[lillie-garden]

This is poetry to me

[lillie-garden]

I'm being serious btw like. There's a really particular transfem horror to this.

[lillie-garden]

every so often this will get circulated around again and I resist the urge to start telling off the many, many transmascs who comment on it about how scary it was for them going on T because of this so "transmasc here, I totally get it" and its like. you don't. you really dont. the parallel of the lack of agency PAIRED with the ability to call for help is the entire thing. the consistent lack of understanding that estrogen doesn't change our voices. that it's something we just Lose and never get back. it fucks with me & every time I get a wave of Men Insisting They Understand Something That They Clearly Don't it's like. the poems keep writing themselves huh

[a-teacup-of-golden-cracks]

And are the transmascs who said this in the room with us now?

[rakdos-dogdyke]

Why are you going to the line of "not only is that not true, you're crazy" when all she said was that men don't get it and it's frustrating when they pretend to?

[a-teacup-of-golden-cracks]

Because maybe, just maybe we shouldn't do generalizations for experiences on an entire group of people. Maybe, perhaps, people actually *do* understand the concept of losing something and being completely unable to get it back, in spite of not going through the exact same circumstances. Maybe this has nothing to do with misogyny like you so cleverly tried to change the topic to in the tags, along with a lovely little ad hominem and appeal to pity. Maybe I'm so goddamn tired of people on this website whining and bitching and wanting to be special so badly they make up ways that theyre oppressed that only ever makes things more toxic for everyone. Who knows?

[abstractmishaps]

This literally about a specific change that happens to young transfems that are going through puberty, like that's what the post is about. This isn't a post about general trans stuff. It is about a specific thing. You fundamentally are showing up to complain about people not being included in it despite that. Also, you literally say 'whining and bitching and wanting to be special' is that not misogynistic all of a sudden? You talk like a 2016 anti sjw gamergater.

[abstractmishaps]

They blocked me for this but like. what are we supposed to say? we can't even talk about shit that happens to us without being called whiny bitches? Feels so fucking pointless.

[halfaccursed]

since you blocked everyone else @a-teacup-of-golden-cracks fuck off MRA there are things you don't and won't experience and acting like that's a form of bigotry is vile

[fleshengine]

We Need More Transfeminists

A Rebuttal to Tara Knight

hey go read my epic substack banger

[fleshengine]

THE. REVIEWS. ARE. IN!!!!

I, and a bunch of my friends who saw it early, thought that this essay was going to get me a bunch of hatemail. But everyone has been so kind and encouraging and has praised my work and aaaaaa thank you all so much. I really couldn't have asked for a better reception, even the few people who disagree with me do so calmly, and respectfully.

[halfaccursed]

i'm starting to think that many of you partake in vibes-based transfeminism and don't actually know what you're talking about

[ubernegro]

Apparently Epstein helped organize hunting parties where they hunted black people on some World’s Greatest Hunt shit.

The Trump government redacted the name of sender of the email that was elated that the hunted were ‘niggers.’

[ubernegro]

Because I know how pedantic you crackers can be…

[javarisx-fightingthosedemons]

[doe-eyed-disaster]

can we please acknowledge that tma/tme is a meaningful distinction? a justice of the US supreme court is openly saying that it's legal to discriminate against trans women because the same laws do not target trans men. the transmisogyny is what makes it permissible. your transphobia is fine as long as it has carveouts for men.

[batsarebetterthanpeople]

So... Respectfully, you need to look at this statement in broader context of the sports conversation in general. Trans men have not needed to be banned from sports in order to be pushed out of sports competition, because any trans person taking Testosterone and playing sports is breaking doping laws. Amy Coney Berret studied sports law for her job before coming to court and she knows that. She's not arguing that trans men and boys can play sports here. She's making a law argument that this one specific law doesn't discriminate against trans men, because we have a different law that will literally never be challenged on the basis of sex based discrimination for that that either forces trans boys out or forces trans boys to detransition, so we can use them as a convenient hypothetical for this law while also not granting them equal access to anything. The fact that you took this famously fascist woman at her word as not seeing trans men as a threat rather then wanting to sneakily pit us against each other to push us both out of public life shows you have a huge blind spot about our issues. And that blind spot hurts you.

[gingernuggets]

That’s not really correct though- yes, there are some sports organizations that blanket ban testosterone as doping, HOWEVER the vast majority of sports organizations stipulated in their policies that trans men on testosterone would not be considered doping unless their T levels were above what would be considered “typical male levels”.

In fact, that is how those doping policies are enforced! Because those policies are enforced through testing. And if they banned any level of testosterone in someone, then.. literally all cis males would be barred from competing? A trans man with below or at “average” T levels would not even register at all on a surprise sports drug test.

Now again, there ARE notable exceptions to this, but it is absolutely incorrect to say that any trans person taking T is automatically considered doping in men’s sports.

In fact, as of 2025 the NCAA, which is by far the largest and most impactful organization and often sets the precedent for local and smaller sports organizations has been clear that trans women are NEVER allowed to compete on women’s teams whereas trans men are welcome to compete on men’s teams regardless of HRT status.

To be clear about something here- I do think you are correct to point out that Berret has studied sports law and likely knows that trans men could potentially be banned de facto by several means, including 1. More major sports organizations adopting “any T Rx is doping” type policies, or just straight up more strict “no trans ppl allowed- only play on your AGAB team” policies. 2. Legal bans on access to HRT meaning trans men can not get T which then means they are stuck with competing on women’s teams (or sticking out like a sore thumb on a men’s team and facing so much discrimination that it becomes not worth it to compete, something I would argue already happens with all trans ppl in sports already tbh)

However, the OP is still right to point out that she is intentionally trying to sacrifice trans women in order to get people on board with these laws. In fact, I think that is a perfect example of how transmisogyny functions here- trans women are an acceptable scapegoat in conversations about sports inclusion.

You are correct that she absolutely does not actually give a shit about trans men. You are correct that it is likely not true that she doesn’t see trans men as a threat, and probably is banking on de facto exclusion. However, she is still using trans women as a sacrifice to get the public on her side in a way she likely would not be able to do with trans men.

It is also important to note that in this situation, the consequences are absolutely not even. I am a transmasc(ish) nonbinary person. I am a sports med professional. I have published research and spoken publically about trans athletes. I wrote and designed an entire inclusion policy for the NCAA institution I used to work at. I will never say that transmasc people do not face discrimination or exclusion in sport- however, there is a HUGE difference in how transfem people are treated in sport, and more to the point here, there is a HUGE difference between legal bans on participation and organizational bans on participation.

Legal bans (state and federal laws) on transfem participation in sport is such a devastating blow because laws like this are much, MUCH harder and slower to change than organizational policies. Organizational policies that exclude all trans people can be changed and are in fact likely to change over time with public opinion (depending on the structure of the organization). I’m not saying it’s easy- believe me, I know that from experience! However, if there is a LEGAL ban, this will bar trans women from women’s sports REGARDLESS of the organizations values and standpoint. Organizations will comply out of fear, and institutions like schools will HAVE to comply under threat of losing funding or being penalized. That is a devastating result for transfem people.

Again- you are not wrong to point out that Barrett is not actually on the side of any trans people, transmascs included. However, that does not negate the fact that she is using transmisogyny to her advantage because she hopes that will appease people enough to stop caring. It is important to ask why she is able to do that- why transfem people are viewed as more “acceptable” and “reasonable” to ban in the first place?

All trans people should absolutely realize that politicians like this are not our friends. However, we must use that to inspire solidarity with those in our community who are the primary targets of transmisogyny. And that does require recognizing where we are not being equally harmed or targeted.

[antiterf]

One thing I want to add that's small is that if trans men were not allowed to play in mens and pushed into women's, they'll likely be framed as "men stealing from women" just like trans women are. I say this when looking at Mack Beggs and an uproar over two trans men competing womens football (soccer) where people insisted they were trans women in women's sports. Like, thats how little continuity transphobes and transmisogynists have. Its about fulfilling an attack on a perceived boogeyman (trans women in sports) than actually giving a shit.

That and, in general, for those who don't know intersectional theory or its origins too well, what Barrett is doing here is basically a copy of what was done to Black women regarding employment that Crenshaw wrote about. Specifically, that the company couldn't be discriminating based on race because Black men worked there, and couldn't be based on gender because White women worked there.

What she's doing is taking a dump on intersectionality. This can and likely will be used as further precedent to deny rights for anyone marginalized in more than one way.

[smute]

i think the most upsetting thing about american-flavor puritanism is how fucking patronizing it is. it's 2026 but the whole world still has to deal with a cultural hegemony grown from the gnarled vestiges of victorian-era paternalism. tax-paying adults with passports and the right to vote are treated like wayward children because of the antiquated idea that authorities must protect the weak minds of the unwashed masses from depravity and corruption. the average american can send a fellow citizen to the chair, but they can't piss in a ditch without being declared an outlaw. american entertainment media is saturated with sex, but you can't talk about it online without getting your account suspended. it's such blatant censorship at a universal scale, but because sexual content is framed as inherently dangerous, this restriction on basic adult autonomy, this blanket denial of moral and intellectual adulthood, can be reframed as protection, an expression of care, a moral duty. "won't someone think of the children!" I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN!

[smute]

thank god that the video game that features slow motion animations of graphic gunshot wounds and is rated 18+ has a profanity filter in single player offline mode. thank you for protecting this 33 year old mind from the corrupting influence that is a horse named apple slut

[ryanthedemiguy]

So like, yes, but this isn't censorship. Censorship is done by the government or government-enforced. Video games banning cursing or nsfw content without a law or govt pressure are not participating in censorship.

Censorship is a very real and important thing that is actively happening and we cannot confuse the definition

[halfaccursed]

Okay, but...who is enforcing these things the strictest, at the highest level, which leads to video games banning profanity? This is derived from the same place (government-level censorship), regardless of what you call it or which part of the government-led censorship you're complaining about. If there weren't obscenity laws in place, they wouldn't ban these things in for-adults video games, which also includes (and started) the banning of expressions of sexuality & violence.

[ryanthedemiguy]

???? They ban profanity because parents kick up a fuss and fewer people tend to buy their games. Same with nudity and sexual content. When they're not allowed to have them, yes, it can be considered censorship. Which is why I explicitly said "without a law or government pressure"

And no, no government I'm aware of bans profanity in video games? Some may, which would be censorship, but a company not wanting you to curse without a law against it or government pressure to not allow it (ie threatening to pull funding/permissions to publish in the country) is not participating in censorship.

[halfaccursed]

Tell me then: who is putting pressure on the parents to be against that.

[ryanthedemiguy]

?????? Their religion, usually???? Sometimes just their personal morals, due to how they're raised?

[halfaccursed]

You're so close, man.

[smute]

i think the most upsetting thing about american-flavor puritanism is how fucking patronizing it is. it's 2026 but the whole world still has to deal with a cultural hegemony grown from the gnarled vestiges of victorian-era paternalism. tax-paying adults with passports and the right to vote are treated like wayward children because of the antiquated idea that authorities must protect the weak minds of the unwashed masses from depravity and corruption. the average american can send a fellow citizen to the chair, but they can't piss in a ditch without being declared an outlaw. american entertainment media is saturated with sex, but you can't talk about it online without getting your account suspended. it's such blatant censorship at a universal scale, but because sexual content is framed as inherently dangerous, this restriction on basic adult autonomy, this blanket denial of moral and intellectual adulthood, can be reframed as protection, an expression of care, a moral duty. "won't someone think of the children!" I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN!

[smute]

thank god that the video game that features slow motion animations of graphic gunshot wounds and is rated 18+ has a profanity filter in single player offline mode. thank you for protecting this 33 year old mind from the corrupting influence that is a horse named apple slut

[ryanthedemiguy]

So like, yes, but this isn't censorship. Censorship is done by the government or government-enforced. Video games banning cursing or nsfw content without a law or govt pressure are not participating in censorship.

Censorship is a very real and important thing that is actively happening and we cannot confuse the definition

[halfaccursed]

Okay, but...who is enforcing these things the strictest, at the highest level, which leads to video games banning profanity? This is derived from the same place (government-level censorship), regardless of what you call it or which part of the government-led censorship you're complaining about. If there weren't obscenity laws in place, they wouldn't ban these things in for-adults video games, which also includes (and started) the banning of expressions of sexuality & violence.

[ryanthedemiguy]

???? They ban profanity because parents kick up a fuss and fewer people tend to buy their games. Same with nudity and sexual content. When they're not allowed to have them, yes, it can be considered censorship. Which is why I explicitly said "without a law or government pressure"

And no, no government I'm aware of bans profanity in video games? Some may, which would be censorship, but a company not wanting you to curse without a law against it or government pressure to not allow it (ie threatening to pull funding/permissions to publish in the country) is not participating in censorship.

[halfaccursed]

Tell me then: who is putting pressure on the parents to be against that.

[smute]

i think the most upsetting thing about american-flavor puritanism is how fucking patronizing it is. it's 2026 but the whole world still has to deal with a cultural hegemony grown from the gnarled vestiges of victorian-era paternalism. tax-paying adults with passports and the right to vote are treated like wayward children because of the antiquated idea that authorities must protect the weak minds of the unwashed masses from depravity and corruption. the average american can send a fellow citizen to the chair, but they can't piss in a ditch without being declared an outlaw. american entertainment media is saturated with sex, but you can't talk about it online without getting your account suspended. it's such blatant censorship at a universal scale, but because sexual content is framed as inherently dangerous, this restriction on basic adult autonomy, this blanket denial of moral and intellectual adulthood, can be reframed as protection, an expression of care, a moral duty. "won't someone think of the children!" I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN! I AM A GROWN MAN!

[smute]

thank god that the video game that features slow motion animations of graphic gunshot wounds and is rated 18+ has a profanity filter in single player offline mode. thank you for protecting this 33 year old mind from the corrupting influence that is a horse named apple slut

[ryanthedemiguy]

So like, yes, but this isn't censorship. Censorship is done by the government or government-enforced. Video games banning cursing or nsfw content without a law or govt pressure are not participating in censorship.

Censorship is a very real and important thing that is actively happening and we cannot confuse the definition

[halfaccursed]

Okay, but...who is enforcing these things the strictest, at the highest level, which leads to video games banning profanity? This is derived from the same place (government-level censorship), regardless of what you call it or which part of the government-led censorship you're complaining about. If there weren't obscenity laws in place, they wouldn't ban these things in for-adults video games, which also includes (and started) the banning of expressions of sexuality & violence.

[halfaccursed]

it's fucking crazy how 1 psychiatrist who out of all but one of my doctors has been like "yeah he's being aggressive, dismissive, and creepy with this patient he's seeing (me)" and somehow everyone will still act like im the weird one for put off of psychiatry and that i'm making a huge mistake by not going back there despite already explaining that i've had horrible experiences with being institutionalized against my will and on the most minor side of things he was laughing at me in my face while i was trying to tell him about how scared i was

[biblicallyaccuratemoth]

Trans women will say to their friends, “No child deserved the abuse they suffered” and then follow it up in their heads with, “Except me, I was The Special Case wherein I totally brought it upon myself and deserved all of it.”

[komorebigold]

"Ok, but if you really think about it it was pretty messed up of me to assert my independence and control over my identity. Don't get me started on how I tried to set my boundaries. Honestly, I really deserved how they reacted to that."

-Me, probably.

[biblicallyaccuratemoth]

“You see I am uniquely broken in a way that makes me at fault for the behavior of other people m, (oftentimes people who had power over me), and I should simply have not been born in a manner that permit my systematic abuse.”

How strange it is to feel more guilt regarding the abuse you endured than anger that such abuse was both permitted and promoted towards someone who was helpless against it.

[rosiebun28]

" It was really messed up of me to try and stand up for myself like I was told to do and for me to have an independent thought or try to have an opinion on something. It was completely my fault and by responsibility to manage yours and everyone else's emotions."

-me, in middle school

[halfaccursed]

Are they actually a "femboy" or are you just saying "who cares if you're fem you'll always be a boy"/"who cares if you're a boy you'll always be fem"

[halfaccursed]

he/himming ralsei is a blockable offense

[halfaccursed]

i don't even "identify as a woman" and yet i'm still having and have had insane transphobia, misogyny, and transmisogyny thrown my way my entire life and most people's response is "why not just tell them you're not a trans woman if you're not" oh go back in time to when i was 7?? 8?? and further than that when anyone asks that asinine question the response is "how would that change anything" because being a trans woman isn't a negative fucking attribute and just because i'm Not One doesn't mean i haven't been targeted and abused in the same way they regularly are!!!!! and that makes me actually want to stand up to transmisogyny MORE, not try to flee to less-targeted identifiers, make up bullshit about They See Me As A Man So It's Misandry, Actually, and then use the words that evolved from those struggles with none of the actual struggle!!!!!!!! fuck you if your response to transvestigation is anything other than "why would it matter" and instead desperately trying to show you're One Of The Safe Ones

[halfaccursed]

if i have to deal with one more non-transfeminized person who has not & will not be forcefully given ugly ("boy") haircuts as punishments as a child (nor any other form of transmisogyny-specific abuse, of course) and yet still keeps referring to themself as a t-slur, i don't think they're going to like what i have to say.

[halfaccursed]

>switch to photos folder to check some pictures for a collage

>go back to collage app not even 8 seconds later

>every option is now christmas themed

[thydungeongal]

What is the reason that so much of RPG culture (or, atleast, a loud part of it) seems to despise rules? What is the cause of this, is it literally just 5e/WotC?

It's not just the fault of D&D 5e and WotC. I think the culture of "if the rules don't work for you then don't use them" has been around since the beginning of the hobby and while that attitude hasn't always been used to excuse a lack of game design or games not actually reproducing the types of narratives they claim to... a lot of the times it has been just that.

Like the uncharitable truth is that in the early days of the hobby people didn't quite know what the hell RPGs were even supposed to be doing, so you ended up with a lot of design that in retrospect was simply incoherent or didn't work as advertised. Sadly, this also affected a number of very popular games. So "you can always ignore the rules if they don't work and it's actually your fault if you don't" has long been a common sentiment in the hobby.

An important bit of historical context is that the big design movement preceding D&D 5e came right on the heels of the Forge, which was an RPG design forum that operated in the early 2000s. While the Forge was far from a perfect place it was probably one of the earliest instances of a group of RPG designers unified under the banner of "hey RPG rules should probably do what they advertise and we shouldn't give bad rules a pass just because you can ignore them." Now, D&D 5e was very much based on a rejection of the design philosophy that preceded it. Which is why it's not just the game's playerbase but the game itself that may seem hostile to the idea of "games should actually be good."

Anyway as much as I would like to be able to isolate this problem into just D&D 5e players there are pockets within non-D&D spaces that are also informed by this idea that rules are just some shit that happens at random, even in indie spaces. Even the OSR which I broadly like has elements of this idea: while a large part of the joy of OSR to me is applying a "system matters" lens to older editions of D&D and discovering an actually fun game that exists in old-school D&D despite Gary Gygax's best efforts. But there also are a lot of people within the OSR who think old-school D&D is just a rough set of vibes that's not actually reflected in the rules writing or gameplay expectations. Sad!