Discourse blog

Sideblog for posts too bitchy for my main blog

[ultra-ricoshot-archive]

"my name is salem wolfertinger and i let my racist girlfriend go on a racist tangent until somebody made it public in my comments, so i HAD to address it"

[ultra-ricoshot-archive]

a WHITE transfem[Mari/Meggiebuns on twt] who was being racist to her trans & intersex Latino partner[Sawyer] AND sexually assaulted them gets called out by her partner. Here comes Wis, another racist WHITE transfem to tell Sawyer "That didn't happen, you're the rapist, abusive groomer. " and "Even if she did rape you, you're just using this for pity and sympathy."

MEANWHILE, WHILE DOING THIS, Wis will be racist toward latinos, fucking pick apart the color of Sawyer's skin, DOXX SAWYER'S NAME TO THE PUBLIC, telling a disabled person[Sawyer] you hope their body falls apart faster, dehumanized and called Sawyer a dog repeatedly , using AntiSemitic dogwhistles like the echo...I can go on.

Sawyer has had his Sexual Assault story with Mari be ripped apart by Wis and co and has been run off(?) tumblr and twt. I will never understand anyone that defends Wis' behavior and I don't think I will, because you may as well just be as racist as her.

White woman exerting their ability to oppress marginalized people and receive sympathy in return. It's time for the White woman to call wolf on the marginalized Person of Color and they get lynched as a result. Thanks for misusing the word "Lynching" on a fucking WHITE tfem who's being called out for raping her partner, Wis. Klansfem piece of shit

[ultra-ricoshot-archive]

"Yeah, the deadnaming was not cool" - Salem Wolfertinger

But the racism, ableism, rape apology, dehumanizing etc etc from Wis to Sawyer was fine? Pedojacketing and calling Sawyer a rapist is fine, with no proof?

[heseemstobeeatingsomething]

Wis should be publicly pelted with tomatoes. Salem deserves so much better than her and he sucks almost as much as she does!

[wolfertinger]

Salem deleted it all but that whole posting the other day abt Wis saying “I’m sorry for questioning you I’ll stay your dumb bunny boy I’m sorry I’m sorry I’ll be obedient I’m sorry you had to call me a birthday boy” was so goddamn weird and I hope he leaves her ass for his own sake.

i have gotten a few anons about this. initially. i was not going to comment to it. bc it is interpersonal, and honestly, it is the hole salem dug himself.

but this is such horrific behavior. again, wis is a blatant transphobe, and if she is bad enough she is calling her boyfriend rude shit simply for disagreeing, no wonder she feels comfortable reducing other trans ppl to their genitals, claiming they cannot possibly be victims for being TME. wis apparently made him feel "hysterical" and called him a "birthday boy". something she has done to other trans men in the past, now ironically being focused on salem, because he dared to speak against her.

what the actual fuck do you say to salem, that you as his white gf are making him "know his place".

super healthy, and normal relationship.

[trans-masked]

I think focusing so much on who could possibly be crypto or saying dogwhistles is overwhelmingly harming trans bloggers for whom English isn’t their first language. I’ve seen mutuals get so much shit for saying “transman” even though they speak like three other languages! No I don’t expect them to keep up with this when English speakers change what’s correct and what’s offensive every other month

[heseemstobeeatingsomething]

you can tell when someone types it as "transmen" or "transwomen" to be dehumanizing and offensive by the dehumanizing and offensive things they say. If what they're actually saying is okay, then chances are it's not being used as a dogwhistle.

[trans-masked]

I actually made this post about a Brazilian mutual of mine on my main blog who is not involved in any discourse whatsoever posting “transmen are so gorgeous” like that was the entire post. Oh my god you would not BELIEVE the shit she got for saying trans guys are gorgeous and being 100 percent correct

[heseemstobeeatingsomething]

ah yes. People will get more mad at someone on this site for expressing a trans-positive sentiment using the "wrong" language than for expressing a transphobic sentiment using the "right" language.

[trans-masked]

I think focusing so much on who could possibly be crypto or saying dogwhistles is overwhelmingly harming trans bloggers for whom English isn’t their first language. I’ve seen mutuals get so much shit for saying “transman” even though they speak like three other languages! No I don’t expect them to keep up with this when English speakers change what’s correct and what’s offensive every other month

[heseemstobeeatingsomething]

you can tell when someone types it as "transmen" or "transwomen" to be dehumanizing and offensive by the dehumanizing and offensive things they say. If what they're actually saying is okay, then chances are it's not being used as a dogwhistle.

[furryprovocateur]

tbh it's very difficult to take any opinion on callout culture on tumblr seriously if it fails to acknowledge how it arose out of necessity

[cyberpunkpavlichenko]

The very first callout post I saw on this site was of a cis man in Florida who had abused his position as a ~cool educated anarchist~ to rape several women.

The first callout of a transfemme I didn’t see until years later and it was directed at monetizeyourcat for financially abusing and pressuring young trans women into sex.

Callout posts did have a purpose - there were indeed many people using their online persona as a means to abuse people.

[transhumanisticpanspermia]

did writing about these people on the internet provide any healing to their victims, change their behavior, or meaningfully reduce their access to new victims?

if they kept doing it, #2 and #3 are automatically answered with "no," btw.

you're fucking daft if you think any real community has benefitted from this hyperonline mean girl sherlock holmes ass horseshit.

[cyberpunkpavlichenko]

Those people actually did stop and could no longer have a public presence where they were abusing their social position online to lure in victims.

But whatever helps you sleep at night being a rape apologist.

[tigeradjacent]

Interesting use of a rather vague hypothetical there my friend do you mind expanding on that

[aromanticsky]

[ID:

Post/reblog from the transhumanisticpanspermia with the text: “Immediately looked in the replies and saw “yes thank you, it was important to expose closet racists!” What exactly is a “closet racist?” Someone who does racist things in location A and doesn’t do them in location B, you meet them in location B, and you feel icky when you find out about location A? The people in A were already handling shit and do not need, cannot use, help from location B. Your reaction is just a blend of moral and contamination compulsions.”

Skeptical character meme. /end ID]

[sparklingbog]

Please keep reporting @isuggestrape, who last night targeted several outspoken survivors discussing rape sexualization on their blogs. They've thankfully made a turn in the last few hours into engaging with actual rape kink content after it was pointed out that this was sexual harassment. Still, all those posts of them attempting to provoke survivors stay up

[lesbianchucklefucker]

@throughkaliyuga is their main blog lol this is a trans man pretending to be a trans woman to whip up transmisogyny and trigger survivors. Block and report, former url is @hauntedmoundyaoi

[sparklingbog]

THIS FUCKING GUY IS BACK AND DOING THIS?

[neovagina-penisis-evangelion]

Yo fuck this guy, what the hell dude??

[discoursedamaged]

@/throughthekaliyuga said he is not the person currently using @/isuggestrape but still defends them.

And even if he's telling the truth, that just means we have two blogs that are breaking tos because hauntedmoundyaoi was termed for harrassment. The username is also suspect, because while the kali yuga is a hinduist concept, it has been co-opted by 4chan nazis starting around the beginnings of gamergate.

and considering he doesnt deny calling medication "goyslop" when challenged on it...

yeah i think this dudes a nazi.

[defenestratez]

This GENUINELY Boils my blood. I don't care if it was a joke. This is plain out exorsexism. Nonbinary people owe you nothing. Also the "Trans women are allowed to make fun of you" just icks me out especially with how much exorsexism & Transandrophobia is on the rise (I do not mean transfems are the only ones or I don't mean they do it the most either). No one is allowed to make of you. Period 🫩 being trans doesn't excuse this.

I'm not surprised they are dehumanizing and demeaning anyone that is calling them out on their bullshit. You being transfem doesn't give you the right to bully others. Reeks of exorsexism and transandrophobia in general 🫩 what I find funny is this person doesn't realize transfem includes nonbinary identites. During pride month is actually insane. Fucking pissed me offff

[d0ubl32tr0ubl3]

She wants to be Regina George so bad and it’s just not happening.

[transmisandrysucks]

"Accept my new binary or you don't actually think trans women are oppressed."

[rambling-rosee]

We don’t call white people racism-exempt and people of color racism-affected.

We don’t call cis women misogyny-affected and cis men misogyny-exempt.

You can just say trans women, and anyone with a brain will know that trans women are inherently affected by transmisogyny???

[senhor-do-escuro]

Exactly. That's why this whole "TMA/TME" is just pure bullshit.

It's just losers wanting to use oppression as some kind of "badge of hornor" or just an excuse so they can be transphobic and nasty to other trans people while pretending they are "punching up".

Anywya. Anyone who uses "TMA/TME" is automatically a loser transphobe.

[neovagina-penisis-evangelion]

Call me crazy but the desire to normalize any and all paraphilias (incest, zoo, pedos) and try argue about what qualifies as rape feels like such a colonizer mindset.

A desire to exert sexual dominance over anything you want. A form of sexual entitlement to have unrestricted access to anything and everything to gratify your desires.

I thought this was something talked about when we were discussing rape culture years ago. It's a selfish desire to exert sexual power over children, animals, other adults, and even in some cases, the dead.

[neovagina-penisis-evangelion]

Back in the day conservatives used to say gay marriage was a slippery slope that would erode the boundaries of society and "What's next? People marrying children and animals?"

And I can't remember the full rebuttal someone quite correctly gave to that statement, which went something like:

"This betrays the fact that these people don't see marriage as a union between two consenting adults but a contract between a person and their sex object."

[the-darla-creechur]

btw this is what the author of whipping girl had to say about transphobia against trans mascs when elaborating

[ source ]

[balconeko]

so this whole time, julia serano has been in support of transmascs and other nonbinary people having their own language to describe their unique experience of oppression? thats so based of her

[mercurial-tboy]

I wouldn't go that far - in all honesty the quote above is the barest minimum walking back of some of the damage done by her comments about trans men and nonbinary people in Whipping Girl. In the book (both the original and revised editions) she minimises nonbinary identity and views it as a stepping stone identity towards binary transness. She also wrote that nonbinary people have a true "subconscious sex" p.27 (2007) that they are only partially expressing (her words). She also believes in "binary phobia" from nonbinary people towards binary trans people, which is particularly inflammatory.

Wrt trans men and transmasculine people specifically, she spends half the book (rightly) railing against oppositional sexism, but then engages in it freely when it comes to trans men. Whatever trans women face, trans men do not, in the way it is framed in the book. E.g. She makes the claim that trans men are freely let into lesbian spaces, but trans women are not. She frames it as though this is the fault of the trans men, rather than the cis lesbians who hold the actual power in this scenario. It also ignores that trans men aren't necessarily "let into" lesbian spaces, but are sometimes included against their will (i.e. they are misgendered based on their presumed agab). There's many other parts of the book which insinuate trans men have it easier in all regards and that has been hugely damaging for the transmasculine community, as it's misinformation. Serano did not need to bring up trans men or transmasculine people at all in many parts of the book, but does so to bolster her argument that trans women have it worse in every single respect. This is plainly not an accurate reflection of the relative positions of trans women and trans men in society.

She's walked back some of these points but the fact is, the fact these were included at all has done damage to nonbinary people and trans men/mascs. We now have to spend time debunking myths perpetuated by the book and fight our own invisibility and erasure.

She was not supportive "this whole time" and her original positions are not "based". Her positions now are better, but damage was done and the impact imo hasn't been adequately addressed by her.

I dislike this revisionism of Serano as someone who was simply misinterpreted by people who didn't read the book - as her own writing shows that if you did read the book, that's where people are getting a lot of these wrong ideas about trans men/mascs and nonbinary people from. Serano didn't originate these wrong ideas, but they have been popularised, in part, by her work.

She has many salient things to say about transmisogyny. But that positive contribution sits alongside this impact on trans men/mascs and nonbinary people. We have to talk about both, refrain from revisionism and examine her work without fear or favour.

- Whipping Girl (2007) p. 90 - it's worth saying that while poor attitudes exist in every community, Serano's words here imply that "binary-phobia" is widespread enough within the nonbinary community to warrant this term being coined. She has made other exorsexist comments earlier in the book. I'm a binary trans man and I too have encountered such attitudes before - however, it isn't nearly as generalised or widespread as she makes it out to be. Furthermore, by calling it "binary-phobia" it implies that nonbinary people have the power, collectively, to enact this proposed type of bigotry. I.e. it reframes uncommon lateral aggression as a top-down oppression.

[balconeko]

i see, thats my bad. thank you for more context, i wasnt familiar with how the book talked about other things, my only impression of it was mostly people praising it online.

[tornad001]

i think that's a blatant misreading of the quote u yourself posted. i don't think calling it "gender anxiety (binary-phobia?)" "implies NB people have the power". the quote neither says nor implies quite literally anything about the prevalence or relative harm of this attitude or trend, merely that it exists, and serves as a counterpoint.

also, you really don't have to venture very far into nonbinary community spaces before you find people unironically expressing a certain uncomfortability with the concept of binary gender which binary trans people, at least in a certain sense, affirm. and because of how in-group bias and community spaces work, within the nonbinary communities we're discussing, nonbinary people actually do have power. thats the entire reason people build niche communities around identity, to strengthen the relative power of the group. if you can't have power societally, you can create a concentrated-enough group that within that group's space, they have power.

i've noticed this trend a lot on tumblr where ppl will use quotes from a given queer author under discussion. they'll give these quotes along with rambles about how problematic or harmful the queer author has been because of the *checks notes* largely niche ideas they espoused. except there's a problem, because the quotes the poster is using don't actually show the bad idea they think it does, and even if it did, the most that could fairly be said about it is that its a fine idea that captures phenomena which actually exist, but maybe they overstate the case or don't give the required 27 caveats about where this idea breaks down or isn't useful.

but, quite frankly, it's not always the job of authors and academics to do the heavy lifting of explicating the limits of their ideas. sometimes ideas have to form, be discussed, and change over time in order to discover their useful limits. if you read a book about transmisogyny and theres a some throwaway lines that point out phenomena which do exist (like NB people who are a little weird about binary trans identities) but maybe aren't the biggest deal in the world, and you read into it that the author thinks this is a big deal, thats you projecting, not the author imbuing secret bigoted meaning into their work. can i believe that a non-academic book on transmisogyny from 2007 has, at worst, a warped perception of the relative severities of different problems in the queer community? yeah absolutely, but, and i cannot put too fine a point on this, who cares? if ur approaching almost 2 decade old works on any subject, you're gonna have to give the author a little grace to be misinformed with the at the time best available information, or to think some issues that turn out to be nothing-burgers would end up being a bigger deal than they were, or vice versa. thats just the nature of the dialectic having progressed over 20 years. which is maybe actually a good thing when u think about it. but it doesn't make the ideas the author is playing with worthless or harmful.

[neovagina-penisis-evangelion]

Call me crazy but the desire to normalize any and all paraphilias (incest, zoo, pedos) and try argue about what qualifies as rape feels like such a colonizer mindset.

A desire to exert sexual dominance over anything you want. A form of sexual entitlement to have unrestricted access to anything and everything to gratify your desires.

I thought this was something talked about when we were discussing rape culture years ago. It's a selfish desire to exert sexual power over children, animals, other adults, and even in some cases, the dead.

[annieguardian]

The fact that someone can claim that it's wrong to "argue what qualifies as rape" before disparaging " a desire to assert sexual dominance" as if stating that "rape is whatever I feel it is and you aren't allowed to disagree" isn't a rapist's get out of jail free card isn't so much as a red flag as it is a series of flags dripping in blood. Reminder, people who knowingly and willingly falsely accuse others of rape, are often the same people that are not above raping others.

[neovagina-penisis-evangelion]

This rebuttal is not engaging with the substance of the original post, its a rhetorical pivot that shifts the focus from perpetrators' actions to accusers' motivations.

The rebuttal argues that refusing to debate the definition of rape is more dangerous than debating it.

If one person gets to unilaterally decide what rape means without debate, the rebuttal argues that this gives accusers a "get out of jail free card" to destroy anyone's life based on a personal feeling, rather than a provable legal standard which flips the power dynamic. This rebuttal flips this to talk about accusatorial entitlement by suggesting that the true danger is a person who feels entitled to label any encounter they regret as "rape," regardless of the other person's intent or the facts.

Its an ad hominem. By saying "false accusers are often the same people that are not above raping others" is a psychological projection claim. It suggests that if someone is willing to weaponize the term, they are morally equivalent to a rapist.

My post does not say "rape is whatever I feel it is." My post is advocating for a clear, hard line against non-consent, not for subjective, arbitrary accusations. The rebuttal completely misrepresents my point.

My post is about normalizing dangerous paraphilias. The respone ignores this entirely and makes the conversation about false accusations. While false accusations are a serious legal issue, they are statistically rare compared to actual rapes, and bringing them up in a discussion about incest/bestiality is a diversion tactic, not a counter-argument.

The rebuttal ignores that rape laws already have objective standards (lack of affirmative consent, incapacitation, age of consent) that do not rely on anyone's "feelings."

The one valid concern the rebuttal hints at is that due process requires a clear, objective definition. In a court of law, we must debate intent, context, and consent to ensure innocent people aren't convicted.

However, my post wasn't talking about courtroom due process my post was talking about cultural normalization, such as the kind that happens on podcasts and social media.

The rebuttal is a classic "What about the accuser?" deflection. It takes the origina fear of perpetrator dominance and reframes it as a fear of unchecked accuser dominance. It succeeds in changing the topic but fails to address the original concern which is that society is actively trying to blur the lines around what constitutes sexual violence against the most vulnerable.

[neovagina-penisis-evangelion]

Love that we get to debate conservative talking points but woke now.

Also interesting thing to focus on as a reply but you know, hit dogs holler.

[heseemstobeeatingsomething]

"Rape shouldn't be normalized"

"Only a rapist would say that"

???

[neovagina-penisis-evangelion]

This constant defensiveness around possible accusations of rape and arguing what "rape" actually is seems suspect.

I'm not religious but the verse,

"The wicked flee when no man pursueth"

Goes hard.

[paradoxspaceheater]

the thing about misogyny is that femininity is both devalued AND forced on women (and those misgendered as women). if you fail to meet the arbitrary standard of Womanly Charm you're ugly and unwanted and hate yourself and if you succeed you're shallow and brainless and weak. if you don't try to conform you're lazy and if you do you're vain. it is not possible to beat this system. feminism needs both "feminine doesn't mean weak or less-than" AND "women don't have to be feminine to have value", and if you are fighting for one of these the people fighting for the other are not your enemies, nor are they privileged over you.

this post is inclusive of trans people, including but not limited to trans women and transfeminine people. exclusionary sentiment is not welcome.

[intersexelphie]

I want to boost everything this person has said and add on.

The reason I call myself a tomboy now, despite it being seen as a childish word and having had someone swear at me over it because ‘tHeRe’S nO suCh thInG as BoY thInGs anD giRL thIngS sHut uP’ is because I couldn’t call myself that or be like that when I was a kid. It was seen as a negative thing and I was already bullied enough. “Looking like a boy” was the worst thing that could happen to a girl.

And I’m not even 26 yet. We aren’t talking 30+ years ago, we are talking 2000s and even 2010s. It’s only since trans people have become more accepted in the past few years that gender nonconformity has too.

And the people who helped me accept my gender nonconformity more than anyone else? Were trans people. They taught me, “there’s nothing wrong with how you feel. You’re still a valid woman no matter what you wear, how you have your hair or what you’re into ❤️”

And don’t even get me started on how people treat gender nonconforming men. JK Rowling has a lot of nerve to be like “uwu boys can wear dresses and only us gendercrits accept that!” when she has, even in recent works, made femininity in men a negative trait, as well as making masculinity in women a negative trait also.

A lot of people still don’t accept gnc people even now. Just last year I had someone tell me they’d never let their daughter “dress like a boy”, and I’m always terrified to walk into a bathroom in case the next JK Rowling is in there, sees my gender expression and pepper sprays me or worse.

“There’s no such thing as boy things and girl things.” I don’t need to be told that and I’m sure 99% of trans people also don’t need to be told that. Tell that to the society that hates us both instead of actively encouraging that hate.

[androgynealienfemme]

Gonna point out the og tweet thread is now full of terfs saying that life was better for gay people in the fucking 80s, that it was super easy for them to be a tomboy in the 70s and 80s and therefore it must have been that way for everyone, and that it was totally acceptable to be a gnc gay person in the 80s! 🤪

They’re rewriting history as we speak to try to argue trans acceptance is making it harder to be gay and gnc for youth than it was to be gay in the 80s. This is a blatant lie.

[trans-mask-left]

The fucking 80s??? As in, “aids crisis” 80s?? As in, “the government actively avoided funding research to help gay people” 80s????

Man I knew terfism was brain rot but I didn’t think it was this bad.

[socialistexan]

Actually I'm not going to just keep this in the tags

[andonlyafoolwouldsaythat]

The thing is, there are actual issues that "Dump Your Puppygirl" is attempting to address. Like weaponized helplessness, feminization of labor, and caregiver burnout are all very real things. But they intersect with dysphoria, disability, etc in such a way that if you're going to write about them all in the same essay, you have to do it with delicacy, precision, and compassion. And unfortunately, Tara Knight is too poor a writer, too imprecise a thinker, and too much of an asshole to successfully pull it off.

[a-polite-melody]

Something I keep thinking about.

The whole truism that TRFs keep repeating that “masculinity is always rewarded.”

If that were true, would it not be the case that the least passingist trans woman would be the safest and most beloved? And yet those women are the most ostracized by their own communities and are not made any safer by it.

And like. These same people do talk about how anything at all clockable as masculine on them while presenting as a woman is dangerous. You do get how that doesn’t fit with “masculinity is always rewarded” right?

It’s strange, and inconsistent. Which is common for things said as a way to shut down other minorities.

[gremlinz-yapz]

"sex should be less stigmatized and talked about more" and "you should always make sure people who dont want to consume sexual media that you present dont have to see it" are two statements that can and should coexist. by the way.

[mieczyhale]