tal9000:

[TW: T-word] GetEQUAL’s Nelson Garcia Launches Transphobic, Ableist Tirade Against NYT Critics

transradical:

I know you’ll all be shocked to hear that yet another cis-gay activist affiliated with a major LGB(t) organization has publicly revealed himself to be a trans-exterminationist. This time it’s Nelson Garcia of GetEQUAL who has released a post on his blog criticizing GLAAD and others for “bullying” the New York Times over their widely criticized coverage of the death of Lorena Escalera.

Garcia characterized critics of the coverage as “a bunch of bipolar tr***ies and other assorted characters upset that she was getting some and they’re sitting at home pretending.”  Classy.

Whether or not GetEQUAL will attempt to distance themselves from Garcia or his comments remains to be seen, but if history is any indication, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Same old, same old.

“Puberty suppression is child abuse!”

tal9000:

What this actually means is “I’m going to scream ‘child abuse’ to try to stop your kid from exerting agency in a way I don’t approve of”

Puberty suppression isn’t given to kids on the parents’ whims. It isn’t given on the doctor’s whims. It’s given because the kid asked for it. Actually, that might be better said, given the levels of cissexism a trans kid would be expected to deal with, it’s given because the kid fought for it.

Calling “child abuse” on giving the kid a necessary medical treatment that they fought for because you don’t approve of it is beyond disgusting.

freedominwickedness:

editorialhedgehog:

So I’m pissed off as all fuck right now. Have been for a while.

Rooted out one reason.

My little sister has the typical acne-splotching that comes with puberty. She voiced insecurities about it.

So she was placed on a hormone suppression thing that completely ceased her body’s production of testosterone.

And I’m just sitting here, baffled, being told that I can’t make arbitrary decisions about my life and the ~balance of my body~.

Okay. So I’m a trans* person who legitimately needs testosterone ASAP, and this is something that has been true for years and years, but I’m considered too young to act on any of that, and god forbid I take control of my own life…

And then my thirteen year old sister is insecure about acne splotching, so she gets put on medication that completely blocks out T.

What the ever loving fuck is this bullshit. I am so fucking pissed right now that I want to slam my fist through the fucking wall.

I’m so tired of being stuck in limbo because other people can’t get over themselves, and are holding the fact that I’ll be homeless over my head if I go through with this.

The fact that cis people are allowed to trivially obtain many of the exact same medical treatments that trans people are denied access to really illustrates just how fundamentally unjust the gatekeeping system is.

Because our leaders are cissexist buttfaces, I and my local friends might have trouble voting this election. Here’s what I posted on Facebook to help my friends out.

kiriamaya:

If you are a trans person in Indiana, you could face problems voting in the forthcoming election. Indiana is a “strict photo ID” state, meaning that anything which election workers see as a “discrepancy” could prevent your vote from counting — and that’s a problem for a lot of folks in mid-transition.

Please ensure that the name under which you’re registered to vote is the same as the name on your ID, and that your ID picture matches your current gender presentation. You’ll probably also want to ensure that the gender marker on your ID matches your presentation; alas, Indiana makes this hard. The good news is that you can get a U.S. passport with an updated gender marker, even if you haven’t had surgery, by getting a letter from your physician stating that you have undergone appropriate treatment for your transition, and submitting that letter in person along with your application. A passport is considered a valid photo ID for voting purposes in Indiana. For more information on getting a passport with the correct gender, please see this (PDF) guide.

(Note that, from what I understand, what I’ve said here applies to other “strict photo ID” states as well. I’m not 100% certain of that, though. Still, couldn’t hurt to reblog this in hopes that it helps others!)

(via telegantmess)

transfeminism:

Statement on RadFem2012: *All* women together for liberation.

RadFem 2012 is a radical feminism conference being held in London in July. Its website proclaims “women together for liberation”, but as it turns out, they don’t mean all women. RadFem’s participation policy states that the conference is open to “women born women living as women”. This is a change from an earlier policy of being open only to “biological women”, which – as one wry Tweeter commented – presumably refers to women who work best at 40 degrees. Either way, this policy clearly discriminates against trans* women who might wish to participate in the conference. A trans* woman may live as a woman, experience the pressures, discrimination and inequality associated with being woman, but according to RadFem 2012, they are not quite enough of a woman to be welcome at the conference. This, quite clearly, is discriminatory, disgusting, and – we believe, and very much hope – totally out of step with what most feminists think.

Royal Holloway Feminism Society has members who hold a wide range of theoretical perspectives on feminism – and probably even more who prefer to define themselves as “feminists” rather than as “___ feminists”. As a group, we have different views on many things, including on the importance of women-only spaces in feminist campaigns. One thing that we can all agree on, though, is that transphobia has absolutely no place in our idea of feminism. Equality and transphobia cannot live side by side: you cannot fight for one whilst displaying the other.

We are an active feminist group, and our members have attended several different feminist conferences, and many other feminist events in the past year. However, we will not be supporting or recommending that our members attend RadFem 2012, because we believe that doing so would implicitly support the transphobic stance of the conference. We would encourage other feminist groups to take a similar stance. We suggest that the organisers of the conference rethink their policy, because by excluding trans* women, they will be missing out on the participation of many passionate, dedicated feminists, both trans* and cis, who refuse to be associated with such a transphobic policy and believe that all women should stand together for liberation.

You know what’s hilarious (in a gross I hate the world way)

genderbitch:

alexandraerin:

genderbitch:

Most of the cis lesbians who freak out when they find out I’m trans were the ones who hit on me and tried to get with me first.

Sometimes without me even showing any interest back (cuz seriously, I don’t date or fuck people I don’t already know well, trust issues + anxiety + sexual trauma history) or even showing specific disinterest.

So please tell me, cisfuck radscum. How exactly am I the aggressor here when those cisfuck lesbian chicks were the ones who wanted and pursued me?

But they can tell. They can always tell. The Y chromosome that you definitely have is visible from space and you were so aggressively existing that real lesbians had no choice but to hit on you in self-defense.

Oh I forgot about that. 

Cisbians aggressively sexually pursue trans women out of fear and horror and revulsion from seeing the neon Y floating over my head with a penis for the bottom part of the Y and two balls on the top parts, not because they find me physically attractive before their bigotry hit or anything.

These memos. No one ever sends them to me.

I just don’t understand cis people.  They want to punish trans* people for violating their assumptions that they know what trans people look like, that they could never be attracted to a trans* person.  They can’t handle the concept that trans* people, especially trans women, are just as attractive as cis people.  Cis lesbian bigots want to believe there’s some essence that makes trans women not really women like them.  And it’s not there.

transfeminism:

PA Teacher Videotapes, Humiliates Gay Student Who Took Trans Date To Prom

We didn’t have the best prom experience—mainly because we took a girl and not the guy we were crushing on. But gay teen Jared Swank of Hanover, PA, had his prom memories tarnished after the fact, when he learned a teacher who videotaped him and his date played the clip for the amusement of her science class.

Swank, who brought a trans girl to prom, had originally allowed the unnamed educator to record them at the dance. But he says he had no idea she was going to show it to other students. “I come to school Monday and that’s when I heard about everything that happened. And it made me really upset. I don’t think it was right.” He tells Eyewitness News he feels “exploited.”

On Thursday, Swank’s mother, Dawn Mendygral, went before the school board and demanded to know why this teacher broadcast the video of Jason and his date, especially since he has been bullied at the school for years. “I don’t know what her intention was, but I know I’m not understanding why she would take it to school and play it in the classroom,” said Mendygral.

Hanover Area School Board President John Pericci said the district considers itself  inclusive and welcoming, and confirmed the teacher’s actions are being investigated. A meeting is scheduled for Tuesday between Mendygral and school officials.

I’m kind of wondering why the trans girl is being outed (although not named).  It strikes me as really not a good thing.

TW: Discussion of Child Sexual Assault

TW: Transmisogyny of trans women as rapists

appropriately-inappropriate:

lucypaw:

appropriately-inappropriate:

Ah, well, obviously that’s pretty out of line. I’ve not been a part of the discussion, however, so I can’t really comment about that. (The joys of vacation, I guess! Everything interesting happens when you’re away.)

However, I personally have seen (and will be more than happy to provide posts if you like) support going on for Witherspoon. That’s something that I find… well, a little abhorrent. While Witherspoon’s actions aren’t enough to tar and feather all trans* women, the support that I’ve seen on sites like Jezebel and here on tumblr do tarnish the trans* community—especially when you have big name bloggers using their clout to advocate for them.

(Again, you can call me a bitch or whatever, but trans* or not, I do not feel comfortable with a convicted sex offender in my bathroom. Male, female, martian… regardless.)

That having been said, I can see how people would feel uncomfortable with the precedent this sets. I mean, yes, trans* women should have every right to pee in peace, but I also have to respect that cis women, seeing a case like this (and the subsequent support for Witherspoon), may be…. reluctant to allow late-transitioning or “less-passing” trans* women in spaces like washrooms and changerooms.

I guess my position falls somewhere between yours and roseverbenas. Everyone’s got to pee—-but at the same time, there is something to be said for the Schroedinger’s ___________ mentality. In the case of trans* women, even long-time estrogen users have more upper body strength than a cis woman, so…. I think that’s a concern to be considered.

So do you understand why trans women are reluctant to allow cis women in spaces like washrooms and changerooms because 25% of sexual predators of children and teens are (cis) women?  Because I certainly do.  I mean, damn, that’s a lot of cis women, a lot more than trans women.  So, yeah, I can understand why trans women are so reluctant and campaign to stop cis women from using women’s washrooms and changerooms because of the actions of a few.  Oh, wait, that doesn’t happen.  Because trans women aren’t trained in cismisogyny like cis women are trained in transmisogyny.  Which is to say, just because cis women may be reluctant might be a good time for them to reflect on why one trans woman makes them judge all trans women or even “late-transitioning” or “less-passing” ones.  Confront that bigotry.  Like you didn’t.

Really?  Trans women have more upper body strength than cis women even with long-term oestrogen use?  Citation please?  Because sports organisations that were concerned about this (women’s golf, women’s tennis) didn’t come to that conclusion.

Don’t you know that 81% of statistics are made up?
But as it happens, I am well-aware of women as rapists. I grew up in the Karla Homolka era, so I’m well aware of the depravity women are capable of. I’m also a rape victim, and my rapist was a woman, so while I appreciate your passive-aggressive attempt to ‘educate me’, this isn’t a matter on which I need much of it.

Getting to a few more statistics:

The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1999) estimated that 91% of U.S. rape victims are female and 9% are male, with 99% of the offenders being male
Source: UCSC Rape Prevention Education

So, there’s a bit of a contradiction of statistics there. However, regardless of the statistics, the evidence is clear. Men are overwhelmingly more likely to be rapists, and stranger rape, while less common than aquaintance rape, is never the less still a very real threat.

In addition, if we start getting into rates of ‘corrective’ rape, such as is used against the LGBT community, the rate shoots up to almost 100% male. Trans* women have long been aware of this trend; from what I’ve read, the majority of rapes of trans* women are committed by men.

With that sort of atmosphere, everyone’s a little bit tense.
Consequently, areas of vulnerability that can be policed are policed with more rigorousness, resulting in situations like this one.

Which is to say, just because cis women may be reluctant might be a good time for them to reflect on why one trans woman makes them judge all trans women

Have you ever heard of the concept of Schroedinger’s Rapist? Assume anything ‘out of the norm’ is potentially harmful in an attempt at self-preservation? If cis women are trained, as you allege, in transmisogyny, it’s quite likely a manifestation of this doctrine.
And once again, when anywhere between 75-90% of rapists are male, and 1 in 6 women REPORT rape (and we all know that only a miniscule number of rapes are reported), these survivors are already more highly attuned to ‘abnormalities’ in the environment in an attempt to avoid history repeating itself. Which may explain the bathroom policing.
Now, is it right? No, but is it understandable from their perspective? Yes, I think it is. And in this case, where the “man in the ladies’” ended up being a convicted two-time child-rapist….. well, it seems like in this case, the woman’s conclusion may have been correct.

In regards to the upper body strength:
Estrogen has numerous effects on the human body, but it only superficially alters the bone structure and skeletal morphology. Consequently, trans* women who take estrogen still retain the advantage of height and a longer reach, which anyone with basic martial arts training can tell you present a distinct threat to a smaller, shorter opponent.

In addition, all I can find on upper body strength says that “there is a decrease”. That doesn’t mean that the strength becomes less than a natal female’s, only that it decreases with the reduction of testosterone.
The fact that trans* women excel in sports like golf (where it’s all upper body strength) should be a pretty clear indicator that the upper body strength remains at least comparable to that of a natal woman’s.

But we’re tangenting—let’s get back to the salient point here. There was a child-rapist in a hospital washroom where children are often sent unattended. Are we okay with this? Is this someone whose rights we really, really want to advocate for?

I am fighting hard against the belief that you are being disingenuous and derailing on purpose when we have been talking about a woman who raped children, so I bring up the statistics of child rape by women in general, and then you somehow claim those statistics are basically insignificant because of the rates of men raping adult women.  My statistics were completely on point when the claim is that a child rapist woman means that other adult women have reason to be afraid of trans women in the toilet.  I showed that trans women (and other cis women) should therefore also be concerned about all the adult women child rapists in their toilets and maybe keep them out.  You, meanwhile, are apparently trying to obfuscate that point by saying “OMG, there are so many more men who are rapists!” when men being rapists of adult women has nothing to do with women being safe from child-raping women in women’s toilets.  Unless you are claiming trans women = men.  Which, as I see further down, you are.

Also, I wasn’t trying to educate you.  I was educating the people who read my blog.  I was pretty sure you already knew the statistics.  Given that I also know the statistics, I could just as easily ask why you’re putting out the rape statistics of adults when we’re talking about children.

Look, I know you think you’re a reasonable person and all but when you keep appealing to the idea that it is easy to visually tell men from women when, in fact, a number of ‘men in women’s toilets’ issues are that of cis women who don’t pass as women according to at least one other woman, you’re showing some serious cissexism.  Schroedinger’s rapist is something I know, but it only applies if you insist that trans women look like men. Also, the idea that women get raped in the toilets a lot is just… weird.  As we both know, most rapes are by someone the victim/survivor knows.  They also take place in places like the perpetrator’s or victim’s homes.  Stranger rapes are rare.  Rapes in the toilet are rare.  That you suggest that we should put more stock in a rare event when you also say you were raped by a woman but that we should be more concerned about men is headdesk-inducing.  That’s just totally irrational and is not helping actually stop rapes.  It is, however, feeding quite nicely into the trope that trans women are rapists and can’t be trusted in public toilets (so we should send them to men’s toilets?  What?  If we’re being concerned about rapes in toilets and men rape more aren’t we therefore basically saying we don’t give a shit about the trans women that will be raped in the men’s toilets?  Is that what this is about?  Cis women feeling safer from rape in the toilet because trans women are being raped in the other toilet?).

Also, as far as upper body strength and trans women, you have no citation, I see.  You’re using more of that cissexist ‘common sense’ bullshit that also lets us know that trans women don’t look like women.  How about you retract your claim because you don’t actually have anything but speculation and ‘common sense’?  And, don’t blame me for pursuing the irrelevance you brought up.  Except it’s not irrelevant, is it?  It’s about still portraying trans women as threatening because they’re supposedly absolutely stronger than cis women.

As for the salient point, obviously the answer is to not let this woman near children.  That it has been turned into justifying cis women’s transmisogyny and booting trans women from the toilet is ridiculous and obvious bigotry.  That you have attempted to justify this bigotry while claiming to not be a bigot is annoying.  I’ve attempted to show how ridiculous that is in the hope that you might actually catch a clue and stop acting bigoted.  I now severely doubt that is going to happen, so I’m instead writing to help others be able to identify and counter the sneaky ‘rational justifications’ of transmisogyny that bigots like you use.

(Source: roseverbena)

spaceykate:

In Today’s Cissexist News: This Person’s Name is Not…

uncensoredsupplement:

dulcineadreamsincolor:

transfeminism:

When members of the media report on cis women who have changed their names—either through marriage or for some other reason—they don’t tend to say, “Jane Smith, who was born Jane Johnson.” Yet when members of the media are reporting on trans women they, as a matter of routine, almost always give the name the woman doesn’t use, saying something to the effect of: “Jane Smith, who was born John Smith.”

The difference in how cis women who have taken on new names, often by marriage, and how trans women are treated by the media is glaringly obvious. While journalist will often cite some made up journalist imperative to rationalize their use of the wrong name for trans women, these arbitrary double standards with which they report on former names are revealing.

In both cases, the former names of both cis women and trans women are not actually news. These are not the women’s names. There is no need to bring these not-their-names into the stories.

We don’t see this same thing happen with the married names of cis women. This is because there is not a strong socio-political interest in invalidating the relationships and marriages of straight, cis women. (The exception where we might see this happen is with regard to cis lesbian couples. By using a cis lesbian’s former name from before her marriage the reporter can not-so-subtly undermine the women’s relationship as less real than that of a straight cis woman who takes her husband’s name.)

So what reporters are really doing when they use names that trans women don’t go by is helping to perpetuate cissexism. They’re using those names that are traditionally associated with males in ways that misgender these women and confirm cissexist beliefs about who trans women “really” are.

This consistent invalidation and marginalization of trans women by the media is a contributing factor to the specific oppressive and violent incidents that these reporters are (poorly) covering. Over and over again, in stories reporting on the deaths of young trans women of color, the reporters will give a woman’s former name in a way that invalidates her gender as a woman. Yet these women are often killed by people using the exact same cissexist logic of disrespect and invalidation. One cannot be separated from the other. These women are not random victims in the wrong place at the wrong time. Rather, their deaths fit a very specific pattern that is reinforced by the society we live in. A society that is bolstered by the way the media reinforces these patterns in its reporting.

(boldness added)

genderbitch:

blackenedbutterfly:

vizzz:

I think people are conflating genitals with a preference for penetration or penetrating during sex… That’s a legit preference that doesn’t HAVE to have anything to do with gender.

truth!

Don’t you know? That’s all penises and vaginas do! Penises just penetrate, and vaginas just get penetrated. When one person with a penis has sex with a person with a vagina, it’s ALWAYS PIV sex. Every time! Didn’t you know that?!

God, people are so ignorant these days! SHEESH

And let me just add! When two people with penises have sex with each other, they have a choice on who puts the penis in the other person! And when two people with vulvas have sex with each other, well…strap-ons don’t exist, and they certainly can ONLY EVER be used on people with vulvas. But only by people with vulvas.

Also, all sex has to involve all partners’ genitals. Every time.

I cannot stick my dick in a vagina or any other opening. It fires up such severe dissonance that it just instantly kills the mood for me.

So I kinda lol when people are like “I DON’T WANNA FUCK YOU CUZ YOU’RE GONNA STICK THAT THING IN ME”. Um no thanks. I don’t want that thing going anywhere. You’ll be lucky if I even let you touch it with your hands. Cuz that can go wrong too.

I smell heteronormativity and even homonormativity (though maybe not lesbonormativity) in the whole penis=penetrates, vulvas=penetrated/envelops.  I will also say that the sex that I have with other trans people (and I really don’t have sex with cis people much at all any more) a lot of times involves two or more layers of fabric between my partner’s genitals and mine.  Cis people apparently have no imagination when it comes to sex, even if they’re not straight.  This continues to be driven home by their transphobia and cissexism.

Oh, and since I always like giving clues, cis people might want to look into the concept of frottage.  Just a suggestion.

Cis women who pull this “bathroom panic” bullshit need to start being held accountable by other cis women.

thecurvature:

Obviously the police officer who questioned and ticketed Paula Witherspoon represents a real structural problem. The idea that an agent of the state got to decide a woman’s gender for her and call her “disorderly” for abiding by her actual gender is not only ludicrous, but also structural violence.

But the cis lady who looked at another woman and decided she “looked like a man” on the basis of whatever transphobic bullshit criteria is the one who called that officer and started the police interaction. That is FAR from a neutral act in a world where trans* interactions with police so often turn discriminatory and even violent. And it is an overtly discriminatory act that she decided she got to be the Arbitrator of Womanhood and literally police who was and was not considered female. This, too, is cissupremacy. And it, too, is systemic and far from isolated.

Transphobia and cissupremacy are far from the sole domain of men. Cis women, we, too, are a part of it. We have an incredible ability to do harm to our trans sisters. It is our responsibility to keep each other from doing so.

(via amydentata)

supporthumanity:

Christian doctors have criticised a new ruling that they claim will force them to carry out sex-change operations against their will.

Under new guidelines drawn up by the General Medical Council, they will no longer be able to refuse to perform the operations on the grounds that they are against their religious beliefs.

Well, fantastic. Because they’re doctors. Which is a secular position. So unless they work at a religious hospital institution, that never should have been allowed in the first place. This brings to mind the nurses who refuse to care for women who have had abortions. What exactly is the nature of your job but to care to the utmost for the human life at your hands?

(Source: christiantheatheist, via whovianfeminist)

telegantmess:

life spirit.: telegantmess: life spirit.: telegantmess: magneticsoul: telegantmess:…

telegantmess:

life spirit.: telegantmess: magneticsoul: telegantmess: magneticsoul:…

telegantmess:

magneticsoul:

telegantmess:

magneticsoul:

Fierce…Flawless…: radscumblr: Fierce…Flawless…: radscumblr: life spirit.: Radical…

radscumblr:

Fierce…Flawless…:…

Oh Cathy…you’re quoting yourself as proof of harm done but have yet to provide a single actual example.You may have a law degree, but that seems to mean jack squat here since you have yet to actually provide proof of any of your claims. Events, some actual harm that was done, not hearsay. You’d think with that law degree, you’d know how to do that.

As if that degree proves anything. I’ve known rocket scientists who can’t change the toner in a copier, neurologists that can’t make change, and people with law degrees who didn’t realize that ballerinas wear special shoes to dance on their toes. You can wave that thing around like it means something, but the fact of the matter here is that you have yet to provide a shred of proof, have engaged in ridiculous gotcha games that would shame a kindergartener in their obtuseness, and have projected your behavior on everyone around you. You are toxic, and you are frankly, not even as bright as the right wing politicians that use you to advance conservative agendas.

And who started the name calling when confronted with information they couldn’t resolve?  I provided you with access to at least three scholarly sources that discuss the existence of genders outside of the male-female dichotomy and you started insulting me. Unless you are going to suggest that sociological research done at the university level is suddenly illegitimate information and name calling. I told you the results of your actions, and that makes me nasty? Duly noted. I only lose it when abused, and you, Cathy, are abusive.

So, this sticking your head in the sand thing…is that how you sleep at night after you teamed up with politicians who are diametrically opposed to your rights as a lesbian and a woman and used rape victims as a tool to criminalize trans* women? Or maybe how you justify prioritizing arguing for stripping gender identity as a protected status when the US still hasn’t ratified CEDAW?Do you even have priorities that aren’t centered around hurting someone?

Its funny, you bring up the spectre of rape when asked to examine your biases, yet tell me that you have a right to ignore my “no” regarding this engagement. You harass and attempt to intimidate people who are giving you the chance to learn and grow as a person. I sincerely feel for anyone who is close to you, as this kind of toxic behavior is rarely limited to one area of someone’s life.

Why do you act like and sound like an MRA?

Why do you hate women?

And why do you think that no one realizes that you have three different accounts here? You didn’t invent sock puppeting, Cathy.

I was upset earlier, now I’m actually amused. How ignorant do you think we are? (by the way, that’s rhetorical. Don’t know if you knew what that might be, what with that law degree of yours) You are right about one thing. You don’t need an education from me, what you need is your money for that degree back. Its clearly doing you zero favors.

I love how she’s claimed to have a PhD in trans*.  And then proceeds to completely misstate basic stuff about trans* people and, as usual for radscum, to completely ignore what trans* people have to say about ourselves because we lack law degrees (which is not true of all of us, btw) or something.  I don’t find this stuff amusing because it’s just so pathetic and repetitive.  She’s making no new arguments, offering no insights.  All she’s offered is the idea, cribbed from the MRAs, that we should call women “females” as if this somehow respects them as people in English.

(Source: ad-mirandam)

Anonymous asked: What do you think of this? appropriately-inappropriate(.)tumblr(.)com/post/21042801404/whats-your-take-on- I saw this response and I was side-eyeing the whole thing

blackenedbutterfly:

freedominwickedness:

Yeah, that response is epicallybusted.
As it turns out, my friend had a very specific aversion to the texture of the pubic hair of Black women—specifically when she was… er… pleasuring her partner.

This person’s friend is making a number of totally messed up assumptions and neither of them even notice because they’re too busy patting each other on the back and tearfully assuring each other that they’re not racist.

Just off the top of my head: Assumes all black women have the same sort of pubic hair. Assumes all black women do not shave their pubic hair. Assumes all black women are unwilling to shave their pubic hair. Assumes cunnilingus is the only form of lesbian sex.

Now, one of my major concerns with this sort of “But you’re internalizing messages from the patriarchy” is that if completely cuts out individual agency here. Everyone’s very quick to assure everyone that Noone Has To Sleep With Anyone We’re Not Forcing You—but in the same breath they tell someone “But you’re not attracted because you’ve internalized these wrong and hateful messages and you should go educate yourself and open your mind”.

This is the exact phenomenon I pointed out in my post: Western culture is militantly individualistic to the point of aggressively denying that cultural norms play any role in sexual attraction, instead insisting that it’s 100% personal agency or bust.

So, to say that someone needs to “acknowledging that personal tastes are strongly influenced by the internalization of mainstream cultural norms and that many of these norms are oppressive towards minorities” implies that they haven’t done so already, and that they’re ignorant or unaware of the nuances of the situation. It’s that sort of condescension that bothers me the most about a lot of discourse with tumblr SJAs.

Ah yes, it’s totally “condescending” to assume that people who frame their sexuality in ways which stereotype and marginalize minority groups haven’t actually given the matter in-depth consideration. It’s only fair to assume that it’s pure coincidence that their viewpoints are exact mirror images of the bloodily oppressive traditions and norms of the culture they grew up in.

I have no desire whatsoever to sleep with men. The hairy chests, the legs, the equipment, the stubble—- it really just does not appeal. … But I can exercise discrimination based on a few characteristics that are innate to the overwhelming majority of men and say, “Ehn, not really my deal”.

See, again with these “really well thought out” conclusions of hers which just happen to match common social assumptions and myths. Because all men innately have a ton of body hair and stubble and the same kind of private parts. Swimmers and Asians and non-op trans men are all just figments of my wild Valley Girl imagination, I guess.

Reblogging this because I can.

Reblogging this because it needs to be read by more people.

(via iuwaehfoaiuwhefoiaulfjqn)

So if of-praxis, the shit from Arkh, Natalie’s disgusting anti-black display last night and their complicitness in racism and transphobia today, mandapolos’ derailing and lying, and agnoima purposely obfuscating a conversation to make a conversation tilt in their direction made me suicidal, would I suddenly matter?

liquornspice:

dumbthingswhitepplsay:

Would I?

If all the people telling me and my friends to die, calling me a nigger dyke, calling other people on my dash niggers repeatedly, telling them they’d come to their houses and rape them made me a “motherfucking suicidal mess”, would I matter then?

Or are you all just full of shit as usual?

Welp…

(via genderbitch)