Fuck
h
Mike Driver
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH

No title available
macklin celebrini has autism
One Nice Bug Per Day
Claire Keane
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
Game of Thrones Daily

tannertan36
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
occasionally subtle
Sweet Seals For You, Always

Product Placement

titsay
The Stonewall Inn

izzy's playlists!
noise dept.

pixel skylines

Andulka

seen from Bulgaria
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Trinidad & Tobago

seen from Malaysia

seen from Finland

seen from Finland

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from Indonesia
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Bulgaria

seen from Türkiye

seen from United States
seen from Malaysia

seen from Italy
@skintwist
Fuck
Why do men need everything to be about them? It’s ridiculous. I can make a post about the effects of feminizing hormone therapy and what do I get in my notes? Annoying men going, well don’t forget about testosterone. I don’t give a fuck about you! I know you’re used to relying on feminized labor to do all your organizing for you but you do need to actually make your own tumblr post instead of just stealing mine.
I end up complaining about transmascs a lot on here. The reason is that I am not really friends with many cis people irl because of their transphobia, except one or two friends I've had since childhood. And my transfem friends don't antagonise me very much. So basically transmascs make up a sizeable proportion of my social network because they are generally tolerable, but they are also where most of the problems come from because of the dynamics of oppression. It probably looks like I'm fixated on this one demographic, but really it's the fact that the demographic is generally good that means I am friends with them at all.
Anyway, with that out of the way, I want to talk about my trans guy friend Tom (not his real name). Over the last year or so there's been a pattern of:
I say or do something innocent.
He aggressively accuses me of bad behaviour.
I explain that he misinterpreted what happened, but apologise for it all the same and promise to do better.
He grudgingly says "OK".
We never mention it again.
It's got so bad that I panic whenever I get a message from him, and if it is one of his aggressive ones I go into a days-long anxiety spiral.
On Saturday I arranged a trip to Trans Pride in London for a group of trans people near me. I didn't want to arrange it because I'm burnt out, but there were a few people I knew who wanted to go but didn't want to go alone, so I felt I had a duty to arrange something for their sake.
One of them was a wheelchair user, so I made this detailed plan for how we would navigate our journey to and from the march avoiding steps and calling ahead to train stations to warn them if they needed to get a manual ramp ready for us. I posted this and Tom read it and thumbs upped it. In the end the wheelchair user couldn't come, so we used a different route instead.
On the way back from the march, I made a comment about how difficult the route we were taking would be if we had a wheelchair with us, because the station we were in had a load of steps. I also explained how there was a different route I had planned for wheelchair users. I was wrecked after that day, and honestly just wanted a week of being left alone to recover.
The next day, Tom messaged me to say he was really upset about the ableist comment I had made and he called me a hypocrite because I have previously criticised others for ableism. It turned out he interpreted "this would be really impossible with a wheelchair" as "wheelchair users are such a burden". He is not a wheelchair user himself fyi, although I have been in the recent past, and he knows this.
I apologised that he had been upset by what I said, but explained that my words didn't mean that, they were a reference to the plan I had made about wheelchair accessible journeys. He claimed he hadn't heard me explain this at the time, and he didn't remember reading my post about accessibility that he had thumbs-upped.
I was obviously in a spiral at this point because, not only was I the only person in our network who had shown any interest at all in helping a wheelchair user (which Tom could've done himself, but didn't), but also I was the only one being called out and called a hypocrite when I hadn't even done anything wrong.
My wife saw my reaction to this and she got annoyed on my behalf. She has seen how much I panic around messages from Tom and, since she was actually at Trans Pride and present at the time I made the "ableist comment" she knew it was bullshit. She sent a message to Tom saying that the way he talks to me is not fair and is totally disproportionate to the alleged offence, and that she has noticed that he never talks to her like that. (She was implying but not stating that there was a transmisogynistic motive behind Tom's different behaviour towards us, since she is cis).
Tom then went berserk. He started accusing my wife and I of talking about him behind his back, and basically accused her of letting me take her phone and harass him on two fronts. I weighed in to say I didn't ask her to get involved, she is just concerned about how he treats me.
There has since been 24 hours of me trying to explain how the way he talks to me is part of a wider context of trans women's actions being uncharitably misinterpreted and blown out of all proportion. I said that he could've said "Hey, what did you mean by this thing you said yesterday?" before going directly to accusations of ableism and hypocrisy which it turned out were unfounded. I said he could talk to me like a friend who cares about and knows me, and not like someone writing a complaint to a dodgy business or their MP.
He then started going into how he has learned a lot about communication styles and he is just doing best practice by naming the harm that was caused, that he is willing to be more gentle in future but that's a concession he is making because of my "fragility and defensiveness to criticism" and he is unhappy that I am not making any concessions in return. Never mind that I immediately apologised and promised to do better, even though I didn't even do anything wrong in the first place.
His position now is that my wife and I have ganged up on him and derailed what was originally a critique of my ableism into a barrage of unfair criticism of him, and we are fragile and defensive and he is sad that people who seemed good on the surface can be so different underneath.
He keeps using therapy-speak and social justice-speak to undermine any attempts by me to point out issues. If he is rude it is "best practice" and I am implied to be uneducated for not knowing that. If I mention something he did wrong, it's "derailing". If he accuses me of something I didn't do, it's him "naming the harm that was caused".
All this comes in the context that he has never engaged seriously with "transmisogyny" as a form of oppression, on the many times I've brought it up.
At one point, I was trying to explain why I felt the way he talked to me was unreasonable, so I reached for a recent situation where I felt he had done something wrong to show how I behave if the roles are reversed. I referred to a time 2 weeks ago when he said the world would be a better place if everyone with a Y chromosome died. At the time I thought "Wow, that's gross" but I said nothing because I used the wider context of knowing him to infer that he probably didn't mean it (and honestly I find it hard to call out men's behaviour, because they rarely react well to it). This was probably not the best example, because it's really an example of me being afraid to call him out, but it's what I reached for in the moment.
I brought this up and he said "It was just a joke". A day later I responded to explain how it's a transmisogynistic joke that at best only transfems can make, and it's not appropriate for him to be saying it. He then said "Yeah, I realised it was bad immediately when I said, I probably should've said something at the time."
So the pattern is:
I do something innocent.
He interprets it badly.
He accuses me aggressively.
I explain what I actually said but also apologise and promise to do better anyway.
vs
He does something actually bad.
He doesn't apologise in the moment.
I point it out much later in a different context.
He dismisses it as "just a joke".
I press the point.
He then says he shouldn't have done it.
I don't know how he sees these situations and sees me as the fragile and defensive one.
I have tried to explain to him how transmisogyny so often manifests as uncharitable interpretations of neutral statements that are blown out of all proportion, and that when he sends me a message doing exactly that it sits within the context of how this has been done to me and other transfems for our entire lives, and normally results in social exclusion.
Messages like his accusations are a Pavlovian bell to transfems that warns us social exclusion is coming, we know it because it has happened so many times to us. He says I should go to therapy and not put the burden of my anxiety on him to accommodate my irrational reaction to criticism. He won't accept that it's not irrational.
There's a social group we are both in. At a meet-up a few months ago, a trans girl said "I feel like the word 'bisexual' should perhaps be replaced by 'pansexual' or some other identifier to be more non-binary-inclusive." That's a perfectly normal thing to say, especially because this girl is bi/pan herself, and this discussion point is a very common one in bi/pan circles. After she said that we talked about how the meaning of "bisexual" has changed over time, about descriptive vs prescriptive identifiers, it was a good discussion. Also at this same meet-up, one of the transmasc organisers called all the transfems "guys" (I didn't hear this at the time).
After the meet-up, the same transmasc organiser privately messaged me and the other organisers to say they were concerned about the behaviour of the trans girl who had been saying "biphobic things". A few hours later, the trans girl (unprompted) posted a message in the group chat to say she was sorry if anyone had interpreted her statement about bisexuality badly, she said she is nervous and sometimes says things wrong, is really sorry and will try to do better. I calmed her down by saying that, as someone who has identified as "bisexual" myself, simply because it's the identity name we used when I was young, I thought her comments were perfectly reasonable and she had absolutely nothing to worry about. That drama blew over. Then a month or so later the transmasc organiser randomly mentioned that they felt bad for calling transfems guys at that meeting but didn't feel like they should apologise for it.
I think it is clear that the trans girl's reaction in this situation is a trauma response by someone who has been repeatedly socially excluded for her words being misinterpreted and blown out of proportion. She is panicking hard that she's going to get kicked out of the group, and wants to apologise in advance to head that off, even though she did nothing wrong. Meanwhile the transmasc actually did something wrong but didn't bother apologising and no one brought it up and no one expects any consequences for them.
That is the difference between being perpetually on the edge of social exclusion vs not being, that is transmisogyny in action.
Tom refuses to see it in this light. He only sees that he called out my ableism and suddenly my wife and I had turned the tables and were calling him out. He doesn't realise that him being called out this time is the result of a pattern of behaviour that's gone on for a year, it's the release of a build up of so many times he's called me out when I did nothing wrong and I had to apologise anyway to calm him down.
Perhaps it would be fragility if this had happened the first time he unfairly criticised me for something I didn't do. When it's the tenth, and I've been apologetic all the previous times, it's just me finally standing up for myself.
I know I should just stop being friends with him, it's what I would advise anyone else, but it is so hard when you're in the midst of this situation and your social lives are so intertwined as mine and Tom's are. It can be easier to just apologise and let him think he's won, then let the friendship die slowly over months rather than in a blaze of righteous indignation. I still don't know which of these paths to choose but I will have to pick soon.
reposting this from my bsky because i feel like this site needs to hear it too
So a trans guy friend came over to my house for dinner last week. Somehow we got onto the subject of public toilets and bathroom bans, and I made the point that back in 2010-2011, when I co-founded a feminist society/pressure group at University in London, desegregation was basically our main policy position.
And this was not unusual for feminist groups at that time. There was a sense that we were close to the end of a century-long struggle to desegregate society: Universities and most schools were now mixed (my own former school had just become co-ed at this point), youth groups like the Scout Association had recently made it mandatory for all groups to admit girls, there was growing public pressure on men-only spaces like The Garrick Club to admit women, most modern swimming pools had co-ed changing facilities, and gender-neutral bathrooms were starting to become more common.
One of our campaigns was to make all bathrooms in the Students' Union building gender neutral. In the end this failed because of pressure from a group of (white, wealthy, English) men in the Conservative society who insisted that sharing bathrooms with women violated their devout Christian beliefs - they weren't even Christian actually but they managed to spook the lawyers enough in light of the recent Equality Act.
We also frequently discussed desegregating sports - it was widely understood by our (pretty much entirely cis women) members that sex-segregation was a misogynist project that resulted principally in women being paid less. The long mission to get equal prize money at Wimbledon had been won only a few years earlier, and there was pressure on other sports to follow suit. Now we were discussing introducing mixed-gender University sports teams to play competitively.
Bear in mind that the issue of trans women basically never came up in these discussions (mainly due to ignorance: the only reference to trans women I had ever encountered at this point was Ace Ventura). It was principally a matter of desegregation as a moral position that positioned the logic of segregation as part of the systemic oppression of women. The fact that it was right-wing men who were the ones objecting to desegregated toilets (something that has been true throughout the history of toilet segregation) just solidified this point.
Anyway, I gave all this as context to my trans guy friend to explain why I felt frustrated at recent attempts to paint bathroom bans as a win for feminism. That it's depressing to see the feminist activism of 15 years ago sacrificed on the altar of transmisogyny.
This guy has been medically transitioning for a little over a year, and has been discovering feminism in that time too. He recently learned about things like the gender pay gap, and will try to explain it to me like he thinks it's news to me. The gendered nature of domestic abuse is also a favourite topic of his. Before he transitioned, back when he referred to himself as a woman, he tended to take a more liberal normie "men and women are equally oppressed by gender expectations, just let everyone do what they want" line, but tbf we didn't talk about feminism much back then anyway.
The combination of being an early-transition trans guy who is also learning baby's first feminism can be a really dangerous one. He is only now discovering how much he has suffered at the hands of this form of oppression called "misogyny", but at the same time he is a man. He is reading all this literature that positions "men" as the oppressor but also positions people like himself as the oppressed. The easiest way for him to resolve this conflict is to mentally transpose "men" with "AMABs" and "women" with "AFABs", even if he's not aware that's what's happening in his brain.
So in response to my frustration with bathroom bans he starts saying all this stuff about women's reasonable concerns about male violence, how it's difficult to balance the various needs of different groups, how trans men are "obviously" not a threat to women so they should clearly be allowed to use women's toilets. He views the existence of trans women as a spanner in the works of an otherwise rational system with cis men on one side and AFABs on the other.
I try to point out that toilet segregation is actually a real concrete problem for me, the flesh-and-blood person in front of him who he has been friends with for years. That I am risking violence no matter which toilet I use, no matter what clothes I'm in, no matter whether I'm wearing make-up or not. If I use the women's I will get harassed for sure. If I use the men's I have a high chance of being assaulted. His only response is that he also is nervous about using the women's because after a year on T he already passes for cis in nearly all situations. The idea that he should just use the men's since he's a man who looks like a man gets a blank look from him: why should he not be able to use the women's, he's experienced "AFAB oppression" too, hasn't he?
By this point I'm getting quite frustrated. We're talking about feminism as a leftwing movement and I bring up the kind of socialist guy we all know well who says stuff like "misogyny isn't really a priority for me". He hasn't really been listening but he hears me quote this hypothetical man and assumes I'm saying it in earnest. "Did you say misogyny isnt a priority for you?"
Suddenly I, the woman who has been involved in feminist activism for 15 years, am having to defend myself against accusations of misogynist bigotry from a man who discovered feminism a year ago because he decided to not bother listening to what a woman was saying until it was something that sounded incriminating as a soundbite.
At this point I sigh and put my head on the table, exhausted of trying to explain this to him. Later he messages to say that the way I behaved made him feel really shit about himself, like sighing is the rudest thing he's ever heard. I apologise for sighing and go and wash up the dishes from the meal I cooked for him. He goes home and thinks about his innate connection to womanhood.
One of my peeves with transandrodorks is that they'll see trans women talk about things that happen to trans women and assume that they're being erased since we're not talking about trans men. As if we're Big Media. As if we're Society. As if we're The New Show and we didn't include a single trans man blorbo. TMRAs literally do not see us as people discussing our own lives, they see us as a Platform. No wonder they have an insatiable need talk over us.
untrue! when transmascs have their own spaces to talk about transandrosexism, people call them tmras instead of oppressed trans folks. additinally, when a transfem agrees with transandrosexism theory, she is told that she will be assaulted or eaten by leopards or detransitioned - which is another way to tell people that you think a minority group is full of rapists. its transphobia.
And every transfem who sided with the transandrobro crowd has been mistreated. Each and every one has been harassed, pushed away from being a woman, been accused of being a predator and a pedophile by the same people she chose to defend.
It's kind of ridiculous to act as if the term transandrophobia is used to usefully discuss transmasc-specific oppression. It's not, and we both know it. Most of what it does is tell trans men that they'll never be able to pass, that their ASAB defines them. And it also enables and encourages the harassment of vulnerable women.
where
What, you want to join in?
One of my peeves with transandrodorks is that they'll see trans women talk about things that happen to trans women and assume that they're being erased since we're not talking about trans men. As if we're Big Media. As if we're Society. As if we're The New Show and we didn't include a single trans man blorbo. TMRAs literally do not see us as people discussing our own lives, they see us as a Platform. No wonder they have an insatiable need talk over us.
untrue! when transmascs have their own spaces to talk about transandrosexism, people call them tmras instead of oppressed trans folks. additinally, when a transfem agrees with transandrosexism theory, she is told that she will be assaulted or eaten by leopards or detransitioned - which is another way to tell people that you think a minority group is full of rapists. its transphobia.
And every transfem who sided with the transandrobro crowd has been mistreated. Each and every one has been harassed, pushed away from being a woman, been accused of being a predator and a pedophile by the same people she chose to defend.
It's kind of ridiculous to act as if the term transandrophobia is used to usefully discuss transmasc-specific oppression. It's not, and we both know it. Most of what it does is tell trans men that they'll never be able to pass, that their ASAB defines them. And it also enables and encourages the harassment of vulnerable women.
the statement: "a legal theory was proposed in which trans women could be targeted without violating the Constitution because other women and other trans people are excluded from our specific oppression, which suggests that transmisogyny is real and that transmisogyny affected and exempted are meaningful categories for analysis of our material conditions."
the response: "you are sowing divisions in our community by saying this. everyone has to get on board to fix things, which will only happen if you stop bringing this up. you are crazy, paranoid, and confused and the more you talk about your problems, the more we'll blame you for the violence that's done to you."
the smug condescension of a man who, upset that his privilege has been identified, asserts his male privilege knowing that a fair number of people will hop on board the "trans women are paranoid and divisive" train rather than interrogating their own biases and coming to the defense of more vulnerable members of their community.
the cherry on top was the tags, where he addressed the transfem he reblogged by name and said "I'm disappointed in you" as if she had done something wrong by sharing a post about her specific oppression. it's genuinely gross how trans women are treated so poorly so casually. how dare we speak?
ok I may be cracking open a nuclear can of discourse worms but genuinely is it not like. easier for trans men to become cis-passing
like I'm sure higher wages help a lot, but mainly like I feel like I see and encounter so much more discussion from trans men who are able to go fully stealth than trans women who can. and I see plenty of trans men online who are very cis-passing, whereas I rarely ever see the same for trans women
like I've seen talk about how trans women are privileged because we're more represented in government, but I can't help but think there probably are some trans men in government, they're just understandably taking the opportunity available to them to be stealth, since being in government is a notoriously high-risk position and if you can help it it mitigates a lot of risk to not be openly trans
oh my god right, how could I forget, trans men start HRT on average significantly younger than trans women, I'm sure that's a significant factor
Sorry drag kings aren't as popular. I guess masculinity doesn't work that well as a costume to be mocked
this is such a fundamental misunderstanding of ballroom culture that it borders on outright racism.
society may respond to drag as though it aims to mock, but the foundations of drag, and certainly, the grand majority of drag artists themselves, do not seek to mock femininity, and instead perform it expressively.
while there may be drag artists who seek to mock femininity or masculinity (or other things that don't fit easily or at all into those categories), expressive performance does not inherently seek to make a mockery of the person or thing being portrayed.
drag kings aren't popular in the mainstream for a plethora of reasons, but the fault lies with the transphobic, queerphobic, and misogynistic (especially specifically on the basis of body parts designated "female" regardless of personal identity) society receiving them rather than with drag kings themselves.
ballroom culture involved performances of masculinity and femininity alike, and was a commentary on the simultaneous restriction and freedom found in self-presentation.
drag artists are not your enemy.
the society that requires us to present in certain ways to survive, is.
everybody listen the tboy is going to lecture a trans woman on drag culture. fuck yourself
It's pretty ridiculous that I'm expected to care about someone's idea of a subculture from 70 years ago from a different continent. I know what drag is now, what it does, what it's used for, and these are the only things that matter to me.
One of the ways transmisogyny manifests is in default-uncharitable interpretations of ambiguous meaning.
Last week I was at a meetup where I was the only transfem. I checked the groupchat when I arrived and there was a message from the organiser: "We have a newcomer called X, can you look out for him if you get there first?" I located X, introduced myself, sent a message to the chat say, "I have located X," and continued to talk to him until the organiser arrived. When the organiser arrived, she was not happy with me. It turned out my phone had autocorrected, "I have located X," to, "I had located X," which the organiser interpreted as me passive aggressively telling her that I had already done the thing she was asking about. Her conclusion: I was unreasonable and aggressive in responding to her reasonable request. My explaining what had happened didn't convince her otherwise.
A different occasion last week: in a local trans groupchat, a trans man sent a link to a drag event happening in our town. A few people said they were already going, some said they might go. Then a trans woman replied saying, "Thanks, but I don't really like drag." Her tone was immediately called into question. Her words were assumed to communicate: "I think you are a terrible person if you like drag," even though she never said that. Several non-transfems who had never even heard that drag might not be universally-beloved by everyone were upset to discover that fact. A trans woman simply saying she didn't like this thing became A Big Deal.
Meanwhile, at a different event again, a trans man told a group that he was straight and attracted to women, but he wouldn't feel comfortable bringing home an "AMAB woman" (yes he actually said that). It was quickly brushed over, and after he had left even trans women tried to defend him by saying "he probably didnt realise people would be offended" etc etc. In contrast to the examples above, he is not even aware that anyone was upset by what he said, never mind worrying about what consequences he might face.
Whenever I go to an event, I often spend the next 24-48 hours ruminating over every single thing I said to check if I did anything at any time that could even vaguely be construed as annoying to anyone. I have often put this behaviour down to severe anxiety, but I think I am realising that it is actually a rational response to a world where even the slightest social misstep could be blown way out of proportion and result in my later social exclusion. It's one of those things that existed long before I was aware of my own transness but while I was nonetheless transmisogynised by society, a crippling fear of the slightest imperfection that I assumed everyone else felt too but apparently they don't. I guess when other people go out of their way to smoothe over the damage your words or actions might cause, you don't need to stress about that damage because there are no consequences to it! It sounds very nice to be able to live like that.
Behold, the new gender binary, the evil version of AMAB/AFAB, and the source of ALL transandrophoia
[ID: a pie chart with 99.5% labelled as TME and 0.5% labelled as TMA.]
rule 1 of nonbinary club: there is no right or wrong way to be nonbinary :)
rule 2 of nonbinary club: if u mention that half of us get seen as quirky and the other half get seen as rapists then u will be hunted for sport
precure
tumblr users when a post mentions transmisogyny or lesbophobia
Fucking wild thing to say woth a pfp of a character who is a raging lesbian. Like yeah i guess we only have value when we arw a product to be consumed.
I’m sure the reaction to this one will be fun.
Weaponized incompetence wears a collar
warning primarily to my transfem followers: this is going to be the most miserable thing you have ever read. tara knows this, which is why she says your reaction will be fun, because similarly to the antagonistic girl she wrote to be the manifestation of rot for her story, she just predicted that you were going to hate it. she knew ahead of time that you were going to hate it and prepared for you to hate it rather than trying to make something good, and now, like the character in her story, tara is going to make you the monster. because you cant have just organically hated what she wrote, its because she predicted you were going to and set you up. god, isnt she just operating two steps ahead of you at all times?
no, this one is just bad. its emotionally evocative and has plot twists and heroes and villains and betrayals and an open-ending that's so perfect you'd think a sequel was planned from the start. it also doesn't do any of that well.
a few weeks ago there was a post about puppygirls. the post asked for us to have a talk to decide on something, like a committee: are we ready to talk about the puppygirls? i didnt know we wanted to, but the author of that post, like the partner of the main character of tara knights story, had noticed a pattern. the problem, she said, was that "puppygirls cannot talk. they bark and paw and purr but they can't hold a conversation". they are socially inept. the post was received brutally for a number of reasons, the most valid one being "why would you make a post about this instead of having a private talk with whatever puppygirl made you feel this way?". but even that post, for however bad it was, had its moments. it said it wanted to have this talk in the open so the puppygirls could self-reflect without being directly called out. it said that everyone loved the puppygirls and that the criticism came from a place of wanting to help them improve. the author of that post saw puppygirls as people beaten into submission by their situations, and tried (for however flawed the attempt was) to offer them a hand.
"dump your puppygirl" is the opposite of this. whereas the post from a few weeks ago was malicious on accident, dump your puppygirl is malicious on purpose. the post from a few weeks ago was about trying to help people you loved, dump your puppygirl is about HATING them. and i mean HATE. and what makes it so much worse is that it's hate from someone who knows the pain well enough to pick it out with laser precision. tara knight wants you to know she hates you specifically, puppygirl. in this article she lays out all of the worst anxieties and fears of the puppygirl, points at each one and says: "you are doing all of this on purpose. you are wearing the skin of a woman but you are acting like a man. you are doing it to manipulate the people you claim to "love". you are acting like a man when you ask for sex nobody wants to give you. you act like a man when you use your mental health as an excuse for your inaction. we know you wear that oversized hoodie because youre insecure. we know you wear that choker because youre cosplaying as a rebellious woman while the real trans women (who want to be women, unlike you who is too scared to be seen as one) put in all this effort to help you, which you use to reproduce yourself, like a cancer, like a lame husband. every week you live you build up hundreds of hours of labor debt to the people who care for you. you are literally the embodiment of capitalism, stealing the labor from your family. and when they start measuring your activity and you are caught in your big lie, you will be excised, because you are mathematically a leech. here is a simple d/v formula for you to calculate how much of a leech you are."
but both "the post" and "dump your puppygirl" are sides of the same coin. where one tried to help and the other tried to hurt, they both are both part of a new wave of disdain for puppygirls. and not for puppygirls like "dog girls", puppygirls is just the term being used to camouflage disdain for trans women who "dont try hard enough". puppygirl is a synonym for boymoder. this post is a hate post directed at the people in our community who are paralyzed by their fear of walking into a world that wants to kill them.
in my time being subjected to the slimiest radfem rhetoric and 4chan transphobia, i have never even read something as completely fucking HATEFUL as dump your puppygirl. it stands out because you can tell she knows the exact anxieties of the puppygirls and targets them. this was a piece written to hurt. i would even go as far as to theorize that tara knights account was hacked, because the idea that someone claiming to be a transfeminist would think of making something so vile is out of the question. but it probably wasn't hacked and the reality is probably sadder: there is an epidemic among trans women where we look down on people who arent as far along as we are.
so, if you were looking for a piece that answers the age old question: "what if the horrified suicidal trans woman was actually an ungrateful cheating manipulator", Tara Knight has made something so reviling that it genuinely made my stomach drop.
for the horrified full-time boymoder thinking of reading this: dont. dont torture yourself with it. it has absolutely nothing of value to say. it aims solely to affirm the horrible things you think about yourself. you can only win this interaction by walking away.
Tara Knight might actually convince a disabled girl to kill herself with this post. Don't read this.
are you kidding me. i can't take this fucking seriously.
what do you mean using gendered pronouns for someone you don't know very well is overfamiliar. what. what. what. what. what. what. what. what are you talking about. why are you wanting to undermine trans women who don't want to be they/themmed. what is going on