read pinned

Just a discourse sideblog. If you know my main no you don't

[nonbinary-starry]

pinned

name: starry (pseudonym)

age: I am not volunteering you that information, get bent

race/ethnicity: I'm jewish and asian. If you're using this as a trump card to say my critiques of religion don't matter, I'm ETHNICALLY Jewish, not religiously.

pronouns: she/they, but other trans women can use it/its too

discourse stances?: transandrophobia is real (and the TMA/TME binary is bullcrap, transfems can experience transandrophobia and transmascs can experience transmisogyny), pro-endogenic systems, anti-radfem (including trans inclusive radfems), pro youthlib, pro mspec lesbians, anti-transmedicalism, pro-ship, pro-kink, pro-paraphilia. Ask me OFF ANON for more.

what movies do you like?: the great mouse detective, toy story trilogy, mulan, spiderverse, fantasia, little amélie, the brave little toaster, my neighbor totoro, help! i'm a fish, and look back. as for live action, I like juno, barbie, the hate u give, freaky friday, bumblebee, who framed roger rabbit, and avatar

do you REALLY believe in (x)?: ...yeah?

P.S.: don't call me a man or male or dude or boy or bro. If you call me that it's game over and I don't have to listen to any other argument you make.

P.P.S.: I sometimes reblog from people whom I disagree with!

[luckyladylily]

So we have transmisogyny for trans women, lesphobia for lesbians, biphobia for bi people, gayphobia for gay men, aphobia, arophobia, intersexism, etc. Basically everyone gets their word, but trans men specifically are not allowed to do the same thing because, supposedly, trans men are completely unique in the queer community in that they don't experience any specific oppression.

I call bullshit.

[luckyladylily]

Even if we chalk up the marginalization of trans masculine people to a form of misogyny (a big if and I do not believe this is the case, but lets play devil's advocate for just a moment) it is necessarily a unique expression of misogyny. Trans masculine people are not treated like cis women, therefore we can't approach their advocacy as if they are cis women, and they need to be able to talk about their marginalization in a way they feel properly communicates it and emphasizes their unique struggles.

Just let them call it what they want to. Anything else is splitting hairs over verbiage when we are talking about advocacy for a group that is subject to extreme prejudice, often in the form of violence (most studies put it on par or worse than the violence experienced by trans women.)

Focusing on minor quibbles over the strict accuracy of verbiage that doesn't matter at all is part of what I am calling bullshit on. It is reminiscent of people who quibble over using the word "homophobia" because phobia implies fear instead of hate. Who cares what they call it. Get your priorities straight.

[genderkoolaid]

you seem thoroughly uninformed about misogyny in south korea, so much that you think south korean feminists are creating a divide when said divide already clearly exists and is the cause of the rise of a feminist movement

“I would hate for this interest in 4B outside of South Korea to somehow feed and revive the most regressive part of 4B,” Ju Hui Judy Han, an assistant professor of Gender Studies at UCLA, tells Them. “I would actually hate for the interest in 4B in the US to then somehow make this TERF [movement] grow in South Korea.” [...] But the conversation about 4B in the U.S. is rife with misconceptions about the movement, including false assertions that 4B accounts for the majority of feminist thought in South Korea. It’s important to note that despite the global attention, 4B is a fringe movement in South Korea, and Han says the vast majority of South Korean feminists do not abide by it. “I just want to make sure that people understand that 4B does not speak for Korean feminism,” Han tells Them. “4B is not representative of Korean feminist politics. A lot of us see something a lot more diverse and a lot more intersectional than what 4B calls for.” [...] Han says that they hope this blip in interest about 4B fades into the next news cycle, as there are so many other forms of intersectional South Korean feminism that do include queer and trans people. Ultimately, many of the current discussions about 4B are coming from a place of privilege that queer people don’t have the luxury of accessing.

which South Korean feminists my friend

[genderkoolaid]

#prev#something something the way western terfs talk about sk feminism feels very. noble savage to me#THIS THO#it does feel very noble savage and I was trying to put that to words earlier#very “oh the [noble savage] Koreans couldn't being Doing A Transphobia - you are applying western logic onto a eastern movement 🤓☝️”#as if there are no Korean queer people or trans people#as if Korea isnt “”developed“” enough to have intersectional feminism or to know transphobia is bad#like pleeeeeeease#It's the orientalism again of course

old post & tags but i just was talking about this with someone & then this post came up in my notes again, & i wanted to highlight these because this is so true.

its very orientalist & reminiscent of the "noble savage" and so much western radical feminism engages in this. they love the idea that South Korean feminists are all into 4B and female separatism, and more broadly all feminists from the Global South, because then they can fetishize the real and imagined suffering of women in these countries.

i think there's this need for the symbol of The Eternally Suffering Silent Black/Brown/Asian Woman, who of course agrees with everything white radical feminists from Euro-colonial countries believe. it very much is the "noble savage" idea. like how during America's "First Feminist War," there was so much emphasis on how Muslim countries were in the "dark ages" and "practically medieval."

so feminists from these countries are perceived as like, primitive feminists, pure of the petty bourgeois corruption of western feminists (aka intersectionality & being pro-sex). they are the Ur-feminists from the radfem Garden of Eden, and thus also fundamentally two-dimensional. we have to ignore the existence of trans people in these countries, act as if the same feminist discussions and conflicts that happen in Western feminism aren't happening in feminism in the Global South. we have to play up how violent, savage, animalistic the men of their countries are, have to deny these women's husbands and brothers and sons and friends humanity and complexity. and we also have to pretend they exist somewhere out of time, untouched by modern degradation.

that's why i find it amusing how a lot of people acted like the 4B movement was something that came purely out of the unique situation of Korean women, when in fact the movement traces its roots to translations of Western radical feminist texts. we literally already did the whole female separatism thing and it didn't work out. but if the 4B movement is imagined as this mass movement of Eternally Suffering Silent Asian Women reacting to the unique savagery of Asian men (white males are bad but Black/brown/Asian men are worse, less control over that innate male violence), then it lends female separatism more legitimacy. that South Korean feminists have a lot more diversity of perspectives, that South Korean feminism also discusses intersectionality and trans inclusion and seeking solidarity with men and all of those petty bourgeois distractions, ruins that fantasy.

this isn't to same, of course, that admiring and supporting feminists or any activists in the Global South inherently does this, or that transfeminists are immune from engaging in this same behavior. but i've noticed it a lot from radical feminists, and it felt very on display in this situation.

[nonbinary-starry]

He said this after not addressing me bringing up my cisgender male intersex friend who never got the privilege cisperi men do btw

[nonbinary-starry]

If I talked like this about a woman who couldn't transition because she's in a difficult situation I would simply not

[catgirlforeskin]

this might be the clearest distillation of how a politics of disgust detaches you from consequential reality.

When judging which of two things is worse, which is more harmful, and only one of the two has an actual victim that was materially harmed, that one has to be the worst of the two, regardless of how distasteful you find the other.

A belief otherwise is fundamentally incompatible with restorative justice, because in the case of "art I find distasteful" there is no harmed party with whom to make amends. Any "justice" sought here can only be retributive, can only push you into reactionary politics.

[cheaphalloweencostume]

genuine question, not trying to be unkind: in what way is “movies that are not made for children” an incomprehensibly complex idea

[sodomit]

I don't know the full context of that conversation, but I can easily see why "movies that are not made for children" could be called an incomprehensible category.

It's because it could be defined in completely different ways, and includes content that cannot be meaningfully grouped together.

It can include movies that children are legally not allowed to watch (which is a shitty concept), movies made without children in mind, but that still attract children (like most action or horror movies), movies made by someone who's trying to be an edgelord on purpose because they believe "adult" media should be offensive (like a large part of cartoons that are marketed as for adults), movies that are considered too complex for children for some socially constructed reason.

In general, the idea that something is not made for children should invite skepsis and digging deeper.

[nonbinary-starry]

The Brave Little Toaster (great movie btw) for instance is a good example of an animation that was targeted at teenagers and young adults but became popular with kids. It was picked up by an arthouse film distributor for the theatrical release and was nominated for an award at the film festival for being the best film there (it lost because it was animated).

So like, the brave little toaster is technically in the same category as A Serbian Film.

[merlilica]

you did not seriously just compare an animated kids film called “the brave little toaster” to a Serbian film, about a pornstar in a snuff film, which has been banned in multiple countries and cited by many as the most disturbing movie ever made, because they were both art films.

[nonbinary-starry]

I'm not, I'm just saying that there's a very wide variety in adult movies

[nonbinary-starry]

I was still entirely right about all of this btw. I just fumbled the wording and forgor to mention that the film festival tblt nearly won was SUNDANCE

[what-even-is-thiss]

It’s more comforting to convince yourself that all men are assholes then it is to face reality which is that your ex boyfriend wasn’t destined to become an asshole but for a variety of complicated societal and personal reasons he ended up that way anyways even though he could’ve chosen to not be an asshole

[what-even-is-thiss]

Your dad doesn’t suck because he’s a man. Sure, him being a man probably contributed to the various circumstances in his life that caused him to suck and believing that men are destined to suck gives you an easy to understand answer of why the world is this way but in reality your dad sucks for a variety of complicated reasons. You’re probably still justified in throwing ice water in his face and cutting him off but he didn’t drive you to that as an inherent extension of his manhood. He drove you to that because he personally sucks. A lot of men personally suck for a lot of complicated reasons but unfortunately there isn’t one universal easy to explain answer as to why that is.

[luckyladylily]

When you say "men" on Tumblr, a certain amount of people will immediate edit your statement in their brain to be "white cis straight perisex alloromantic allosexual abled neurotypical christian well educated top 25% income bracket men from the USA who were never abused in any context and has the personality and beliefs of that man that hate crimed me once" and argue all issues related to men in anyway as if every man you ever encounter is like this until proven otherwise.

But like. "Men" includes, for example, black men. And it seems pretty racist to not include them in your standard conception of men. The same goes for any other marginalized men. They are all men, and it's pretty bigoted to ignore their existence when you talk about issues that impact men.

[luckyladylily]

The central pillar of MRA ideology is not that men have issues, but that feminism and mens rights are fundamentally opposed. That a win for feminism fundamentally harms men. The astonishing thing is how many self style feminists just concede that point. They don't even try to argue against it, to the point where they don't even consider it MRA ideology.

No one buys into MRA ideology harder than a self proclaimed feminist with a chip on their shoulder.

[queerautism]

I think this often happens because MRA jerks often say 'rights' to describe not actual rights but things they believe they are entitled to, unearned privileges they believe are their rightful reward for being (cis, perisex) men in our society. Those 'rights' they are talking about are maintained at the expense of women and other marginalized genders, by oppressing them and taking from them. This obviously isn't okay, isn't an actual right, and opposing those attitudes is an important feminist position.

However acting like this is true for every issue men could possibly have, including men who are marginalized in various ways, is patently absurd.

[luckyladylily]

I mean yeah but lying about your intentions in a way that makes them sound noble instead of bigoted is literally the most common tactic bigots use. Trump says he's making America great again. Terfs say they are protecting women. Homophobes say they are protecting children. Anyone with a shred of political awareness of any issue shouldn't be falling for this shit, but we have "feminists" on here saying "oh well they say they are all about men's rights, I guess it must be true!"

Anyone who falls for that is letting themselves be fooled. It's honestly so obvious it is hard to believe anyone actually falls for it at all. It's almost as if conflating MRAs with anyone who doesn't parrot the gender essentialist ideas that have become popular on Tumblr in recent years is a very convenient method of shutting people up.

[kdotlover]

why are people still using "trans men make more than trans women" as a talking point to demoralize trans men talking abt transandrophobia like ok. studies also show that trans men get raped way more than anyone else if you wanna play this game. whats the point of this stupid bullshit infighting.

also. whats worth getting a bit of money more if we're both still making infinetly less than cis people

[luckyladylily]

I think it's especially interesting because it makes it absolutely clear that these people are viewing others oppression purely through a lens of how it impacts or compares to the oppression of trans women. The statistic is that trans men make 70 cents to the dollar. This demonstrates that trans men suffer significant financial discrimination - it is evidence *for* the existence of transandrophobia, not against it.

It is a nonsense argument that can only exist coming from people so completely focused on only their oppression that they cannot consider the oppression of others except by comparing it to their own to find evidence that their oppression is the worst oppression. It's oppression Olympics at it's most transparent.

[strawhatsufi]

"Racialised" is much better than PoC but I've been leaning a lot on the concept of racial markedness. Because that allows us to make statements like "the name Jamal is racially marked in USA". Rather than saying something like "Jamal is a PoC name", a nonsense statement, saying it's racially marked in USA allows us to contrast with societies like Albania or the Arab countries where the name Jamal is ordinary, thus unmarked.

[strawhatsufi]

It's a concept I've kind of imported from linguistic analysis; saying a speech pattern is more or less marked does not really allow us to avoid the subject of who's doing the marking. A statement like "womens' speech is more marked in Lakota" necessitates that we understand that it's the Lakota who are marking womens' speech. A foreigner can't tell the difference and probably doesn't understand why it would thus be weird to see a man using speech patterns associated with women, in the same way an Albanian wouldn't understand why USA people would think Jamal is a Black name.

[strawhatsufi]

You! You get it. In my view, if someone is saying "racialised" or "racially marked" without acknowledgement of context, they are doing it in a way that is gramatically incorrect.

[black--stars]

[Start ID: tumblr tags that read "#ohhh fuck that's a really good way of lookking at it #it forces the relative nature of it all to the forefront #it *makes* the listener pay attention to the fact that their context isn't THE context #and removes the assumption of Default]

[luckyladylily]

When you say something, what you communicate is what you say, not what you mean.

When your words are an opposed binary, people will understand it as an opposed binary. Opposed binaries are used to me statements about how things are different. If your opposed binary is A vs B, making a statement about A also inherently makes an opposing statement about B. If A is up, then B is not up. Of A is hot, then B is not hot. This is what an opposed binary communicates. If you were just making a statement about A, you would never mention B.

This is the number one problem with TMA/TME. It's presented as an opposed binary. Which means if you are using TMA to communicate your experiences with transmisogyny, then you are inherently making an opposed statement about TME people. You may not intend that opposed statement, but that is what you said. Therefore that is what you communicate.

TMA/TME may have been intended as a framework to discuss the experiences of people who experience direct transmisogyny, but by constructing it as an opposed binary, it also becomes a framework for making assumptions about the experiences of people you think are not affected by transmisogyny. And even an initial examination of how the framework is used will show that TME is widely used to project hostile assumptions onto others.

Having terms to describe our own experiences is good. Having terms to project our assumptions about the experiences of others is prejudice.

[luckyladylily]

This queertember, let us remember that pride is about, first and foremost, being annoying as shit.

[luckyladylily]

Pride is when we remind people just how much of a Problem we can be if treated poorly. That we know how to organize and mobilize and for now we are choosing to use that to throw excessive parties and a parade bursting with enough rainbows and social taboo to send homophobes scattering like roaches in the light. That gay dude dancing down the street in assless chaps and a leather doggy mask waving a rainbow flag is a reminder that we can always go back to throwing bricks instead.

We're here, we're queer, get used to it.

[sodomit]

An identity does not need to be lived out materially in order to be real and important.

[sodomit]

Ways in which ageists talk about the youth similar to how misogynists talk about women:

- it's impossible for an adult and a "minor" to just be friends, since they have nothing in common, so there's something else going on;

- all "minors" in a public space need to be accompanied by an adult responsible for their behavior and safety;

- mixed age spaces are no fun because adults can't make sex jokes or honestly express themselves without being called out;

- a "minor" talking to an adult is a liability because they're always one wrong move away from making a sexual abuse accusation;

- "minors" ruin all fandoms they join because they police adults;

- "minors" are inherently less capable of understanding complex topics and can't be reasoned with;

- adults should take full responsibility for how "minors" in their life dress, talk, or engage with media.

If you think it makes more sense than its misogynist counterpart, think again, because misogynists think their views are founded in objective biology too.

[sodomit]

@bagelmold1

Give me one reason why not that isn't "it's offensive because children are stupid and meant to be herded".

[transmoobs]

“why do trans men get surprised when they transition and their friends start treating them like a gross man” its bc our transition shouldn’t make our friends lose trust in us just because of how we look and identify. its not about the man part its about the gross part. if u treat ur transmasc friends as inherently gross or dangerous the second they start transitioning, it makes it seem like u weren’t really even our friends to begin with if u don’t know us well enough that u equate us as individuals to the stereotypical man youve built in ur head.