#intracommunity

[brainscrems]

Note: Goyim, this discussion is not for you to join in on. No matter how well intentioned you may be your voice is not welcome here.

Fellow Jews. If you continue to support and legitimize the ADL after they:

a). Honored Jared Kushner in early-mid 2024 despite his continued affiliation with his father-in-law Donald “Both sides at the white nationalist rally have very fine people” Trump

b). Refused to endorse Harris bc they’d rather have Trump let Israel do whatever it wanted than make an America that’s actually safe for Jews under Harris. You know, despite the one candidate being chummy with nazis. I’ve been informed the ADL does not do endorsements. However, they also did not call out the white nationalism of the campaign and still bear responsibility on that end.

c). Have consistently refused to call out the white nationalist antisemitic nonsense continuing to pour out of this administration every damned day, in any meaningful way, starting with musk’s nazi salute and continuing from then.

d). Removed all its shit addressing racism from its webpages and refusing to fight racial inequality going forward. This is despite the fact that antisemitism is fundamentally tied to racism and cannot be addressed effectively unless you work to root out White supremacy alongside anti-Jewishness.

Then you are a fool playing right into the hands of our nazi government. The ADL is consistently refusing to address right-wing antisemitism and the rise of literal nazis to power in america in any meaningful way. They continue to address left-wing antisemitism. They are now actively refusing to address white supremacy at ALL, despite it being the heart of Jewish marginalization. So, this leaves us with an American organization that has officially refused to address the core of antisemitism in America, white supremacy and ONLY calls out problems in a meaningful way when it’s from the left. This creates an organization which is, effectively, running PR for a fascist regime and laundering its reputation by telling the world it’s cool with Jews. By being the biggest name in “Jewish” advocacy organization in the west, people believe it. So it fuels left-wing antisemitism because they think we’ve thrown in with fascists.

The purpose of an organization is what it does. What the ADL is doing is telling the world that the nazis in charge of our government are good for Jews, while acting as if the opposition are the greatest threat since Hitler. The ADL isn’t fighting for Jewish rights, it’s using the veneer of Jewish identity to bootlick for nazi pieces of shit. How many more times does the ADL have to show us that it is more interested in laundering fascism than it is interested in fighting for the rights of all Jews for you to let go of it as an institution?

If you continue to support the ADL in any capacity, you are actively harming the fight for Jewish liberation. You are legitimizing an organization that supports nazis. You can bend over backwards all you want to tell a story about how these bootlicking fuckheads mean well but are making bad choices or whatever. Idc. The purpose of an organization is what it does. What the ADL does these days is support fucking nazis. If you continue to give them credence, defend their reputation, and legitimize them as a source, then you are doing the same.

[0w0tsuki]

God damn "dude/man/guy is gender neutral actually" discourse is really a sign y'all are fucking hopeless. Because the bar is quite literally on the FUCKING FLOOR.

You know the stereotypical "performative cis liberal ally"? The one who upon acknowledging they've been corrected about an accidental misgendering, turns it into an entire god damn show of apologizing and telling you how HARD they're working to gender you correctly. Yeah if you're someone who defends the use of dude and man as gender neutral terms guess what? Even with making every apology a grand display at least they're fucking apologizing and putting forth an effort to show you that they're putting your interests in mind.

Which is more than can be said of you.

Imagine if they were told they accidentally deadnamed you. And instead of the usual acting like they just accidentally hit their own fucking child they went "Actually I think [DEADNAME] is pretty androgynous and could be used for anyone of any gender! I'm not going to use it now that you have corrected me! But I just wanted you to know I didn't see myself as explicitly misgendering you when I used [DEADNAME]"

We are asking for the BARE MINIMUM amount of effort! Literally all you have to do is if your going to insist that "Using gender neutral terms when referring to somebody even when their actual gender is readily available information is actually the correct way to gender somebody online" that at the VERY LEAST use actual gender neutral terms instead of dude/guy/man. You don't even give up your use of it in your everyday life. You're only being asked to think about this in spaces where trans women are common such as online queer spaces.

That is how little trans women not being misgendered left and right in places that sell themself as safe for her matters to you. It matters so little that you can't even be asked to not do the barest minimum to not contribute to an environment where anyone who wants to misgender a trans woman with no repercussions can just Dude her knowing full well that she will view it as misgendering and fall back on "oh I was just being gender neutral. YoU sHoUdN't AuToMaTiClY aSsUmInG pEoPlE's GeNdErS!!" Which is a common enough occurrence that we have to have this fucking discourse.

The bar is on the floor and y'all are digging holes just to not have to face the smallest of inconveniences. Performative allies are fucking lapping you. You should be embarrassed.

Do better

[mossadspypigeon]

i’ve been seeing this take around recently and i have a few things to say bc this made me laughhhh.

1. please LMAO. converts have completed the process. most of us are calling out CONVERSION STUDENTS who are problematic and entering a space with bad intentions, and YES that is a problem right now. gaslighting isn’t a good look.

and yeah there are people who completed the process who have extremely fucked opinions and maybe things that harm our community should be talked about. hmmmm

2. the majority of people here calling this out are queer ourselves so this is giving “the evol jewz are being mean to me because __.” insert random stupid ass reason. no, maybe have some self awareness? i get messages from jews across judaism: actual converts who have COMPLETED THE CONVERSION PROCESS (and dont deserve to get dragged down by idiots), reform jews, masorti, orthodox, even recon who call this out and say it’s a problem. plenty of people have posted about it who are queer, trans, gnc, etc. in fact the MAJORITY who have said something have been queer, including myself, so no, this is not about your sexuality or your gender. you’re just an asshole. that transcends identities lmao

idgaf what sexuality or gender you identify as or are, whatever. if you cause harm to my community, aka the jews, that behavior will be called out. in fact, given what the broader LBGTQIA+ community has been doing to jews in their midst for years now, like maybe shut the fuck up. (maybe call that out? ever? no? okay). that’s a whole other discussion though.

anyway lmao. the manipulation tactics are strong here.

people like:

*instead of taking responsibility for ANYTHING EVER.

[baeddelilluminati]

theyfab isn't a slur, people, its an intracomminity term thats use is disputed wrt its usefulness in describing people/trends and types of people transfeminine people get their lives ruined by

[arotechno]

the way the aro community talks about attraction is inadequate

Disclaimer: The following is in no way intended to invalidate, shame, or "call out" anyone for using whatever language or terminology they see fit to describe their own experiences. This is about community-wide trends and pressures, rather than individual choices.

As an aroace, I've never felt a particular desire to label other types of attraction I may or may not feel. Identifying as aroace is a way for me to express my disconnect with what society at large views as healthy, normal, valuable, and aspirational; that is, a committed, monogamous, sexual and romantic relationship. I don't want those things. I'm not able to even understand them. But by and large, beyond that, I don't find the framework of different types of attraction very useful at all.

This is the fatal flaw of the split-attraction model in its most advanced form: it's predicated on the idea that there are distinct types of attraction that can be qualified and quantified in neat and tidy boxes. Just as there are people for whom romantic and sexual attraction cannot be separated, there are many (like myself) for whom the very concept of attraction breaks down more and more the more you try to categorize it.

Here's the thing: relationships (of any kind) aren't inherently predicated on attraction, just as they aren't necessarily predicated on love. We can understand, as a community, why an aro person might have a successful romantic relationship despite not feeling romantic attraction, or why an ace person might enjoy engaging in sex even if they are not sexually attracted to their partner. Attraction does not equal action. So why, then, must we make the assumption that everyone must categorize their feelings in terms of attraction at all? This is how we end up with terms like queerplatonic attraction, which warps the original definition of queerplatonic such that a QPR becomes something predicated on a separate kind of attraction that is more unique and special than "regular" platonic feelings, rather than being a broad type of non-romantic relationship that is deliberately built and developed by the people in it based on their own personal needs and desires, and not necessarily based on some ephemeral type of attraction.

This sort of trend towards hyper-categorization is extremely frustrating to someone like me, who doesn't view their relationships or their feelings for others in terms of attraction at all. I'm not platonically "attracted" to my friends, I don't think. I love them platonically (deeply, unconditionally, almost like family), but naming it as attraction makes me almost uncomfortable. Others may not feel that way and that's fine. It's no skin off my nose how people choose to talk about their own feelings. But the implicit expectation in a lot of aro spaces is that you will label your attraction, your feelings, your experiences, your desires, your orientations according to such-and-such paradigms, as if we can wordsmith our way out of simply understanding one another. As if the diversity of aromantic experiences were something we need to break down and quantify.

All of these things are socially constructed. Sex, romance, love, relationships, attraction. That doesn't make them not real, but they are not divinely granted concepts with their own inherent, easy-to-understand taxonomy. We make up the language necessary to describe complex and diverse human experiences as best we can, because it's the only way. But what is absolutely crucial to remember, as a crucial tenet of aro activism and beyond, is that none of these models work for every single person, and needn't be prescriptive.

[anautistic]

Autism levels and varieties of support needs (and whatever else we may call them in the future) are not bubbles that people live in where everyone is exactly the same and has the same needs and same problems and same culture as everyone else. It's more like venn diagrams with many overlapping areas, where people may move through different overlapping areas as they age and grow.

[transmisogyny-explained]

Okay, today we’re discussing some common ways which transmisogyny is understood and talked about within trans TME circles — ways that it’s misunderstood, misconceptions about TME privilege, and the phenomenon of “oppression olympics.”

“extremely unpopular opinion but people treating transmisogyny like the worst kind of oppression you can face is... bad actually”

This isn’t an unpopular opinion; I’ve seen this same idea spread around by TMEs, both cis and trans, but it’s especially prevalent with trans men. Transmisogynists often downplay the severity of transmisogyny in order to excuse their own transmisogyny. This is nothing new.

Being affected by transmisogyny necessarily means being additionally affected by both misogyny and transphobia separately. Meaning that, on a gender-based axis of oppression, those who are affected by misogyny and/or transphobia but not transmisogyny may share something in common with transfems, but they are still privileged over us by virtue of being transmisogyny-exempt. Transmisogyny is not “worse” than any other form of oppression, but because oppression is intersectional and accumulative, transfems being affected by all three axes of oppression means that anyone who is not a transfem necessarily holds some kind of privilege over us. The same way that cis people necessarily hold privilege over trans people, even if they’re oppressed in other ways.

Transfems do not believe that transmisogyny is the worst kind of oppression you can face. I don’t think it’s fair to say that any form of oppression is “the worst,” as it is all bad. However, again, transmisogyny is the culmination of several different axes of oppression interacting, meaning transfeminine people (transfems of color especially) are the most affected by — and cannot be privileged over TMEs in terms of — gender-based oppression. Transfems being vocal about this is not a bad thing.

“it’s definitely really bad! and i don’t think people *intend* to do this. but at the same time it feels like a lot of ‘TMA’ (transmisogyny affected) people take that fact and hold it above others’ heads like it’s worse than any other kind of oppression. and that’s not cool”

Bringing up the fact that TMEs like OP are privileged over us is not “holding it above others’ heads”; this implies that transfems are trying to guilt or force or possibly blackmail TMEs into doing something. What exactly? The only thing I can think of is acknowledging their privilege. TMEs don’t often think about the ways their actions might affect transfeminine people without us trying to insert ourselves into conversations about the oppression of women and trans people. Of course, we’re discouraged from and often punished for doing so because of the abuse we endure from transmisogynists in retaliation, which is why some transfems end up either going full assimilationist or full separationist, but that’s a topic for another day.

I also want to point out that the second sentence strongly implies that transfems are incompetent in understanding and discussing our own oppression. “We don’t intend to treat transmisogyny like it’s the worst kind of oppression, we’re just too stupid and only think about ourselves because we’re entitled males,” is that right?

Lastly, notice how “TMA” is in quotes. Those don’t need to be there unless OP is expressing skepticism towards the idea that TMA individuals (and therefore transmisogyny itself) even exist.

“playing oppression olympics of any kind isn’t okay to do, and honestly i’m kinda tired of seeing it. and this isn’t even getting into how people will weaponize the idea of privilege, whether it’s actually there or not, which is another thing that plays into oppression politics”

I haven’t talked about this directly on this blog yet (though I may have alluded to it before) but the concept of “oppression olympics,” like cancel culture, is yet another attempt by those in a position of privilege to excuse their own bigotry, avoid accountability, and dismiss the concerns of those whom they’re privileged over. Once again, transmisogynists often downplay the severity of transmisogyny in order to excuse their own transmisogyny. “Oppression olympics” is the idea that a person of one marginalized identity will claim to be “more oppressed” than a person of another marginalized identity in order to...do something. It’s never really clear what the intent of “playing oppression olympics” actually is, and that’s because the actual intent is always getting someone to acknowledge that they can be simultaneously oppressed for one identity and privileged by another, and to reconcile with the fact that their privilege informs their experiences, beliefs, and actions. The only people who are benefitted by the perpetuation of the idea that “oppression olympics” exists (and is bad) are people who are absolutely averse to being held accountable for the ways they’ve contributed to the oppression of another group. When a trans woman tells a trans man to “check his privilege,” she’s not saying that transphobia isn’t real, that he doesn’t experience oppression, or that transmisogynistic discrimination is worse than transphobic discrimination. She’s telling him to stop being transmisogynistic.

The phrase “weaponize the idea of privilege” is an...interesting one. The whole concept of privilege, or really the lack thereof, is that some people are denied certain basic rights while others given institutionalized power over them. Yes, some people do weaponize their own privilege — we call that oppression. But an oppressed person cannot levy a privileged person’s privilege against them. That’s...the opposite of what oppression means.

“to clarify, again: i’m not saying that transmisogyny ISN’T bad, or isn’t ‘that bad,’ or anything like that. i’m saying that treating it like it’s the absolute highest tier of oppression isn’t good. it’s like treating others’ trauma as if it’s not ‘as bad’ as yours. don’t do that!”

A more apt comparison would be like if there were two traumatized people and one of those traumatized people was continually triggering the other while insisting that the other is being ableist for asking them to stop because “we’re both equally traumatized.” Transfems and trans TMEs are both oppressed. Trans TMEs are still fully capable of being transmisogynistic.

“i really... hate how often we see takes like ‘trans men don’t know anything about trans women and can’t talk about their issues’ and ‘trans men have a [trans]misogyny’ problem as if there aren’t trans women who just [expletive] Hate Transmasc Guts for no damn reason”

I genuinely don’t know why a trans man would want to talk about our issues instead of just listening to us and boosting our voices. But, yes, if you’re TME then you cannot know what it’s like to be oppressed under transmisogyny, and you therefore are not an authority on the topic. Your opinions matter, but they should not be prioritized over the lived experiences of transfeminine people (which they often are because of transmisogyny).

“Trans men have a [trans]misogyny problem” and “Some transfems use transmisogyny as an excuse to be needlessly hateful and callous towards transmascs as a specific group” are two statements which can coexist. This is plainly whataboutism in order to dismiss the important discussion of misogyny within transmasc circles.

Conclusion:

Talking about transmisogyny is not “treating it like it’s the worst kind of oppression you can face.” Talking about transmisogyny is not erasing or downplaying the oppression of other trans people. Transfeminine people talking about transmisogyny is not speaking over TME trans people. The reason why TMEs are uncomfortable with talking about transmisogyny, the reason they work so hard to shut down and problematize discussions about transmisogyny, is because it forces them to acknowledge their privilege and the ways which they have (even unintentionally) harmed transfeminine people. Acknowledging your privilege should make you uncomfortable because you’re coming to terms with the fact that you have, in some ways, contributed to others’ suffering. What you should do with that discomfort is seek to change it by helping to dismantle the systems which have afforded you that privilege and uplifting those without; not closing your eyes and plugging your ears.

[Image ID: A banner of the pink trans woman flag with white text that reads, “I don’t want to see or be seen by transmisogynists” next to a green check mark /end ID]

[arugula2048]

ik you prob wrote abt this ages ago but I wanted to say I appreciate your additions abt the 'almond mom' discussion. I saw it came from a child model almost fainting and the mother advising her to eat a couple of almonds chewed very slowly. So literally from eating disoreded mom harming and abusing child by purposefully malnourishing them. Ofc over time ppl posted more ambiguous things but what if the er mom was asked to comfort the child and 'did her steps' imstead? Or the mom eating salad (1/2

2/2 and the family eating heavier meals. Oftentimes the mom is visibly upset with the children so maybe they are 'breaking the cycle' by eating satisfying food after being told not to for many years? Like I agree we must not forget ppl acting 'strange' w food incl moms are victims of society which promotes disordered eating. But to actively push that on your child is cruel. And many ppl are not mentioning how strange their mom is but rather how it results in treating them, shamimg, policing them

I feel you, I could understand if the 'pacing bc she's worried and not ED' interpretation if it was one of many used in the analyses, but it irked me when so many bloggers just ran with that alone. Not very empathetic to the child, gyns, who in the post example was in the fucking ER, implying she wanted comfort but her mother prioritized her own body image instead... It's so funny (not funny) how they breezed past that part and was like "this bitter ungrateful child!! of course she's definitely lying about her mom to mock her"

It's an interesting analysis to focus fully and only on the 'almond mothers' in that post. But then to say that's the only way to see it and say that children are responsible for their mothers' healing is repulsive. I can't tell if that conclusion came from temporary tunnel vision, or if they never had a bad relationship with their mother, or if they no longer see themselves in the child now that they're adults, or if they're partly speaking from unresolved issues and believe that fixing their mothers will fix them too. They would've betrayed their younger selves just like their mothers did lol.

Not to mention, like you said, mothers are grown women and had decades to reflect on their experiences and illnesses to decide how they'd raise their daughters. As an adult and as a parent, they had that responsibility to step up for their children lol. The audacity of the ~approach your mother with a feminist mindset to break entire generational cycles of misogyny and EDs~ statement is unbelievable. To put that work on children? So the mothers shouldn't need to do anything? Why don't we start smaller with something kids can do?

I think that post got like that because of the whole "mother discourse" that had people acting as if someone said 'mothers should be officially recognized as a subhuman class' instead of 'I prioritize girls because they're the common denominator demographic of all women'. Cue the overcompensation and almost victim-blaming kids who were coached to get EDs. They seriously looked at a kid in the ER and blame her for her mom being fucked up, no one in that post contested that first reply. Yikes, but that's the internet, I guess.

Thank you for the message, I'm glad we felt seen by each other. Have a good day, anon!