy itself — you are, therefore, using the tools of the oppressor to do their work for them, in your name.

So please, take your sexist patriarchy pleasing policing of women, fold until all sharp corners, and apply liberally to desensitized areas of your mind in the hopes that perhaps they will wake up and smell the fecal matter you are surrounding yourself with.

This has been a Personal Service Message.

Have an unpleasant day.

Considering you’re not a woman, I can pretty much dismiss about 98% of the shit you have just projected straight from your ass onto the page. 

You’re not a woman, you are a poorly disguised man in woman’s clothing with some makeup poorly slapped across your face.

Do not call yourself a woman, that is fucking disgusting and misogynistic. You are a trans woman. Not a woman. 

I don’t police women, I will, however, police men dressed as women (i.e. trans women). 

As a note, I did point out that you would do the above, as well as pointing out that you are most welcome to have your uninformed and incompetent opinions even when they are wrong.

That said, what you just did is an act of sexual harassment and sexual discrimination. Fortunately not an actionable one for you, but it does indicate just how wrong you are and as a result I have great faith that your future endeavors will be seriously hampered in terms of employment.

I find it fascinating that you say I have make up poorly slapped across my face, as, at this moment, I have no makeup on.

The above statements regarding me, personally — a person you have not met, and that you do not know — all are highly indicative of a person who is incapable of defending the wrongful, dishonest, and fallacious statements they have made.

Instead, you rely on targeted and punitive actions which further seek to police and decide for others, what they are — just as you were trying to do with Lesbian in the initial statements.

I am a woman.  The fact that I state such disgusts you , itself, is enough to make you a transphobe — literally.  That is, you just admitted that you have an irrational prejudice against trans people that colors and informs your understanding of the world, and thereby, makes your statements — again, by your own admission — less trustworthy (ignoring the aspects of dishonesty I already pointed out earlier that you pointedly dismissed, again, on the basis of a pre-existing prejudice, which is itself a dishonest action where you judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.

This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something’s or someone’s origins. It’s similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone’s argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.

So, for additional impact, I will state it again: I am a woman.  I am a woman of color.  I am a woman, and your bigoted and prejudiced opinions cannot change that as a matter of fact, of law, or of principle.

None of which will provide you with comfort, and personally I find that lack much sympathy for what those opinions will cost you in the years ahead.

My saying I am not a woman does not, in any way, represent or exist as an act of misogyny, either. Therefore, you are, in fact, policing women, and rather than own up to your own actions, you have doubled down on the resistance and sought to somehow anger me.

THe problem there is that there is no argument you have that I have not already heard before, that I have not already shown is a falsehood or a fallacy, and that will have any impact on the way that I continue to speak to you.

At this point, among reasonable, rational people, your assertions are going to continue to make you look bad, not I, and your absolute refusal to honor the core ideals of human rights is a rather horrific reflection on your as a person, that I wouldn’t wish on you, personally.

Tsk tsk.

Again, have an unpleasant day.

Since Toni already destroyed the argument as far as trans women and lesbianism and all that in a way that I can only detract from by addressing it, I will only say that femmes are not only lesbians.  Thinking that they are shows a severe misunderstanding of femme history and femme realities.  There are queer femmes, there are non-binary femmes, there are even fem/me men.  None of this is new so it should not be news, and yet it seems to be to so many people.

"There’s a poisonous double standard in our society which says that it’s reverse-sexist and wrong for women to feel threatened by creepy-awkward male behaviour because our fear implies that we hold the negative, stereotypical view that All Men Are Predators, but that if we’re raped or sexually assaulted by any man with whom we’ve had prior social interaction – and particularly if he’s expressed some sexual or romantic interest in us during that time – it’s reasonable for observers to ask what precautions we took to prevent the assault from happening, or to suggest that we maybe led the guy on by not stating our feelings plainly. The result is a situation where women are punished if we reject, avoid or identify creepy men, and then told it’s our fault if we’re assaulted by someone we plainly ought to have rejected, avoided, identified."

The Creepiness Question (via birdsy-purplefishes)

(via its-almost-as-if)

"What a pleasure it is to degrade a woman."

Robin Thicke (no, really)

oh but he’s white so it’s harmless instead of those *gasp* rappers

seriously there’s a huge fucking deal about misogyny in hip hop and R&B, but it only focuses on artists who are PoC, yet some fucking gangrenous white boy can get away with this shit and nobody speaks up, he gets to perform on national television and there is no backlash

(via vivianvivisection)

(Source: dimestoretajic, via sillylittleleopardgirl)

Suzan asks some really good questions, including:

The logical question would be, “How can TS/TG people be both the foundation and the destruction of some supposed gender binary that is itself somewhat of a social construct?”

But outside of trans people, she also asks where these committed transphobes are when it comes to reproductive rights activism at a time when reproductive rights are under sustained attack in the US, which is a really good question.

When feminism is only about deciding who is and isn’t a woman, is it really feminism?  When feminism is only about deciding which women are pure enough for feminism (hint: not sex workers who won’t be ‘rescued’, not trans women, etc), is it really feminism?  When your movement is only about policing women and womanhood, is it really feminism?  When feminism is about misogyny, is it really feminism?

[Note: I do know of at least one radical feminist who doesn’t engage in this kind of hatred, Andrea Dworkin argued against just this kind of biological essentialism that we currently see in so many radical feminists, and there are some radical feminists who seem to have otherwise not taken their eyes off of the prize but, sadly, they seem to have been drowned out, particularly online.]

"I know trans women are women, but…"


[content note: transmisogyny, misgendering, rape]

I am getting more than a little tired of “allies” who only think of trans women as women until it becomes inconvenient for them and their view of gender.

You know the type:

"I know trans women are women, but gender-segregated bathrooms exist for a reason."

"I know trans women are women, but it will dilute our message if we stop talking about women in terms of vaginas (or vice versa)."

"I know trans women are women, but women have a right to their own spaces free of any masculine energy."

"I know trans women are women, but they obviously don’t have any right to call themselves lesbians."

"I know trans women are women, but you have to understand that your presence could be triggering to rape survivors."

"I know trans women are women, but I have to question the sexuality of any guy who goes out with one."

"I know trans women are women, but you have male privilege so you can’t possibly understand what women go through."

"I know trans women are women, but this is a women’s shelter, so we can’t help you here."

And so on, and so forth. If you’re a trans woman, you’ve probably heard a ton more examples.

And the thing is, I don’t think that most of these people are being deliberately disingenuous (one glaring exception, of course, being a certain radscum lady who shall remain nameless); I think they’re telling the truth as they see it. I think they really do think of trans women as women.

Except when they don’t.

Except when they feel like it would be too hard to reframe an issue in order to include us.

Except when their own unexamined prejudices come to the fore and dominate their approach to an issue.

Except when they realize that walking their talk requires a far more radical shift in their understanding of gender than they are prepared for, or than they ever wanted to attempt.

And so they decide that it’s easier to just revoke our identities situationally — to say that, yes, we’re women, and we’re just as much women as cis women are, but we’re still somehow not woman enough to fit their views, their spaces, their institutions.

It’s bullshit. But it’s bullshit that’s all too common. And it hurts.

(via telegantmess)

"What the hell does a woman’s body possess that makes it a woman’s body? What does it NEED to have to be female. Did you immediately think of breasts, ovaries, vaginas? Gross. Think about that for more than two minutes and you’ll see why it’s gross. Still don’t get it? Well then go down to the nearest breast cancer walk and tell every single woman with a double mastectomy she’s not a woman. When you’re done with that, go down to your local hospital, ask the nurse where the OR is, and wait outside until you can find a woman fresh out of her hysterectomy surgery, and tell her the news. Yeah, that sounds evil, doesn’t it? Well it’s basically what you’re doing when you’re policing trans women’s bodies. You’re telling all women what they have to have on/in their bodies to be a woman. Which, obviously, is totally gross."

Guest Post: Transmisogyny is Misogyny Against All Women « Tranarchism (via sociolab)

(via sansrevolution)

Demonizing the Feminine: Western Androgyny’s Misogyny and Fatphobia


I want to talk about why myself and almost every genderqueer person I know feels constantly at odds with either their body or the trans* community. I should say first that I don’t think this is singularly a trans* problem, but rather one forced on us by a patriarchal society and then accepted as part of our own narrative of acceptable trans* bodies. But it is a problem nonetheless and one that sees at least as much pressure to conform from within the community as from without:

the acceptable limits of androgyny. 

Androgyny, as accepted in modern, western culture, is based around men who look like feminine men and women who look like feminine men. Examples abound, many of them people I respect and love and admire for their art and their beauty: Tilda Swinton, Patrick Wolf, Brian Molko, Agnes Deyn, and so on. And these people ARE beautiful. But they prioritize one type of body - thin, angular, sexless, breastless bodies. They are often tall, always well dressed, and usually white. They may be men or women or between but the goal is to look as alien as possible in a way that negates curves, lumps, bumps, or the like. 

This says, to me, something very specific. Androgynous women are acceptable, so long as they seem masculine. What makes a man androgynous, except in rare cases like Andrej Pejic, is about how they outfit themselves. A man of average to thin build can put on glitter and lipstick and be called androgynous, he can grow his hair out and wear v neck t shirts and be called androgynous, he can wear his jeans a little too tight and his shirts a little too lacy. A woman in little make up, wearing a t shirt and jeans, with size D breasts, will never be called androgynous. She would have to bind, cut her hair, and buy her clothes from the men’s section.

And so the same is true for FAAB vs. MAAB genderqueer folk. Androgyny in western culture INHERENTLY privileges the male and the thin, and in doing so is both misogynistic and fatphobic. It says that you cannot be androgynous with breasts, you cannot be androgynous with a fat ass, you cannot be androgynous with hips. A large portion of the FAAB community is going to be curvy, regardless of their brains and hearts and hopes. People like myself often avoid speaking about their gender identity for fear of being mocked, or in the knowledge that they will never ‘fit into’ the community because they are not thin, waiflike, ethereal, and will never look like what genderqueer tumblrs reblog as our personal ideals.

We’re an under recognized community. We don’t have to go their route of only idealizing one type of body. We don’t have to be the genderqueer version of fashion magazines and give other queers self-esteem issues by holding everyone to a single standard. We can be genderqueer in dresses or suits, thin or fat, long hair or short because gender is not defined by our bodies or our outfits. Take the misogyny out of androgyny. It’s our community, we have the right to make it a place for all of us.

(via minionier)