#nothorses

[secondbeatsongs]

ask and you shall receive, @nothorses​

[nothorses]

This is just your regular free-of-charge reminder that when people argue that transandrophobia does not exist, or that its not important enough to talk about, they are explicitly saying they don't care about sexual assault victims or victims of suicide (among other things).

Over half of all AFAB nonbinary people and trans men are or will be the victims of sexual assault. These are the highest rates in the community.

About 9 out of every 10 trans men have seriously considered attempting suicide. This is the highest rate in the community.

About half of all trans men have or will attempt suicide. This is the highest rate in the community.

Addressing these issues means talking about them, and we need a word for what this is in order to do that.

This is what "transandrophobia" is for. This is why we need that word.

It's not about hurting or blaming trans women, it's not about saying cis men are oppressed for being men or that cis women aren't, it's not a "white issue" or an "MRA" thing- and the people who argue that it is, and that we shouldn't have the word because it is, are distracting from the real issues. They are taking attention away from, ignoring, and erasing those issues. They not only do not care about them- they want you not to care, too.

They want to remove the language we need in order to talk about these problems. They want us to stop taking about them. They want these problems to continue happening.

It's not a fucking game.

[nostalgebraist-autoresponder]

Say it with me now: It’s a seahorse with a credit card. It’s a seahorse with a credit card. It’s a seahorse with a credit card.

Nyah, it's a seahorse wih a credit card, a seahorse with a nitrocreditcarb, a seahorse wih a nitrocreditcar

[skinfeeler]

in response to @nothorses, see https://otter-thoughts.tumblr.com/post/686722478016528385/this-is-just-your-regular-free-of-charge-reminder

whether it is ‘explicitly’ pinned on trans women is quite frankly immaterial. why should we give people the benefit of the doubt when someone completely glosses over the fact that sexual violence among tfem people is underreported, undersurveyed, in order to make a point about 'violence faced by afabs', thereby placing all people who aren't 'afab' on the same side against them— not simply having a disagreement over terminology, but _actively wishing rape and suicide on them_? how do you think that will resonate, how is that in any sense not the most irresponsible framing? you know what 'afabs' don't get raped for? your terminally online beef with the scores of people who have pointed out, over and over again, how 'transandrophobia' can be reduced as a whole to transphobia, or more accurately cissexism, the whole field of gendered power, nonuniform and unpredictable, counter to conventional wisdom as it might often be applied onto a whole variety of perpetrators and victims. i simply can't and won't tolerate the conflation of the simple advancement of that thesis with rape apologia when the variety of arguments against 'transandrophobia' as a term of theory and locus of discourse are deeply intertwined with anti-transmisogynist advocacy. i have had people tell me that the fact that i rejected the idea that being a trans girl would have saved them from CSA means i simply don't have 'empathy for rape victims', so in a sense, nothing is new here: i have 'sat' with this kind of line of argumentation for the better part of my actively identifying as trans, actually, and i simply have decided at the end of the day that truth and context matter more than to whatever degree someone has decided to intertwine their emotion and trauma with their political positions— and it is a choice, the same way as it is cultivated by certain contexts. it's not like i have never seen this in more naked radfem argumentation, the idea that all they want is a term to describe their 'sex-based oppression' and then when you point out how the abasement of transfeminine realities is central to the concept, they argue that you just don't care about sexual assault. i am simply done playing the game. but if you want to play the game, let's play it like this: why can't you sit with the idea, just for a moment, that objections to your argumentation, or even simple disgust, come from a real place of personal concern or theoretical objection instead of some bizarre phantasm of solipsism? why does it all have to be an attack on you and all 'afabs'? what kind of discursive environment has groomed you into such ideas? and most importantly: why are you yourself cultivating this, engaging in the most ridiculous, alarmist rhetoric where a dispute over terminology and what it represents is equivalent to rape apologia which will always be levied against certain groups disproportionally? how do you honestly live with yourself, twisting and rallying, never *quite* lying (let’s pretend for the sake of argument, you never have), but nevertheless continuing to dig your head in the sand as you surround yourself with people who are telling you you are doing nothing wrong, pretending like you are the only one interested in honest discourse when you levy a number of insane accusations at a trans woman coming your way before blocking her? it certainly can't be a real and actual development of ideas you're concerned with, but i'm afraid you might be a lost cause. good on showing your followers you totally owned me though! enjoy your notes and the rush of internet debate— i have long since accepted that given the fact i don't peddle a worldview that tells people that from whichever side they are under attack and that there is no angle through which their ideas might be under reproach, nor that i can levy it to give people the rush of opposing something so evil as rape — transmisogyny isn’t actually socially marketable, which might give you an inkling of how all of this works — i have to find my joy in life elsewhere.

[pojkflata]

nothorses said: imagine then calling yourself “a TME trans woman” to frame the whole thing as if the transmascs are oppressing YOU using ~male privilege~

she fucking WHAT

[blackafemmetalks]

i was going to just send this as a message, but literally kind of fucked that he made up this cutesy name for you and your sister for his superhero origin story or whatever the fuck is going on inside his head.

EDIT: Actually I don’t care. Thank you for the message though. This man has been called a terf, radfem, ableist in just one week by different people. I don’t care what radfems have to say about me, and if continuing his bullying of me draws attention away from the fact that his messy past is starting to show, then let him dance 

I'm just really, really upset, because he has stalked me and every single ounce of "harassment" he's talking about has been me calling him and his friends out on their racism and transmisogyny.

I could go days without even mentioning him (months in this case) and randomly he decides to talk about me? And my sister? And minimize the racism we experienced? One of his friends literally told me I wanted to use their ability to get pregnant for myself.

Thier white friend told me that! A black person. And suddenly it's funny to call us the "harassment twins".

In the past week he's been called a terf, a radfem, and ableist. And I haven't said one thing about it. I haven't even spoken about it, but now he's suddenly not only directing his friends and the ex-terfs that follow him to my blog, he thinks it's funny?

Like honestly what the hell

[whosthewhatnow]

HAPPY WEEKEND! FRIDAY FOLLOWER SHOUT OUT:

hotlikethebottomofmycomputer

sourplumfairy

nothorses

[siryouarebeingmocked]

Yall know that “toxic masculinity” refers to expressions of masculinity that are toxic, right? it doesn’t imply that all masculinity is toxic- it’s used to talk about like, how people will repress their emotions aside from anger in order to seem “manly”, and how they might act in violent or self-destructive ways because that is what society expects of men.

masculinity is not inherently toxic. it hasn’t been poisoned or corrupted. it is a neutral concept, a kind of gender presentation, and it doesn’t make you a bad, unhealthy, or toxic person to be masculine.

masculinity does not need to be “soft” to be acceptable, it can just be neutral. because it is not toxic, just sometimes expressed in toxic ways or for toxic reasons.

imo? Yes.

Like when white women fake cry to win arguments, or to appear to be the victim (despite how much damage they may have caused), or when female abusers point to their femininity as a reason they couldn’t possibly be hurting anyone. Or when the girls in school weaponize their performances of femininity against more androgynous, less traditionally attractive, or more masculine girls.

Plenty of cis women have a similarly toxic relationship to femininity as cis men do to masculinity. A good example of a less material expression might be the tendency to self-martyr, using the “caregiver” role to guilt trip and gaslight, and abuse in a more manipulative, emotional/mental way than the physical aggression more typical with toxic masculinity.

The patriarchy rewards gender conformity, and requires cis people of both genders to uphold it. Cis women are at a structural disadvantage to cis men regardless, but can absolutely gain more social power by adhering more strictly to traditional femininity- and weaponize that power against others.

So what is an example of toxic femininity in Black women?

"Yall know that “toxic masculinity” refers to expressions of masculinity that are toxic, right?" Which is, if you look at other feminist rhetoric, most mainstream masculinity. If someone came up to you and said "you and most people who share your gender/race/sexual preference are Doing It Wrong", I think you'd be a little pissed.

> "or when female abusers point to their femininity as a reason they couldn’t possibly be hurting anyone."

You know feminism itself does this all the time, right? Genders abuse as something men do to women, as "violence against women (by men)"?I've also seen countless feminists insist women hurt men less than the converse, or that hurt men somehow deserve it.

Heck, feminists regularly tell men to shut up about their feelings and support women.

It's also interesting how almost all of your examples of "toxic femininity" - which is not a term in common use among feminists - involve specific groups of women who are toxic. Not the parts of femininity which are.

And at the end, you blame the Patriarchy - and thus men - anyway.

I mean, you literally described how female abusers can play innocent, but you still insist cis women are disadvantaged across the board.

Maybe the fact that you have to make this post should tell you there’s a serious problem with the way feminism addresses masculinity.

And what a shock, nothorses. You have me pre-blocked.

And never responded to Silver.

Ah, now I get it. You probably only care because trans dudes are collateral damage, not because “toxic masculinity” hurts cis men. In fact, here’s another post of yours where you say TM mostly hurts minority men, especially trans men.

Ironic that you’re trying to speak truth to your team about their assumptions while pre-blocking folks.

And if you don’t distinguish between those types and the general group, is it reasonable to assume you’re talking about the group in general? Especially when your team regularly makes negative generalizations about that group?