"would that be so terrible?" is the bare minimum standard for how ciswomen should respond when asked if they are trans, true, but you can do a lot better than that

Game Changer & Make Some Noise

oozey mess
No title available
Cosimo Galluzzi
No title available
noise dept.

shark vs the universe
TMBGareOK. The Official They Might Be Giants tumblr
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
Mike Driver
sheepfilms
Keni
The Bowery Presents
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her

blake kathryn
KIROKAZE
Phantogram Three
Claire Keane

Love Begins
Fieri Frames
seen from Colombia

seen from Colombia
seen from United States
seen from Argentina
seen from United States
seen from Venezuela
seen from Canada
seen from Burkina Faso

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from Portugal
seen from United States

seen from France
seen from Indonesia
seen from Uruguay
seen from T1

seen from Indonesia
@seethroughcolors
"would that be so terrible?" is the bare minimum standard for how ciswomen should respond when asked if they are trans, true, but you can do a lot better than that
i would really like it if ciswomen momentarily subjected to transmisogyny would say anything other than "i was born female" as a way to deflect. it just screams "this shouldn't happen to me, im not your main target".
try thinking for five seconds about trans women who cannot use that same deflection when they deal with the exact same shit 24/7
lady gaga was the baseline for what an ally should be. if confronted with accusation of being trans, your default response should be "okay? so what? is that such a big deal".
saying "im actually a real biological vagina having female, and you're so stupid" is not stopping transmisogyny. its in fact contributing more to it. its enforcing the divide between ciswomen and trans women. its making the world unsafe for us. and it's making it so that the next time any woman gets accused of being trans, its gonna be worse for her because of the rise in transmisogyny you are inadvertently contributing to.
like it does matter. it does in fact matter. you can feel it when you're the only nonwhite person in a room and it is fucking weird. you can fucking feel in your body how uncomfortable and strange it is to only have white people in a space. it's deeply unsettling and deeply unenjoyable for everyone but the white people.
white people get the privilege of never having to think about how society will treat them for their race, white people get to always see people just like them. white people are always the default model in advertisements, the person on a book cover, the actor on tv. when you apply this to queer spaces you realize that fuck, okay, we only have models of what white queerness looks like. we only have a roomful of white queer people, we're not ever considering what it looks like to be black and trans, to be middle eastern and lesbian, to be south asian and gay, to be indigenous and intersex, to be hispanic and nonbinary. you're just white. and when you're white you don't even have to say that you are, when you're white you know you are the default and that most other people you meet in a queer space will probably be just like you. we have fucking nothing. we have a default, and even when we slightly stray from the default, we stay as close as possible to it. we only have white people because only white people exist, clearly
It's how so many people from the USA and Europe, don't even realize that they share the Internet space with Global Southerners and that a post circulating on the net might be based on a very real lived experience of these people; they are so used to not hearing from us, to ignoring us, that when they do in fact hear us speak they react with shock that someone can even hold a political stance that might not be as popular in the circles they move in. Your politics of always supporting indie authors of your country by buying their books will not really have as many takers from the rest of the world, I am sorry to say. You will also sometimes see us taking pot shots at these authors for complaining about people pirating books, and whining about how people could have just gone to libraries instead or could have taken a $1 Amazon subscription. Like I am sorry impcore baby you don't get to say that, when your countries have maintained such disproportionately strong currencies by shitting on the rest of the world. Your one william dollar costs quite a lot of money for the rest of us and neither do we get to maintain such public infrastructures so seamlessly like your country does by redirecting a portion from the imperialist spoils.
So are we noticing a pattern yet
So are we noticing a pattern yet
So are we noticing a pattern yet
Do I need to spell it out more
My boss has a new boss who's been dropping in to check on how different sites are doing and I keep introducing her to the clients by going "This is Hank. Hank, this is my boss's boss, she's very important, please tell her nice things about me" and that's my big Autistic secret to professional networking. Letting them think you're funny
Other fun Professional Hacks:
"Networking" doesn't have to feel like one big huge façade of manipulation and lies. You just find people you like. The things you talk about don't even have to be related, you just gotta find people who you like working with who you might reach out to for questions or projects later.
You don't need to look professional and respectable or like a "real" adult. I like to just show up and make it clear I'm receptive to jokes and quirks and weird ideas, and the people who vibe with that usually come to me.
Introduce people you like to other people you like. Talk them up. You can tell your boss "This is Mike he kicks ass, he knows everything about this place, if you want to know something talk to him, if he ever quits we're stealing him"
I found can't think of a polite or socially normal way to say something, sometimes you can just say it like "I don't know if this is dumb or not but I don't know anything about this. Can you explain what you mean?", or "I was taught something different. Should I change how I've been doing it?". I've never had a negative reaction to this.
When in doubt, ask a weird question. "What's your favorite dessert food" is a p good one. Sometimes folks think I'm childish but at least they know what they're getting into and they know I'm not judging them.
Sometimes when higher-ups approach me with a stiff upper lip I'll test the waters with a "is your job as insane as it sounds" or something similar to remind them that I, a worker performing a role, and speaking to them, a worker performing a role. If they give a stiff and measured answer I stay distant and professional. If their performance cracks and their tone changes or they smile or laugh or give a funny reply I know I can relax and joke a bit too.
I still don't enjoy business stuff outside of the most basic day to day duties of my job and conventions n shit are still pretty draining but learning that other people are also following a script and the performance has room for "yes-and" type improv has helped a lot
Autumn Hill left a Prairieland ICE facility protest before it turned violent. She was still sentenced to 50 years as part of Trump's war on
They're sending a trans woman to prison for life over the fact that she attended an anti-ICE protest where a cop died (she had already left the protest when the 'violence' started)
it should make you angrier how few black transfems are on this site let alone active
like i feel insane. why do so few people notice this disparity? so many black transfems have fled, deactivated, or been terminated. the few who are left are usually getting targeted by harassment campaigns, denied autonomy, treated as mere scapegoats, and are often forced to stay in this murderously hostile environment for mutual aid reasons. why do we not notice this more???
i can just tell a lot of you haven't cared or thought about the transfems in your life and how they were affected by you and things you affiliate yourself with.
like, i guarantee transmisogyny has been apparent and effective in most friend groups, support groups, clubs, queer spaces, work spaces, and whatnot you've ever been a part of. people you know or knew are transmisogynists. places you've felt safe in have made transfems feel unsafe. does that transfem actually enjoy your "trans inclusive misogyny" jokes or does she feel like she can't speak up? is that transfem really quiet and inactive in your group or has everyone spoken over her, convincing her that her voice doesn't matter? is that transfem just stay home when you go out because she's introverted or because she has legitimate reasons to feel uncomfortable in the same places you feel perfectly fine?
if you have a transfem friend, it's very likely either you or someone you know have perpetuated transmisogyny against her and you've mistaken her pacifism for contentment. this happens all the time, entirely uncared about, because it's easy and convenient and socially permissable to ignore her powerlessness. don't pretend it hasn't happened because thinking about it makes you uncomfortable.
Talking to Ghosts, by Sienna Gonzales.
Beautiful comic about forgiving yourself. I hope this finds whoever needs it.
some actual ACTUAL TERF rhetoric (-> and how it's spun by crypto-terfs to make it less overt and more palatable to tme queer & trans people)
all transfems are abusers & rapists (-> "theres an accountability and abuse apologia problem in the trans community")
"AFAB transfems", an identity invented by terfs ridiculing trans women and transfems. (-> "it's actually an intersex identity and you're intersexist to say afab transfems arent real")
bioessentialism, calling transfems male privileged, calling transmascs victims of trans agenda/transfems (-> "AFAB people understand misogyny better than transfems because of experience", "trans men don't have privilege over trans women")
literally Anything around detrans/detransitioners (-> circumgender, etc. they also literally just say the same shit but tme queer and trans people eat it up despite not being spun or sanitized towards them at all. don't know. tme trans people just LOVE transphobia i guess)
calling transfems incels, MRAs, often mockingly as TRAs (trans rights activists) (-> calling transfems TRFs/Baeddels/etc. sometimes they Also just call us incels)
calling medical transition mutilation of your own body etc (-> "there's scary lasting effects with hrt", "haven't you tried just being a feminine man/masculine woman/gnc cis person instead")
trans people, especially transfems, shouldn't exist in media at all if they're not being mocked and ridiculed (-> "transfem representation is taking away our good gnc/butch representation", "transfems get so much representation already, transmascs get erasure" (implying transmisogynistic caricatures are "representation"))
transphobia & transmisogyny doesn't exist, trans people/trans women want to be opressed so bad, etc (-> "transmisogyny actually affects everyone"/"no one is exempt from transmisogyny", anything about tme people having no provilege over transmisogynized people)
transfems are inherently sexual perverts, fetishizing women, etc (-> transfeminist terms like tme/tma actually just about transfems wanting to know what's in your pants, etc)
transfems are invading feminist/women/lesbian/queer/trans spaces (-> transfeminists (usually called trf, baeddels, etc. in this context) are outsiders/psy-ops/sowing division in trans/queer communities)
friend of mine recommended a video essay that's like 5 hours long about why it's currently a whole Thing for fascists to claim they only eat meat and demonize vegetables etc etc, and it's genuinely quite well researched in many places and contains some fascinating history and has made me feel very weird about my status as an adult who enjoys drinking milk. but I've not finished it and I genuinely don't know if I will because at one point the ol' "you can't say you care about animals and also eat animals" chestnut got dropped by the white vegan essayist and it put such a bad taste in my mouth that I had to leave instantly
like idk man it just feels genuinely parodic to dedicate hours to analyzing how foodways have frequently been used as white supremacist propaganda and then casually toss out an argument that pretty invariably demonizes indigenous hunting practices with 0 regard for traditional knowledge and land stewardship guiding those practices
Every time I hear a white vegan say that I want to throw the rubble of the Klamath Dams at them.
The largest dam removal in U.S. history. So successful that the salmon that haven’t run freely in the river for literally over a century came back the next year. Not steady progress over a decade as expected, the very next salmon run they came home. No one alive saw salmon in that river outside the hatcheries kept by native’s tribes and the Department of Fish And Wildlife scientists desperately trying to save them. One of the activists who helped bring the suit spoke of their dying grandmother making them promise to bring the fish home, and they didn’t know how that was possible, but they spent decades doing it.
The legal basis for successfully suing the power company who owned the dams was Indigenous treaty rights to eat the fish. Eating the fish was the one thing in a century that succeeded in being a clear and legally binding right that superseded the desires of white capital and industry. I have been going to the public interest environmental law conference off and on for 20 years where a lot of organizing for Undam The Klamath happened. I’ve heard updates about every legal tact they tried as they happened, and they tried everything.
There are healthy, thriving salmon, trout, and lamprey in a rewilding and recovering Klamath River right now as a direct result of Indigenous people eating them. Of their legally binding right to eat them. They sure as fuck care more about those fish than any white vegan ever could. They are salmon people that the Creator sent Salmon to feed, while charging the People with protecting and stewarding them. It’s not possible to learn about salmon and trout in the Pacific Northwest without learning this, and it’s unambiguously racist to dismiss this symbiotic relationship.
The white vegans are trying to get all hunting and fishing banned in Oregon, and that’s quite possibly the single most catastrophic thing that could be done to the animals here because we killed off all the major predators of creatures like deer and without anything hunting them their numbers will explode, eat all the vegetation, destroy the ecosystem, and then die along with everything else in that failing ecosystem. Controlled hunting of deer is vitally necessary for the deer to survive. This is something Native people know, but patronizing racist savior-complex white people refuse to listen to.
I have a whole collection of Oregon’s Public Broadcasting’s documentaries about Klamath River or the larger story of fish and people in the region. If you watch nothing else, watch Klamath Dams Are Coming Out, First Salmon Ceremony, After The Dams, and First Decent (Native made). It could not be clearer that the salmon are being protected and nourished by the people who eat them, and that stewardship is a massive part of their creation myths. But it contradicts political vegan dogma so they don’t listen.
The Klamath River Runs Free
#also do you have any idea how much conservation is funded by people who want to eat those animals#at least in the us anytime someone buys ammo or hunting equipment or hunting licenses that money goes directly to state wildlife agencies
sometimes people take attempts at historical nuance regarding terminology to mean "people didn't use these words to describe these identities and behaviours, but these identities and behaviours still existed, because they are fundamental truths of what it means to be human", rather than "we map our current conception of identities and behaviours with these words but they are not labels that can be straightforwardly applied to past experiences of the world because identities, behaviours, and conceptions of how those fit together are culturally and historically specific" and it. frustrates me
i don't think there is a concrete external reality of sexuality that we are merely creating labels to describe. i think the fundamental experience of sexuality is shaped by the labels and ideas available to us. people will always exist who don't conform to the norms of their time and will drive the development of new terms and new ideas but they do that within their own context not because of some like........ ontological pattern
your transfeminism must include racialized (esp. Black) and disabled and underage ppl or you aint doing it correctly btw
This is transfeminism!
The concept of "transmisogyny" had to be invented because without it there was no way to explain why transfeminine people are so particularly marginalised. The logic of transphobia is that we are actually failed men, men who have broken the rules of gender and so need to be punished. Likewise, transphobia considers trans men to be failed women who have broken the rules and so need to be punished. If you follow that logic, you would expect to see trans men occupy a position in the social hierarchy similar to "marginalised woman" and trans women to occupy a position similar to "marginalised man", i.e. trans women should be below cis men, trans men should be below cis women, and trans men should be below trans women. But that is actually not what we see when we look at something like the gender pay gap statistics. Trans women are actually right at the bottom, well below trans men, and everyone else.
So, if the logic of transphobia is that we are actually men, how the hell do we explain the fact that we occupy a social position significantly below those that transphobes believe to be actually women? There's only one way to make sense of it: that the nature of our "failure" (i.e. the direction of our transition) brings about a massive extra social penalty. That's exactly what "transmisogyny" refers to: this extra form of oppression that sits on top of transphobia, and whose existence is necessary to explain the data that we see in the real world. It's just like physicists theorising Dark Matter: the universe is not behaving how it should according to our current theory, so there's a new force we need to incorporate to make it make sense.
In light of this, what purpose is served by hypothesising a counterpart to transmisogyny called "transan***phobia"? What data is unexplained by the current model? Are trans men being treated even worse than we would expect based on how transphobia operates? I am not aware of any evidence for that, nor of any transan***phobia theorists who even think about oppression in this way. Instead, it's far more common for them to understand "transmisogyny" as "any oppression a trans woman experiences", and to think, "but I also experience oppression, so I need a counterpart name for my oppression", and then land on "transan***phobia", "transmis***ry", "anti-transmas***inity", etc.
They don't understand that transmisogyny is a specific form of oppression due specifically to transition direction, it sits on top of transphobia, misogyny, and anything else, it doesn't displace them. To say, as many transfeminists do, that "transan***phobia doesn't exist" is not to say that trans men do not face oppression. It's just the assertion that the direction of their transition does not incur any extra oppression on top of what they already experience due to transphobia and misogyny (which is a lot!).
I find it useful to think about which specific form of oppression I am facing in each situation. E.g. I am walking down the street and some guy wolf-whistles at me (that's misogyny, it's the presumption that my body is a sexual object for men's gratification). I tell him to fuck off, but he hears my voice is weirdly deep and then clocks me and shouts "You're a man!" (that's transphobia, he had noticed a disconnect between my gender presentation and what he presumes to be my AGAB). He chases after me, swearing, screaming, calling me a T-slur, etc, and I have to run really fast to avoid getting beaten up (that's transmisogyny, it's an instinctive disgust reaction that he probably couldn't even articulate why he feels so strongly about). Transmasculine people are likely to be able to relate to the first two experiences but not the third.
A month ago I was running a trans event and I asked people to share any news they wanted to related to their transition. There was a trans man who talked about the waiting list for being seen by the gender clinic, something everyone could relate to and we commiserated with him about it. And there was a trans woman who talked about how she had ordered an Uber Eats grocery delivery, and when he arrived she went out to his car to help him carry the bags, but when he saw her he called her a "fucking [T-slur]" and chased her down the street where she had to hide in a bush and wait for him to leave before going back to her house. She was less upset about that than the fact that after she complained to Uber they banned her from the platform. She had been using grocery delivery to avoid going to the store because she gets abused there. When she said all this, the transmascs in the room were like "what the fuck", while the transfems were like "this is why I boymode with delivery drivers"/"this is why I pretend I can't speak"/"this is why I do all my shopping at 3am at the 24hr supermarket because there's no one there to harass me". There is a serious gulf in the kinds of negative experiences we consider unremarkable, and the kinds of negative experiences transmascs consider unremarkable, and that gulf speaks to the differing levels of oppression we face.
I somehow was made to see a post by a notorious transmasc poster on here who I had already blocked, saying that the reason so many trans women believe there is minimal connection between themselves and gay men is because of a combination of RuPaul's Drag Race convincing us we have nothing in common, and our own racist ignorance of our history (from later comments I am interpreting this to mean US ballroom culture). Leaving aside this US-centric analysis, the pseudo-colonial attitude towards discussing the supposed motivations of a marginalised group that the poster isn't even a member of, and the implied misgendering ofc, it also just annoyed me because it shows how little understanding there is of our thought processes even from those who think of themselves as our allies and/or fellow-travellers.
Just speaking for myself, I was forced to be around basically exclusively boys from the age of 7 or 8, because my everything-phobic mother didn't like the fact that all my close friends had been girls. I had very little in common with boys, and I found them misogynistic and obsessed with power and domination, particularly in single-sex environments where they believed no women were present. Young boys love bragging about assaulting women, even when it's stuff they've just dreamed up in their own heads, and the patriarchy encourages them to think and talk like this, they get an increase in social status for doing so. I knew plenty of openly gay boys too, and honestly they were barely any different from the straight boys. They were still extremely misogynistic, and they were no less likely to hate women and believe them sub-human. Spending time around straight or gay boys, either way was incredibly isolating because, well, they're still boys. Spending time around girls was always far preferable to me, although I was sometimes frustrated by straight girls' veneration of men (understandable given how the patriarchy works, but still frustrating) given that I knew what these men were saying and thinking in return. Lesbians were basically the only group I ever felt at-home with, because they were the only group where the conversation wasn't entirely about men, which I much preferred even though I assumed I myself was a man.
My attitude towards men is not based on bioessentialist ideas of genetic predisposition to bad behaviour or anything, nor is it just arbitrary dislike. We just live in a world where men are rewarded for hating women, and so they do, there really doesn't need to be much more to it than that. Growing up as the only "man" I knew who didn't hate women, it became obvious that I couldn't fully be a man precisely because of that total lack of interest in asserting my own power. I was never capable of doing manhood correctly at all, and that failure caused me to receive misogynistic bullying, and that experience of misogyny from a young age is what made me realise that my life makes far more sense understood as a woman's life than a man's life. This is not a universal transfem experience by any means, we have a lot of diversity, but it is not an uncommon one either.
I have simply spent so much time around men of all kinds, and suffered for it, I really just don't want to spend even more time around them. And yes, that includes gay men. You can choose to site my experience within the context of the history of gay men if you like, but that's your imposition from the outside, both as a non-transfem, and as someone from the US who doesn't realise that not every queer culture around the world is identical to your own.
I had never heard of RuPaul growing up, the US Drag Race didn't even start until after I left home and I have never watched an episode of any Drag Race even now. The drag performers I encountered growing up as an Irish kid were pantomime dames like May McFettridge and Lily Savage, who, while I'm sure they were influenced to some extent by the US ballroom culture started by Black and Latina trans women, were primarily the descendants of the English working class Music Hall tradition which was itself totally revolutionised by Black performers from the US who toured Britain in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Popular styles of music, dance and even acting in Britain were totally upended by the new injection of Black American culture. Racist performances by white actors in blackface had been incredibly popular among British audiences in the mid 19th century, but after the end of the US Civil War increasing numbers of Black performers began to tour Britain and show up their white predecessors as the crude and laughable racists they were. As so often seems to happen, Black performers and particularly Black women like Amy Height and Belle Davis not only had to take on the job of countering the racist assumptions of their audiences, but also in doing so breathed new life into a stagnant and backward-looking white imperial culture with little acknowledgement or financial compensation. That's the context of the theatrical tradition from which the pantomime dame of my youth emerged, as a heavily evolved version of the male actor playing a female role from back in the days when female actors were illegal. There was a massive influence from Black US culture on British pantomime dames of the 1980s and 1990s, but a lot of that influence actually occurred a century earlier around 1880-1910 rather than directly from the later US Ballroom scene.
In Britain there was essentially a parallel history of sincere transfeminity and performative transfemininity, and they were treated very differently by the general population and the law. You can follow the line from Italian Commedia dell'Arte to Shakespearean theatre to Music Hall to Variety Show to modern-day pantomime, and this meme of the male actor playing an elderly flirtatious female character persists throughout it, not stigmatised in itself but hinting at scandal elsewhere for the purposes of humour. But while this is all going on, the "scandal elsewhere" is also going on in parallel. This is the history of Molly Houses, where people we would today understand as trans women (or perhaps specifically trans lesbians) would meet in private to dress as they wished, dance, and have sex. These houses were often raided and the women arrested and sometimes even executed for their crimes. The case of Fanny and Stella is another example that we would today understand as an example of sincere transfeminity being penalised in a way that performative transfemininity is not: they were arrested for "crossdressing" but charged with conspiracy to commit sodomy with the son of a Duke, Arthur Clinton. Stella referred to herself as Clinton's wife and wore a wedding ring. The fact that they were ultimately found not guilty (of conspiracy to commit sodomy) was used as precedent to more harshly interpret "crossdressing" (already a misdemeanour in its own right) as evidence of sexual crimes.
The reason I'm going into this distinction is that, growing up, I never felt that pantomime dames like May McFettridge or Lily Savage were in any way the same kind of thing as me - a boy who, seemingly uniquely from my PoV at the time, didn't hate women but cherished my friendships with them, and resented the other boys for not feeling the same. And looking at the whole history of performative transfemininity in Britain, I don't relate to any of it at all and I never regarded it as "for me" in any sense. Ultimately, May McFettridge is a character played by a man called John Linehan, Lily Savage was a character played by a man called Paul O'Grady, the insincerity of their transfemininity bleeds into the performance and makes it much harder to relate to compared to literally any actual woman, trans or cis. The same goes for gay men's culture more broadly: my transfemininity was rooted in a love and affection for women, something that it seemed no other man I knew felt, why would that lead me to spend more time with men? It makes no sense. But learning later on about cases of sincere transfemininity, Molly Houses or Fanny and Stella, I do see myself in those examples, I do relate to that history a lot, and if that had been the kind of transfemininity I had been exposed to as a kid, I might've realised I was trans much earlier on.
And, just to add, it is absurd that I have had to devote so many words here to discussing the history of transfemininity in Britain, which is the colonial power that ruled and still partly rules my country. The culture I grew up with in terms of TV, radio, theatre, etc, was heavily British because Irish culture, history and language was deliberately suppressed. This is the perspective of the colonised who knows more about the history of the coloniser than she ever really wanted to know, but knowing it is necessary to understand my place in it. And honestly, reading a transmasculine person from the USA telling me that my disconnection from gay men's culture is due to a single transmisogynistic American drag queen I've never even seen, that doesn't feel that different to an English person lecturing me about how the famine was Irish people's fault due to our supposed ignorance of crop rotation.
I know that I shouldn't take arguments like this in good faith. The point of the argument is really to (1) say that trans women are a type of men, (2) say that trans women are white/bourgeois/uniquely racist compared to other queer groups, (3) stealth argue by implication for trans men's inclusion in lesbian spaces, and (4) say that trans women are too stupid and/or bigoted to understand our own culture and history. And yet a lot of otherwise-intelligent people seem to take this seriously as a genuine point, and it's maddening.