bye

I'm fucking done with tumblr bullshit so for my own mental health I'm abandoning this blog.

[lesbianpeachs]

We talk a lot in my job about impact versus intent. You didn't mean for your post to sound as through it were throwing trans women under the bus, but it did, to multiple people. That's the impact it had. Which honestly, okay, that's a point where you need to re-read your writing and apologize and make clarifying statements without guilt tripping people who disagree with you. When you threaten to delete your blog or set up a dichotomy of "everyone who disagrees is wrong and 1/2

2/3 abuser, then you're making a space where anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. This is something you've spoken out against in other scenarios and I think it's important to recognize when you're doing it too, because it makes your blog an unsafe space for trans women to state how they feel about your writing. I'm writing this on anon specifically because I don't feel safe giving you my url when you're comparing everyone who disagrees with you to your abusers.

3/3 So please just...take some time to think critically about how you responded to this and why people are so upset. And then take some time to think if you've ever admitted to being wrong gracefully, or accepted that you've made mistakes and moved on with your life. And if you honestly feel that the answer is no, that you're never wrong and never post things that can be misconstrued, and instead the entire internet is against you, then maybe think about why that's fucked up.

here’s the thing; I did make clarifying statements. multiple times. which were ignored or, worse, mistranslated again. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I regularly hold discussions with people on here over topics we disagree on.my issue isn’t someone “disagreeing with me,” it’s when people tell me I said something I fucking didn’t say. And when I can pull pieces of my original post to show where their “interpretations” are blatantly false, it’s not a matter of poor wording. It’s a matter of willfully looking for a message that isn’t there to have a reason to discredit the post.It’s happened time and again when I’ve tried to discuss the very same thing (the certain kinds of people who specifically target trans men and masc people using radical feminism,) and without fail, people start insisting  I somehow said trans women aren’t the main targets of radfem ideology or that trans men are more oppressed; something which I have never believed, do not support, have made clarifying statements about, and specifically written things as to not imply it. And still people look for that intent anyway, or insist upon it, because somehow talking only about trans men/masc people’s experiences (from a personal pov I might add) is offensive I guess.People being hurt over not understanding what I meant to say is not a problem. People demanding that I had ill intent or that my words meant something other than what I say they did is the problem, and is the same abusive treatment my mother regularly inflicts on me. But no one came to me and said “I didn’t like x thing you said here,” they said “I didn’t understand it and I think you’re saying [insert thing here I didn’t say and clarified I didn’t say.]” And there is a goddamn difference.And for the record, you’re one of the only people that I think addressed anything that happened with any amount of respect. I don’t feel bad for telling others their reactions are wrong, when they are wrong. I don’t mind being wrong about something or being told I need to do it differently. But no one told me what I did wrong. They told me what they interpreted with no explanation as to how, and ignored my clarifications and even entire segments of the original post to reach their conclusion. So yes, feel bad if you did that. It drove me to the edge of a breakdown.And it’s not guilt tripping because it was, frankly, cruel behavior towards someone who who very evidently had no poor intent, to the point that when I blocked someone to preserve my own mental health they dug through my blog and screenshotted it for a fucking callout post.So with that, I am stating my retirement from this blog. This website is so goddamn toxic and fucked up, and I should not be driven to anxiety and mental health breakdowns over such simple shit as poor wording (if that even was the problem,) on a post I made with no sleep. I’m absolutely done. That’s not an environment that can support social activism.If anyone who likes this blog or the things I have to say wants to keep in touch, y’all can follow my twitter or my fandom blogs. I’m done being involved with opinion sharing to such a large audience. It’s not healthy.

[lesbianpeachs]

Anyway I'm going to take a fucking break before I honestly go to very dark place mentally. Bye.

[lesbianpeachs]

Honestly I'm really mad bc this isn't the first time this has happened. I'm really pissed that its everyone's default to read "trans men are more oppressed than trans women!!" when I talk about certain people abusing trans men.

People need to be able to talk about their own experiences without y'all projecting what you want to read into what they have said. Its fucking gross and tired and no matter how I manage to word things or clarify after, y'all continue to do it and insist you know the "true meaning" of what was said better than anyone else.

Trans men and masc nbs don't have to face "more oppression" to deserve some attention for the people specifically targeting them. And yes, some people specifically target just trans men/masc nbs. We are allowed to talk about this.

[lesbianpeachs]

there’s this whole subsection of cis (and sometimes fem aligned nb) feminist we need a fucking term for, because they’re a step below TERFs in that they don’t preoccupy themselves with attacking trans women and act like they’re accepting of nonbinary people (to an extent,) but they’re still hugely dangerous because they aren’t overly critical of the feminist rhetoric they consume and support, leading to the spread of heavily radfem concepts that actively ends up with them harming trans people (trans men and non fem aligned nonbinary folks mostly,) and a good deal of them are also SWERFy or “kink critical” and a whole myriad of other gross things, and the only real separation between them and TERFs is they’ll probably have “no TERFs allowed” in their descs and accept trans women so they can use them as pawns in their arguments. But the danger of them is very real and they are literally the gateway to TERF acceptance, as much as they get angry at you for saying so. We need to be equally as able to point out this danger and their bullshit, because so far saying “you’re being transphobic” is getting us nowhere because they respond “only to men who are our oppressors we love trans women uwu” and get away with it.

[grandmaestheticc-deactivated201]

i’m not sure i follow, do you know any examples of this?

[lesbianpeachs]

a) claiming trans men have as much power as cis men and thus are the oppressors of cis women b) claiming association with masculinity or being male in any way at all doesn’t allow you to be a “real” woman so multigender and fluid people can never be wlw, no matter how much they are women/fem aligned c) literally reblogging radfem posts without criticism and thinking they’re good feminists because they reblog a post supporting trans women once in a while or have “no TERFs” in their descs d) as recently happened to me, said “just because I don’t disagree with all TERF points doesn’t make me a TERF,” and pretends to support trans women e) defends TERFs and radfems from rejection because “they are women/lesbians and rejecting them is misogyny.” these are just the first few most common ones that came to mind, not even covering SWERF, kink-critical, biphobic, and etc. behaviors that often come from the same people.

[nimi0us]

Tbh I don’t disagree with anything here except point 1 - trans men/masculine folk are still perfectly capable of being misogynistic/misogynoiristic & using misogyny/misogynoir to abuse & exploit women/femmes. Being a trans man doesn’t completely eliminate those power dynamics, especially when race+class is accounted for. It’s literally dangerous to act like it does considering the number of trans men & trans masculine folk who have used that position in social justice circles to gain social capital & abuse women in the past.

Like…having less power to be overtly misogynistic/misogynoiristic due to transphobia doesn’t mean they can’t be misogynistic/misogynoiristic at all to cis women or femmes & further those same power structures.

[lesbianpeachs]

Literally didn't say anything about trans men's ability to be misogynistic. Nonbinary people who are unaligned can be misogynistic too. And so can actual women.

The difference between all them and cis men? Cis men are misogynistic from a place of power. Everyone else is not. Shockingly, the ability to be discriminatory doesn't always denote a place of privilege (unless you believe biphobic gay folks are privileged over bisexuals, etc.)

[lesbianpeachs]

I used to follow someone who was literally like that subsection you described. Accepting of trans women and advocated that trans women and women and trans men are men but she would also be really horrid about trans men and nb people and claim you were speaking over women if you argued with her about it. I never felt ashamed about being a trans man before but she made me feel deeply ashamed about it and I'm still struggling with the self loathing.

Yeah see that's the kind of person I've been repeatedly running into. And my whole point is talking about how they bash trans men and masc people primarily, but apparently if I don't also center the conversation around the fact that their view of gender and support of radfem concepts is going to circle around to hurt trans women too, I'm apparently transmisogynist. Because fuck us for talking about people who specifically threaten us I guess

[brandirecognition]

just finished odyssey and I love all of Peach’s outfits

[lesbianpeachs]

in the end it’s probably more damaging for me to have a personal blog with so many followers, I might just scrap this blog and only allow followers I personally trust bc tbh this blog is more about my ability to voice thoughts and interact with friends, but everyone wants discourse which isn’t healthy for me. so it’s either that or just shut up altogether about my opinions because I’ll never be able to write them perfectly enough to dodge mistranslation and I have anxiety about that enough as it is.

[lesbianpeachs]

clitcheese replied to your post “there’s this whole subsection of cis (and sometimes fem aligned nb)...”

u still blocked anarchotransfem for being concerned that you're post could be transmisogynistic and jumped right to assuming they were hostile and "twisting your words" when they asked you to clarify

I tried to explain and they literally twisted my explanation, so I blocked for my own mental health because that type of “discussion” is exactly a mimic of the abuse from my mother, but yes let’s jump right on board the exclusionist rhetoric train of “everyone is entitled to discourse and blocking someone makes me bad.” literally fuck off. you’re determined to read things that aren’t there, you want me to have bad intentions, and you are insisting on me doing things exactly your way or else I’m proven evil. this is my blog, my word goes on what my intentions and meanings are because you don’t know them and I do, and NO ONE is entitled to damage my mental health just because they didn’t understand me.

[lesbianpeachs]

there’s this whole subsection of cis (and sometimes fem aligned nb) feminist we need a fucking term for, because they’re a step below TERFs in that they don’t preoccupy themselves with attacking trans women and act like they’re accepting of nonbinary people (to an extent,) but they’re still hugely dangerous because they aren’t overly critical of the feminist rhetoric they consume and support, leading to the spread of heavily radfem concepts that actively ends up with them harming trans people (trans men and non fem aligned nonbinary folks mostly,) and a good deal of them are also SWERFy or “kink critical” and a whole myriad of other gross things, and the only real separation between them and TERFs is they’ll probably have “no TERFs allowed” in their descs and accept trans women so they can use them as pawns in their arguments. But the danger of them is very real and they are literally the gateway to TERF acceptance, as much as they get angry at you for saying so. We need to be equally as able to point out this danger and their bullshit, because so far saying “you’re being transphobic” is getting us nowhere because they respond “only to men who are our oppressors we love trans women uwu” and get away with it.

[balisongbutch]

Forgive me if I’m misreading this but why would radfem ideology primarily hurt trans men and why would transfem nb people be perpetrating it

[kameratar]

Hey gaypeachs, I respect you and think you say some good shit and what not… But I have to say, this might be one of your iffiest posts?

Sometimes it feels like you’re talking about trans women, and like you just edited to cis woman last moment, and with the addition of fem nb, I’ve got to say that this post just looks very explicit in this sense.

I’m having a hard time reading it, due to it being a wall of text, so I might be misunderstanding this… But it sounds like you are trying to place trans men at the bottom here, and like they’ve been put there by non-men?

“leading to the spread of heavily radfem concepts that actively ends up with them harming trans people (trans men and non fem aligned nonbinary folks mostly,” this is also a bit of a confusing section..?

But either way, what cis woman is more accepting of trans women than trans men to a point where it has become such a huge problem that we’ve got almost terfs 2.1?

Am I missing something?

[clitcheese]

i’m also struggling with this post. i’m sure this is about those types that have “terfs don’t follow” in their bios and are pretty sure they’re fighting for trans women but end up consuming terf rhetoric anyway (especially if it’s rhetoric aimed at specifically nonbinary people and less obviously trans women, like ‘mogai gender’ shit) so i think i got the basics.

but  i’m really struggling to follow this mainly because you’re sorting nonbinary people into “equivalent to trans men” and “equivalent to cis women” which aren’t really categories that have any use, aren’t categories that i see nb people applying to themselves and don’t have actual real world implications. and you’ve made a post that looks like a big question mark to anyone applying this dynamic to camab or non-TME nbs

[lesbianpeachs]

my point to writing it that way is that is how these people are treating nbs (as basically men or basically women, and that anyone non woman/fem aligned is basically men to them.) sorry if that wasn’t clear

[balisongbutch]

So “basically women” enbys are equivalent to cis women in perpetuating this type of transphobia primarily against trans men and “basically men” enbys?

[bitter-bitchbites]

wow you’re so good at twisting words.

they didn’t say that. they didn’t say that fem aligned enbies are basically women, or that we’re attacking anyone. they said that those terfs (cuz im going to call these cis feminists terfs like i always did) are the ones imposing their bs binary on us all and attacking anyone they don’t see fitting their vision of women, cuz they don’t actually believe we enbies exist, and that means trans men and masc aligned men. and that means gatekeeping the sapphic community from anyone who so much id as masc, like genderfluid ppl, for example, or agender ppl who use he/his.

recent example of this: that one enby person who im not gonna name who was accused of lesbophobia and reduced to “basically a man” by cis shithead fake feminists, so they could bash them as they would do a cis man, which is fucking gross, but super convenient cus no one is gonna try to debunk accusations of lesbophobia thrown at a man. basically, misgendering so they can attribute nonexistent man privilege to ppl who don’t actually have it, but could pass as having it to shitty ppl, aka trans men and masc aligned enbies.

they’re not saying anywhere that we fem enbies are perpetuating that shit. they’re implying, rightfully imo, that we’re being misgendered to “basically women” because that’s the only way those new waves terfs will respect us, by treating us like misguided ppl who should just say we’re females or some shit. like. fake tolerance of trans ppl because they can still assimilate us in spite of everything.

[clitcheese]

I get the premise. except this post is nearly confusing than the OPs.

“cuz they don’t actually believe we enbies exist, and that means trans men and masc aligned men.” “nonexistent man privilege to ppl who don’t actually have it, but could pass as having it to shitty ppl, aka trans men”. these quotes read like something from an alternate universe. they’re fucking incomprehensible. you’ve called all trans men nonbinary. you’ve said “man aligned men” whatever that is, aren’t men. I get that you’re talking about misgendering NBs to suite cis feminists needs but, you’ve kind of misgendered every trans man who isn’t also nonbinary.

but reading around that. i do really appreciate your last paragraph in pointing out how it affects transfems, and it does make sense of the OPs sentiment for me. I still think u’ve got to use something other than TERF to mean “cis feminists and NBs who engage in tactical misgendering” though if they aren’t transmisoginistic. can i suggest ‘binarist’ or something. though i think this does fit under exorsexism already

[lesbianpeachs]

that’s…..actually all I was trying to say. that we need a term other than “TERF” for these people. and “binarist” is specific to binary enforcement on Native people, so that term actually does not work. but I was informed there are existing terms for this that I’m now looking into.

[clitcheese]

yeah cool. i’m glad we agree. please next time think about the implications you could be implying about trans women and transfem nbs, or get ask to bounce your ideas off of us first on posts like this. because “there’s a new kind of terf who love transfems but hate trans mascs” is kind of gross in the context of how actual terfs and truscum operate, by minimising transmisogyny and trying to say “””only bio females could ever be oppressed””“. you know like the old “transmisandry” rhetoric. and not assuming hostility on our part too would be great.

[lesbianpeachs]

a) that's NOT what I said at all and it takes the specific twisting of what I did say to get that implication, which explains the whole problem here. you really did not understand what I wrote and probably still don't, the point being that there are people who target trans men/masc people and fake being supportive of trans women and at the same time to keep from being called TERFs, while they share the exact same transphobic sentiments as real TERFs; though it's hard to call them TERFs because they aren't spending all their time attacking trans women, even though their behavior is just as dangerous to them. But somehow focusing on the fact that some of these people spend their time attacking trans men/masc people implies trans women aren't the primary targets of TERFs or that these people are TERFs 2.0? yeah sure, whatever. you want me to bounce my posts to see if they meet your understanding, but don't wanna bounce your responses to make sure you understood the post correctly or are making bad assumptions. I get it. I mean CLEARLY I was talking about “new TERFs who love trans women” when I talked about them uncritically reblogging from radfems and only “accepting” trans women to use them as pawns. Obviously them saying “we love trans women uwu” was not a sarcastic representation of their excuses and saying “they support and are gateways to actual self identifying TERFs” means they REALLY support trans women and ONLY target trans men! I should have watched what I said more closely so I didn’t actually imply these people support trans women, which those things definitely implied! /s It’s actually really bothering me that you so badly misread this and upon clarification, still continue to act like your mistranslation is my fault. b) this is literally my personal blog, not a discourse blog, these posts ARE me bouncing ideas and it's about me processing my thoughts more than readers benefit. c) where did I call you aggressive? tho I would challenge you to not feel like people are being aggressive when they keep saying you said things you never did.

[lesbianpeachs]

there’s this whole subsection of cis (and sometimes fem aligned nb) feminist we need a fucking term for, because they’re a step below TERFs in that they don’t preoccupy themselves with attacking trans women and act like they’re accepting of nonbinary people (to an extent,) but they’re still hugely dangerous because they aren’t overly critical of the feminist rhetoric they consume and support, leading to the spread of heavily radfem concepts that actively ends up with them harming trans people (trans men and non fem aligned nonbinary folks mostly,) and a good deal of them are also SWERFy or “kink critical” and a whole myriad of other gross things, and the only real separation between them and TERFs is they’ll probably have “no TERFs allowed” in their descs and accept trans women so they can use them as pawns in their arguments. But the danger of them is very real and they are literally the gateway to TERF acceptance, as much as they get angry at you for saying so. We need to be equally as able to point out this danger and their bullshit, because so far saying “you’re being transphobic” is getting us nowhere because they respond “only to men who are our oppressors we love trans women uwu” and get away with it.

[balisongbutch]

Forgive me if I’m misreading this but why would radfem ideology primarily hurt trans men and why would transfem nb people be perpetrating it

[lesbianpeachs]

because, as I said, it’s this subsection of feminist who acts like they accept trans women, but then use radfem rhetoric to justify attacking trans men and non fem aligned nbs. that’s why there is lack of terminology. if they were as quick to admit throwing trans women under the bus, they would be straight up radfems. but instead they utilize radfem concepts to their own benefit, only engaging in transphobia when they can warp the concept of feminism to suit it while dodging TERF accusations because they reblog a post once in a while that supports trans women.

[lesbianpeachs]

and here, I think, is the root of the misinterpretation. I misread this comment here - which was firstly twisting what I said - and responded to what I thought it said rather than what it did. nowhere did I claim trans men were "primarily" being hurt by radfem ideology, but that this particular subsection of radfem is picking trans men/masc nbs to target in particular instances. that says nothing of radfem ideology as whole and is talking about specific radfems. tbh what you implied is kind of a reach unless that's what you're looking for this to say, unless you somehow think that no one else can be the primary target of specific people even if they aren't the rhetoric itself's main target. also nowhere did I talk about transfem nb people, I made a mention of /sometimes/ fem aligned nbs joining cis women in this, referencing the ones who classify themselves as "basically women" just like the cis women do (as I have been informed are called "gender reductionists.") if you have a problem with the idea that some nb people can be transphobic to other trans/nb people, you need to get over it because it happens and has been to me all week.

[lesbianpeachs]

I keep rereading my post to try and see what these other people are seeing but I just can’t. maybe I’m too tired, or I just already know what I mean so I don’t get not understanding it, but I need to go to fucking bed bc this is gonna get nowhere. do me a favor and actually read the other responses I made on it before you attack it again.

[lesbianpeachs]

there’s this whole subsection of cis (and sometimes fem aligned nb) feminist we need a fucking term for, because they’re a step below TERFs in that they don’t preoccupy themselves with attacking trans women and act like they’re accepting of nonbinary people (to an extent,) but they’re still hugely dangerous because they aren’t overly critical of the feminist rhetoric they consume and support, leading to the spread of heavily radfem concepts that actively ends up with them harming trans people (trans men and non fem aligned nonbinary folks mostly,) and a good deal of them are also SWERFy or “kink critical” and a whole myriad of other gross things, and the only real separation between them and TERFs is they’ll probably have “no TERFs allowed” in their descs and accept trans women so they can use them as pawns in their arguments. But the danger of them is very real and they are literally the gateway to TERF acceptance, as much as they get angry at you for saying so. We need to be equally as able to point out this danger and their bullshit, because so far saying “you’re being transphobic” is getting us nowhere because they respond “only to men who are our oppressors we love trans women uwu” and get away with it.

[balisongbutch]

Forgive me if I’m misreading this but why would radfem ideology primarily hurt trans men and why would transfem nb people be perpetrating it

[kameratar]

Hey gaypeachs, I respect you and think you say some good shit and what not… But I have to say, this might be one of your iffiest posts?

Sometimes it feels like you’re talking about trans women, and like you just edited to cis woman last moment, and with the addition of fem nb, I’ve got to say that this post just looks very explicit in this sense.

I’m having a hard time reading it, due to it being a wall of text, so I might be misunderstanding this… But it sounds like you are trying to place trans men at the bottom here, and like they’ve been put there by non-men?

“leading to the spread of heavily radfem concepts that actively ends up with them harming trans people (trans men and non fem aligned nonbinary folks mostly,” this is also a bit of a confusing section..?

But either way, what cis woman is more accepting of trans women than trans men to a point where it has become such a huge problem that we’ve got almost terfs 2.1?

Am I missing something?

[clitcheese]

i’m also struggling with this post. i’m sure this is about those types that have “terfs don’t follow” in their bios and are pretty sure they’re fighting for trans women but end up consuming terf rhetoric anyway (especially if it’s rhetoric aimed at specifically nonbinary people and less obviously trans women, like ‘mogai gender’ shit) so i think i got the basics.

but  i’m really struggling to follow this mainly because you’re sorting nonbinary people into “equivalent to trans men” and “equivalent to cis women” which aren’t really categories that have any use, aren’t categories that i see nb people applying to themselves and don’t have actual real world implications. and you’ve made a post that looks like a big question mark to anyone applying this dynamic to camab or non-TME nbs

[lesbianpeachs]

my point to writing it that way is that is how these people are treating nbs (as basically men or basically women, and that anyone non woman/fem aligned is basically men to them.) sorry if that wasn’t clear

[balisongbutch]

So “basically women” enbys are equivalent to cis women in perpetuating this type of transphobia primarily against trans men and “basically men” enbys?

[bitter-bitchbites]

wow you’re so good at twisting words.

they didn’t say that. they didn’t say that fem aligned enbies are basically women, or that we’re attacking anyone. they said that those terfs (cuz im going to call these cis feminists terfs like i always did) are the ones imposing their bs binary on us all and attacking anyone they don’t see fitting their vision of women, cuz they don’t actually believe we enbies exist, and that means trans men and masc aligned men. and that means gatekeeping the sapphic community from anyone who so much id as masc, like genderfluid ppl, for example, or agender ppl who use he/his.

recent example of this: that one enby person who im not gonna name who was accused of lesbophobia and reduced to “basically a man” by cis shithead fake feminists, so they could bash them as they would do a cis man, which is fucking gross, but super convenient cus no one is gonna try to debunk accusations of lesbophobia thrown at a man. basically, misgendering so they can attribute nonexistent man privilege to ppl who don’t actually have it, but could pass as having it to shitty ppl, aka trans men and masc aligned enbies.

they’re not saying anywhere that we fem enbies are perpetuating that shit. they’re implying, rightfully imo, that we’re being misgendered to “basically women” because that’s the only way those new waves terfs will respect us, by treating us like misguided ppl who should just say we’re females or some shit. like. fake tolerance of trans ppl because they can still assimilate us in spite of everything.

[clitcheese]

I get the premise. except this post is nearly confusing than the OPs.

“cuz they don’t actually believe we enbies exist, and that means trans men and masc aligned men.” “nonexistent man privilege to ppl who don’t actually have it, but could pass as having it to shitty ppl, aka trans men”. these quotes read like something from an alternate universe. they’re fucking incomprehensible. you’ve called all trans men nonbinary. you’ve said “man aligned men” whatever that is, aren’t men. I get that you’re talking about misgendering NBs to suite cis feminists needs but, you’ve kind of misgendered every trans man who isn’t also nonbinary.

but reading around that. i do really appreciate your last paragraph in pointing out how it affects transfems, and it does make sense of the OPs sentiment for me. I still think u’ve got to use something other than TERF to mean “cis feminists and NBs who engage in tactical misgendering” though if they aren’t transmisoginistic. can i suggest ‘binarist’ or something. though i think this does fit under exorsexism already

[lesbianpeachs]

that's.....actually all I was trying to say. that we need a term other than "TERF" for these people. and "binarist" is specific to binary enforcement on Native people, so that term actually does not work. but I was informed there are existing terms for this that I'm now looking into.

[lesbianpeachs]

tbh it’s probably not anyone’s intentions and I’m poorly expressing myself, but I feel like I’m being gaslit too because this is the same shit my mom always pulls on me and like, she knows I don’t mean certain things but goddamn she will twist everything to make it seem like that’s what I said and y’all really are pushing that way too.

[lesbianpeachs]

why is it everyone’s first impulse to assume I’m saying that radfem rhetoric hurts transmen/masc nbs most just because I’m specifically talking about how trans men and masc nbs are being treated by it? like that is something we are allowed to talk about and have words for too, and no, giving it attention isn’t something that implies trans men/masc nbs have it worse than trans women, jesus christ.

[lesbianpeachs]

The term that you’re looking for wrt that TERF-based rhetoric is gender reductionism—essentially dividing nb ppl into binary classes i.e. “socially men” or “socially women” as a way to apply simplified & cissexist/exorsexist oppressor vs. oppressed logic to them

ah YES thanks that sounds like it

[lesbianpeachs]

there’s this whole subsection of cis (and sometimes fem aligned nb) feminist we need a fucking term for, because they’re a step below TERFs in that they don’t preoccupy themselves with attacking trans women and act like they’re accepting of nonbinary people (to an extent,) but they’re still hugely dangerous because they aren’t overly critical of the feminist rhetoric they consume and support, leading to the spread of heavily radfem concepts that actively ends up with them harming trans people (trans men and non fem aligned nonbinary folks mostly,) and a good deal of them are also SWERFy or “kink critical” and a whole myriad of other gross things, and the only real separation between them and TERFs is they’ll probably have “no TERFs allowed” in their descs and accept trans women so they can use them as pawns in their arguments. But the danger of them is very real and they are literally the gateway to TERF acceptance, as much as they get angry at you for saying so. We need to be equally as able to point out this danger and their bullshit, because so far saying “you’re being transphobic” is getting us nowhere because they respond “only to men who are our oppressors we love trans women uwu” and get away with it.

[balisongbutch]

Forgive me if I’m misreading this but why would radfem ideology primarily hurt trans men and why would transfem nb people be perpetrating it

[kameratar]

Hey gaypeachs, I respect you and think you say some good shit and what not… But I have to say, this might be one of your iffiest posts?

Sometimes it feels like you’re talking about trans women, and like you just edited to cis woman last moment, and with the addition of fem nb, I’ve got to say that this post just looks very explicit in this sense.

I’m having a hard time reading it, due to it being a wall of text, so I might be misunderstanding this… But it sounds like you are trying to place trans men at the bottom here, and like they’ve been put there by non-men?

“leading to the spread of heavily radfem concepts that actively ends up with them harming trans people (trans men and non fem aligned nonbinary folks mostly,” this is also a bit of a confusing section..?

But either way, what cis woman is more accepting of trans women than trans men to a point where it has become such a huge problem that we’ve got almost terfs 2.1?

Am I missing something?

[mad-dyspunktional]

The way I understood it is OP was talking about these cis women who claim to be anti-T(W)ERF and anti-radfem, but then parrot and normalize a ton of radfem rhetoric. They aren’t T(W)ERFs, they see trans women as women, but one of the radfem ideas they’ve latched onto is the ‘all males are toxic/our oppressors and thus it’s okay to be abusive and shitty towards them’ and they direct that equally at trans men and male-aligned nbs as if trans men and male-aligned nbs have the same amount of privilege and power over them as cis men.

Idk maybe I’m reading wrong, but that’s how I understood it.

Edit: The softboy discourse was a good example of this.

[lesbianpeachs]

yeah that's pretty much it, with the addition of a lot of them being equally shitty to other women a lot (sex workers, bi women, masc women [and masc nbs too at that,] etc.) and also that they basically /are/ TERFs in that they still are a threat to trans women no matter the performative support because they're also perpetrating anti-trans woman rhetoric while hiding or ignoring that aspect of it, so it's hard to actually label them as TERFs. We need something other than "TERF" to call them because they point at their performative support of trans woman as an excuse as to why they're not, and do the same when you call them transphobic. IDK maybe I'm not being clear because I really haven't slept in days, but I think the clearest I can make this is: these people are a threat to ALL trans people. they attack masc/male aligned people and use fake support of trans women and "feminism" as an excuse for it. But they still pose a threat to trans women, in ways that are harder to see and thus label as "TERFy," so we need to make it clear that attacking trans men and masc/male aligned nbs is also not acceptable even if you're not visibly attacking trans women, and performative acceptance of them isn't actual support. I literally am just searching for a term like "redfem apology" or "TERF adjacent" so we can make it clear they are still the same without them claiming we have no basis for those accusations just because they put "no TERFs" in their descriptions.

[lesbianpeachs]

there’s this whole subsection of cis (and sometimes fem aligned nb) feminist we need a fucking term for, because they’re a step below TERFs in that they don’t preoccupy themselves with attacking trans women and act like they’re accepting of nonbinary people (to an extent,) but they’re still hugely dangerous because they aren’t overly critical of the feminist rhetoric they consume and support, leading to the spread of heavily radfem concepts that actively ends up with them harming trans people (trans men and non fem aligned nonbinary folks mostly,) and a good deal of them are also SWERFy or “kink critical” and a whole myriad of other gross things, and the only real separation between them and TERFs is they’ll probably have “no TERFs allowed” in their descs and accept trans women so they can use them as pawns in their arguments. But the danger of them is very real and they are literally the gateway to TERF acceptance, as much as they get angry at you for saying so. We need to be equally as able to point out this danger and their bullshit, because so far saying “you’re being transphobic” is getting us nowhere because they respond “only to men who are our oppressors we love trans women uwu” and get away with it.

[balisongbutch]

Forgive me if I’m misreading this but why would radfem ideology primarily hurt trans men and why would transfem nb people be perpetrating it

[kameratar]

Hey gaypeachs, I respect you and think you say some good shit and what not… But I have to say, this might be one of your iffiest posts?

Sometimes it feels like you’re talking about trans women, and like you just edited to cis woman last moment, and with the addition of fem nb, I’ve got to say that this post just looks very explicit in this sense.

I’m having a hard time reading it, due to it being a wall of text, so I might be misunderstanding this… But it sounds like you are trying to place trans men at the bottom here, and like they’ve been put there by non-men?

“leading to the spread of heavily radfem concepts that actively ends up with them harming trans people (trans men and non fem aligned nonbinary folks mostly,” this is also a bit of a confusing section..?

But either way, what cis woman is more accepting of trans women than trans men to a point where it has become such a huge problem that we’ve got almost terfs 2.1?

Am I missing something?

[clitcheese]

i’m also struggling with this post. i’m sure this is about those types that have “terfs don’t follow” in their bios and are pretty sure they’re fighting for trans women but end up consuming terf rhetoric anyway (especially if it’s rhetoric aimed at specifically nonbinary people and less obviously trans women, like ‘mogai gender’ shit) so i think i got the basics.

but  i’m really struggling to follow this mainly because you’re sorting nonbinary people into “equivalent to trans men” and “equivalent to cis women” which aren’t really categories that have any use, aren’t categories that i see nb people applying to themselves and don’t have actual real world implications. and you’ve made a post that looks like a big question mark to anyone applying this dynamic to camab or non-TME nbs

[lesbianpeachs]

my point to writing it that way is that is how these people are treating nbs (as basically men or basically women, and that anyone non woman/fem aligned is basically men to them.) sorry if that wasn't clear