Emerald's weird thonks

24 TFemme with lots of thoughts about things.

[oh-hell-its-nell]

I do think the thing other trans feminists are sometimes struggling to communicate is that TMA/TME isn't a new political identity, it's a description of the SYSTEM WE CURRENTLY LIVE IN. It is not an in-group, because if it was TME Is the in-group in question!!

Trans feminists aren't using TMA to describe a placement in OUR system, we're using it to describe our placement in the CURRENT BINARY BASED SYSTEM.

Yes ideally we could include trans neutral people, but the SYSTEM WE ARE DESCRIBING DOESN'T. It's like how the modern American conception of race, or specifically blackness, falls short when describing the oppression of mixed and light skinned people as compared to people who experience both racism and colorism.

No, TMA/TME as a framework might not be able to clarify your specific experience with transmisogyny, but it doesn't clarify ANYBODIES. it is a skeletal system to describe the oppression one has faced, not an idealistic identifier. In the world where trans neutral people could be placed wholeheartedly into one of these categories WE WOULDN'T NEED THE CATEGORIES ANYMORE.

Why are so many of you mad at trans feminists when we aren't the ones leaving you out? We're describing our oppression!! Why do you want to be included in a highly oppressed group? We don't even want that!!! THAT'S WHAT THE WORDS ARE FOR

[emeraldsthonks]

anti tma/tme people when the way society oppresses trans people isnt very trans inclusive: (shocked pikachu image im too lazy to find)

[dramatic-dolphin]

the thing about the concept of gendered socialization is that so many people use it as like another kind of gender essentialism. you know it's not an immutable trait right. you can literally overcome it.

"i'm like this because women are socialized to be shy and quiet and subservient" okay good on you for recognizing it, but that's only the very first step. the next few steps are that you Stop Doing It. feminist thought vs feminist action.

[dramatic-dolphin]

and when ppl see a trans woman being confident and unafraid to take up space and decide it's because of her evil evil male socialization, i'm always like "wait you're saying this woman was raised as a child to be loud and confident and take up space? that's awesome, i thought that's how we WANTED people to raise girls? why exactly is it a problem now? 🤔"

like WHY are you telling trans women that they literally have to make themselves smaller and conform to the WORST gender exceptations of women to be seen as real women. since when is it evil and masculine to be confident, i thought we were supposed to be doing that. i thought that was feminism.

[emeraldsthonks]

also the fact that socialization is a creation of expectations around not just one's own assigned identities but also *others*

you are, in fact, socialized on the "traits of women", you are told what they are "supposed to be" and internalize that.

for cis folks, this is very simple because they'll be told "this is your gender and this gender acts this way, dont act this other way because thats how the other gender acts", and it will be recieved as simply as it was given.

for trans folks, they are told that, and internalize "I want to do the other behaviours though, but im not allowed to because im gender 1"

until they realize they are not bound to be gender 1, in which case they are fully capable of embodying the socialized traits of the gender they feel they are. or no gender, or a mix.

[emeraldsthonks]

The single most liberating change ive made to my behaviour, out of all of the lessons ive learned

is that, unless I have a damned good reason to disagree (not just feel, but like, have really specific positive reasoning for my decision or behaviour), when someone, particularly someone less priviledged than me, tells me I fucked up, I listen, say "oh shit my bad", and ask for a small explanation so I can not fuck up in the future.

if I have a reason, Ill ask if its okay to explain my intentions.

like, idk how to tell y'all this, especially us white folks, but being able to acknowledge a mistake, pocket the information on what went wrong, and move on as a better person feels *great*

being able to hear why what I did was racist so I can be less racist in the future? euphoric.

because being a better person ***feels good***

everyone was raised with biases and prejudice, and being able to chip away at those is genuinely liberating.

it also means that, if I want to be able to say no to someone calling me out, i first need to educate myself on the topic extensively, and be doing something actively in the persuit of positive change.

(even then you should still understand that fucking up happens, even if you know you're right listening to why someone thinks you've fucked up can at the very least enlighten you to a new perspective, and every perspective is a different tool for tackling oppression)

[boyfeminist]

transmasc and transfem describe sex-gender positionality, not specific gender identity

"transmasculine" = trans people who were AFAB. we are viewed as transitioning "away" from cisfemininity, regardless of our specific gender identity.

my bestie (she/they) is a nonbinary woman. but she's not transfem! she was AFAB and thus is transmasc, despite not being masc-aligned in specific identity. realizing a nonbinary, androgynous, expansive vision of womanhood masculinizes them in the eyes of cispatriarchy. they are transmasculinized, and thus transmasc.

"transfeminine" = trans people who were AMAB. they are viewed as transitioning "away" from cismasculinity, regardless of their specific gender identity.

my sibling (any pronouns) is a gender-apathetic nonbinary person. even though she does not give a fuck about being gendered any kind of way, she was AMAB. and thus they're transfem even if they aren't a feminine-aligned (Or masculine-aligned) person, bcs realizing a nonbinary, androgynous, expansive vision of gender for a person AMAB feminizes them in the eyes of cispatriarchy . thus transfem

[grimbluesins]

n. no.,,? it isn’t??? we r just reinventing amab and afab which, when talking about nb people, has kinda always been a shitty thing to do? quick, guess a transneu’s genitals i mean asab i mean what they’re transitioning away from which is so different and totally woke this time.

why are we trying to redefine these terms. that has never been what those words mean. transmasculine = masc aligned nb. transfem = fem aligned nb. that’s it. it is a matter of CURRENT identity, not assigned sex or socially imposed gender or whatever.

plus this makes no sense when you consider intersex people. what about afab transfems? assigned female, went through a masculinizing puberty and reassigned male and then is still a fem-aligned person. or any intersex people who were casab (aka went through IGM) or who are more androgynous i dont remember the exact term like. what about them. binary people stop trying to fit nb people into a binary challenge (impossible) (gone wrong)

[emeraldsthonks]

these terms arent really identities as much as identifiers for what particular ways society fucks you over, which is largely influenced by the positionality between your gender and agab.

the reason binarizing terms are often used isnt because we dont think nonbinary is valid, nb folks are hella dope, but because the systems of oppression we face treat trans people in a binary way, and therefor the language to describe that treatment will be binary too.

[grimbluesins]

i don’t feel like retyping everything so here you go

first post is mine. this sums up pretty much everything

[emeraldsthonks]

aight; Ill just ask then, how exactly would you refer to specifically people who suffer from the specific types of societal harm due to being percieved as a "male invading womens spaces" outside of progressive communities, while within progressive communities being percieved as innately less trustworthy, more abusive, and will generally be assumed to be the perpetrator even when talking about their experiences of being abused? because that is an experience particular to people who were amab and are not men.

I need a word to properly encompass the traits that lead to that, transfeminine (the state of being someone who transitioned away from a place of masculinity) works really damn well for that.

tma would work but transfeminism as a baseline is already nigh impossible to talk about without people getting particular about how they do or dont actually contribute to the problem because reasons.

[boyfeminist]

transmasc and transfem describe sex-gender positionality, not specific gender identity

"transmasculine" = trans people who were AFAB. we are viewed as transitioning "away" from cisfemininity, regardless of our specific gender identity.

my bestie (she/they) is a nonbinary woman. but she's not transfem! she was AFAB and thus is transmasc, despite not being masc-aligned in specific identity. realizing a nonbinary, androgynous, expansive vision of womanhood masculinizes them in the eyes of cispatriarchy. they are transmasculinized, and thus transmasc.

"transfeminine" = trans people who were AMAB. they are viewed as transitioning "away" from cismasculinity, regardless of their specific gender identity.

my sibling (any pronouns) is a gender-apathetic nonbinary person. even though she does not give a fuck about being gendered any kind of way, she was AMAB. and thus they're transfem even if they aren't a feminine-aligned (Or masculine-aligned) person, bcs realizing a nonbinary, androgynous, expansive vision of gender for a person AMAB feminizes them in the eyes of cispatriarchy . thus transfem

[grimbluesins]

n. no.,,? it isn’t??? we r just reinventing amab and afab which, when talking about nb people, has kinda always been a shitty thing to do? quick, guess a transneu’s genitals i mean asab i mean what they’re transitioning away from which is so different and totally woke this time.

why are we trying to redefine these terms. that has never been what those words mean. transmasculine = masc aligned nb. transfem = fem aligned nb. that’s it. it is a matter of CURRENT identity, not assigned sex or socially imposed gender or whatever.

plus this makes no sense when you consider intersex people. what about afab transfems? assigned female, went through a masculinizing puberty and reassigned male and then is still a fem-aligned person. or any intersex people who were casab (aka went through IGM) or who are more androgynous i dont remember the exact term like. what about them. binary people stop trying to fit nb people into a binary challenge (impossible) (gone wrong)

[emeraldsthonks]

these terms arent really identities as much as identifiers for what particular ways society fucks you over, which is largely influenced by the positionality between your gender and agab.

the reason binarizing terms are often used isnt because we dont think nonbinary is valid, nb folks are hella dope, but because the systems of oppression we face treat trans people in a binary way, and therefor the language to describe that treatment will be binary too.

[princess-rosiebird-nsfw]

ladies,,,. . . ,, my boobs need touching

[emeraldsthonks]

of course youer ladyship

*paws at them pathetically*

[aprilthe0th]

"Your terms shouldn't depend on whether someone's gender matches their sex assigned at birth. Trans vs cis is a made up binary!"

We have these terms to describe real oppression. The bigotry is based partly on your AGAB, so our terms to describe it must be as well.

Tma and tme aren't labels you get to choose for yourself like "girl" or "boy" they're terms to describe oppression like "trans" or "cis".

[emeraldsthonks]

shockingly, we dont live in a world where being trans excludes you from unique forms of oppressiob based on your relationship between your asab/agab and your gender. idk who needs to hear this but oppression isnt nice enough to treat you how you identify. in fact, it uses it against you. always.

[emeraldsthonks]

A take on Psychiatry, from someone who dreamed of being a therapist.

For context before I start, I am neurodivergent, I know I have diagnosed anxiety, Obsessions without compulsions, likely autism (undiagnosed "due to symptoms being displayed too late for a diagnosis" according to the psych who gave me a test for it), and a whole lot of weirdness that doesn't really fit into pathological language

after thinking of what I wanted from my time going to a psychiatrist, what I got, and what I wanted from being a therapist, I think a fundamental reframing of psychology is required to """fix""" psychiatry, if that's even possible. and I think a garden actually works as a really strong metaphor for the problems and potential of the field. First, the framework. I imagine one's mind, all aspects of it, as a garden. each unique in composition, filled with various types of flora and underlying root systems that can't really be observed. Most of the time, we go to a psychiatrist for one of two reasons. 1 - we are told our garden is causing issues for other gardens. 2 - we do not like how our garden is functioning. Currently, however, psychiatry is less of a gardener's guide and more of a weedwacking company. there *is* a value in removal of weeds, and for a lot of people who just want a "normal" garden, weed extraction is probably an okay choice. BUT, the problem comes in that that's all they do. So now, we look at, say, an autistic person. their garden is an entirely unique ecosystem, one which grows weeds alongside traditional flowers, and is particularly sensitive to the environment. a psychiatrist, instead of looking at that and trying to figure out "how do I help this person manage their garden", will think "how do I remove the weeds" without ever considering that "weed", in this analogy at least, isn't something everyone thinks is bad innately. and so they pull out the weeds and when the owner of the garden complains they're told to shut up because the gardeners are helping them. foundationally, psychiatry should not be built to remove weeds. It should be built to teach people how to manage them

a psychiatrist should only go so far as to offer fertilizer, pesticide, poison, and give detailed instructions of how they work and what might happen if you use them. and in that regard, a psychiatrist needs to be trained to accept that some people like weeds in their garden, maybe they find dandelions pretty or thistles a nice touch. and that needs to be their choice, one that shouldn't get them jailed. the psychiatrist's goal should be to teach the owner of the garden how that will effect their garden, and offer the tools to tend to it how they like. or, in more real terms a psychiatrist's goal should never be to fix someone. it should always be to acomplish the specific goals requested of them by the patient, and only insofar as giving the patient the tools to help themselves. a gardener should not be imprisoned for growing weeds.

[alpaca-clouds]

Okay, let's talk about kids and needles.

Because under the post about giving minors the right to medically consent, people are spreading a ton of misinformation on this - largely because they just do not question the stuff they just assume are "normal". Which here is: "kids are all afraid of needles and therefore if we let them consent or not to medical proceedures, they would just not consent and not get vaccinations, because needles hurt".

And, look. Here is the thing: no, needles do not actually hurt a whole lot. And while, yes, certain procedures that involve being stabbed by a needle hurt more if you are younger for a bunch of reasons... that is actually not the main reason children fear needles. Because, again: the pain is not that bad. And most kids, especially young kids, whose motor skills are still developing, usually will have a bunch more hurting scratches, bruises and the like at any given moment than there will be pain from the needle.

No, from what research can tell, the main reason kids are afraid of needles, is more that for many of them needle procedures are very traumatizing. And that is largely because of the consent issue.

Imagine you are a person who is still pretty darn new to that whole human thing. So for one, yes, your brain is actually not that great in understanding what pain is dangerous and what pain is a safe limit of pain. So yes, someone intentionally hurting you (like with a needle) is really kinda scary. But then there is also the thing where this person hurting you is not telling you why they are doing. The people who you normally trust with keeping you safe (your family) is betraying you, by just holding you down and scolding you for crying over it. Or maybe it is not your family, but some strange nurse who is holding you. And while you are scared, because someone is intentionally hurting you, while someone else is restricting you, the adults around you are telling you, that your emotional reaction to this is actually bad and you are wrong for reacting that way. They might in fact lie to you and tell you that something that is insanely scary to you is "not that bad", instead of just understanding that it is super scary to you. And that is then what you start to expect whenever you see a doctor prepare a needle: people holding you down, hurting you without reason, and telling you that you are wrong for being upset, actively gaslighting you.

We have research on this. And this research is pretty clear: most kids are actually somewhat okay with needles, if you inform them why you are doing it, allow for them to have their emotions, talk to them about their emotions, and allow for them to set at least some conditions.

And frankly, I hate how many people just accept the framing of "kids are naturally afraid of this because it hurts". Like, folks, I know y'all are fucking Americans and that in your culture it is kinda normalized to like put kids into like some sort of fortified hamsterball to stop them from like doing typical kids stuff. But... let me tell you: if you do not do that, kids will actually very regularly engage in dangerous play that they know will often end up in injuries that are going to hurt. And, no, they are not to dumb to understand that. The kids know that this is what might happen because of their play. They actually just take the risk. Yes, they will cry if they get hurt, because - again - their nervous system is still calibrating how it relates to pain. But they will likely do that thing again and again. I can tell you: I fell down a tree so often during my childhood, and I still climbed it. Again and again. So did most kids I knew. Like, fuck, we lived next to a forest. We played "Tarzan", and tried to go along paths without touching the ground. And we fell. A lot. And we still did it.

It is not the fear of pain that makes kids afraid of doctors. It is the fear of the associated force, and gaslighting.

[satanfemme]

I don't like it when people are trying to (even sympathetically) explain why teenagers can sometimes have emotional volatility as "well they're just biologically stupid and angry and bad because of their hormones and underdeveloped brain" with no mention to be found of the fact they're also still trapped in an incredibly oppressive environment 24/7.

working 12+ hour days for school without pay or the right to "switch jobs" to something better, often working a real job on top of that, still the legal property of their parents, can't even dye their own hair or use their own name or have a door to their own room in many many cases. yeah I would be at the end of my rope too, especially when dealing with the adults in my life who are enacting and/or facilitating the abuse! it feels pretty glaring to ignore this dynamic when talking about the strained emotional capacity of teenagers. did you forget? what it was like to not have the right to your own life yet? to be hurt 24/7? and then to have your (extremely reasonable!!!) emotional reactions dismissed as pure hysteria?

purely anecdotally, I'm also not convinced that teenagers are "biologically" more prone to volatility in a meaningfully distinct way tbh. thinking back to the people I knew as a teen vs the people I've known in adulthood, in both demographics there have been people prone to lashing out, and people who were completely stoic, and the differences between the two groups have always seemed to be split not along age or hormonal makeup but along life experiences and who had better support structures. (but again this is anecdotal, and somewhat besides the point. because even if there is a non-pseudoscience biologically provable difference in teenagers' brains that make them universally moodier across the board, perhaps they could better manage their own moods if they weren't being crazy abused as an entire class with no legal ability to escape.)

[sorreleater]

“it’s also good to learn that life isn’t fair!” i don’t WANT children to accept unreasonable discipline from adults!! i don’t WANT children to expect the adults in their lives to punish at random and ignore their explanations!! the world isn’t fair but we could sure work to make it fairer

[malignedmare]

it is genuinely so unbelievably annoying to be a child trafficking survivor and have to listen to people argue about shadows on the wall when it comes to children’s rights and child abuse prevention. the only true way to prevent child abuse is to take away parental control. give children rights. give them the education, resources, and rights to say yes or no to whatever and whoever they desire. i know what would have helped me. i’m so mind numbingly sick of all of this. everyone wants to feel like a hero, but nobody wants to help anyone.

[elierlick]

Yet another new study debunked the basis for the anti-trans sports bans. It was never about sports but for creating legal avenues for exclusion and abjection. This is one of the largest analyses ever conducted, involving 52 studies and 6,485 trans people. Read the study here.

[lucieslucidity]

post so nice had to reblog it twice and force it down everyone's throats

[fleshengine]

At minimum about 4.5 thousand people liked this without reblogging it.

We gotta fix that.

[emeraldsthonks]

does fixing that mean not liking it tho? i wanna like it but i also do my part

[emeraldsthonks]

This is on like, the lowest tier of things to complain about, this doesn't tangibly matter really, but why is it that so many people, in media reviews at least, get close to the heart of an issue with a movie (xyz character's actions, motivations, and how the movie treats them are foundationally different from how they're portrayed (i.e. character does a genocide, before being treated like they accidentally tripped over a puppy)), and then attribute this complete failure to understand the character that was written to... "the left's war on men" or some shit? like, yes, xyz movie is bad, yes it's because this character did a genocide and was treated like they didn't, no, that is not leftist in any way shape or form? I know its usually in bad faith but its frustrating to see how many people just... decide "nah, this thing I don't like is the fault of THE EVIL (insert minority or the left in general) AGENDA" after correctly identifying "thing I don't like has major flaws"

[arielluva]

"OR WOMEN IN GENERAL"???? HELLO

[sailatina3]

Reblog to bully people who don't like female characters or women in general off the internet.

[oh-hell-its-nell]

I think the actual genuine problem with the ideology around "male socialization" is that I think a lot of you are misunderstanding that while a lot of AFAB kids are growing up, if they cannot achieve "correct" presentation of girlhood, they are told to try harder. To stop being masculine, to grow out their hair, to just "be a girl." A lot of people will even be lenient with a level of masculinity in AFABs as long as it is not too "deviant". (this does not apply to every case, but every AFAB queer person I know had similar to this to some extent) By and large AMAB kids who do not align with masculinity raised post like 1995 do not have that experience. If we cannot just "be a boy" in the "right way" we shouldn't be AT ALL. The amount of times before I even knew I was trans that I was told that I just wasn't actually a boy because of something I viewed as arbitrary, the amount of times I was physically assaulted or attacked under the age of 18 for my "wrong" behaviors. And that is not to say the first situation is not also very bad and traumatic. But the reason so many trans men feel that being told "you'll never be a real woman" is backwards affirmation, even when it is misplaced transmisogyny, is because they are FINALLY getting womanhood actively removed from the view of them, even as an attack. This weird idea that TERFs are saying that "no one but you could tell you thought you were a girl" is like so patently not true. I was hit so hard in the chest with a basketball by a middle schooler when I was 4 years old that I had a bruised lung. The first time I was attacked in such a way that I could not fight back and literally almost died, an older boy held me down on the playground and choked me until I was blacking out, and he only stopped because a teacher caught him. Both of these children claimed it was because (paraphrased) "I just don't like that he's not acting like a boy, he just needs to go away". Other people knew something was not aligned with what they were taught in me, they just couldn't articulate. And this wasn't just other kids, my grandmother literally complained to my mother every Christmas and birthday that even buying neutral things I actually liked (coloring books or art supplies or neutral creator legos even) was too difficult to do it anymore, so she stopped. My own grandmother got every other one of her grandkids gifts every birthday and christmas, but me, because I "wasn't right". My mother had to bring gifts and mark them as from her own mother. People can tell these things, you all act as though children don't... talk? Or have personalities? Or IDENTITIES?? As someone who has a behavior sciences degree, I feel like this is an extreme and overwhelming mistreatment of even the idea of children. You can tell a lot about a kid just from the toys they pick up, or look at a little too long in the target when their parent isn't looking. I was paired up with the girls my entire childhood, even before I transitioned. I was in the girl group in every separated P.E. class. People asked me if I was a boy or girl literally every day. Going places with friends I would almost always get a "welcome in ladies". PEOPLE CAN TELL. And a lot of the time if you couldn't before the transition, it means that shit was bullied, beat, and berated out of that person. I am not saying that there is no such thing as socialization, but... most of behavior theory around socialization came from... dog breeding? Some people are nurtured into being male, everyone is nurtured into being a misogynist. But kids know what they are, like, a lot of the time, even if it's not permanent.

[emeraldsthonks]

This is why I often use the Soldier/Serf dichotomy. Soldiers are people granted unique priviledge and power over serfs, but they are trained in a dehumanizing way. some survive that training and come out an okay human, but those people are seen as bad soldiers, bad men. most are beaten into shape, coming out as the perfect thing for their purpose: keep the serfs in line.

serfs, then, do not recieve the training the soldiers do, their training is all about "how to win the heart of a prince", turning their purpose into being a sidepiece for the patriarchs.

the rest are cast aside, and rather that doing it themselves, the patriarchs trained the soldiers to abuse the serfs themselves. not by telling them to, but by giving them no other concievable way to experience life.

the only valid emotion is agression, unless you are with *your* serf, who should be a vessel for you to shove your emotion into so you can be heartless.

in this world, the serfs are clearly and obviously oppressed by the soldiers. soldiers have innate power and leeway over serfs, but the soldiers arent *free*

a serf may play pretend as a soldier, and the patriarchs will laugh at the display, they may even want to become a soldier, and they will be seen as fools. but, it is within their perview to play pretend, according to the patriarch, as they are still under them. and as long as the soldiers do their job, it doesnt really matter how the serfs act, the soldiers will stop them from rising up.

when a soldier wishes to be a serf, on the other hand, it is high treason. for two reasons:

1 - you are not permitted to enjoy existence except by the opression you create, it is unthinkable that you might be allowed to enjoy the life of a serf. thatd mean you get to enjoy life.

2 - if a soldier has a choice, they are dangerous, and must be removed from society, as otherwise the other soldiers may see that they too, while not needing to become a serf, can throw off the shackles of soldierhood. and the system would collapse.

and so extra care is put in by the patriarchs, the government, to destroy the lives of former soldiers. whether they became serfs or something else, they are systematically abused on every level.

But then, thats not all

there are serfs who, while proclaiming to want to be rid of the system, do not truly believe it can change.

they will portray these former soldiers as simply spies. predators trying to infiltrate their causes. it doesnt matter how genuine the person may be, no former soldier can ever be seen as anything but a monster. because why would someone ever want to throw away power?

soldier, in this, is men, or women pre-transition.

serf, in this, is women, or men pre-transition.

this conception of patriarchy accurately predicts most common behaviours, in every person. it is important to remember then that a trans man is a soldier that society is treating as a serf, until they transition into a "honorary but not really a soldier" according to the patriarchy. and trans women, are serfs, forced to go through all the dehumanization of soldiers while never wanting any of it, and when they transition, they are "defectors and predators that must be imprisoned and abused into complying" according to the patriarchy.

many people make mistakes in their activism, they will treat transition as infiltration, when its not. it is throwing away a pretend role given to you because deep down you were the other.

the only path to freedom is breaking the system. show the soldiers they can love without violence, that there are ways to be emotionally fulfilled beyond being evil. and help serfs procure the means to rise the ranks without the blessing of a patriarch.

[vithcy]

MUTUAL!! THAT IMAGE IS AI GENERATED!! MUTUAL! DON'T REBLOG THAT!! IT'S AI!!MUTUAAAL!!