May 6, 2019
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Austria
seen from Denmark
seen from Netherlands
seen from China
seen from Colombia
seen from Türkiye
seen from South Korea
seen from Türkiye
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
Can we please just cancel this fandom and website
My response:
It was based on one of the more transmisogynistic trans-fetishistic films ever made, one that’s a half-step away from being as horrific as The Assignment, and this fic looks to bridge that gap. It looks to involve all the same bullshit that aggressively directs harm against trans women and casts us in a horrible, inaccurate light
Honestly, I’m 100% justified in making a Christmas wish that these authors fall into an industrial woodchipper.
I am so tired. So fucking exhausted.
Why can’t people stop gleefully getting off to hurting us?
Do you have a link to the video/reports of the headlock? I see a lot of rad/fems leaving that part out.
I watched it a few days ago on a youtube channel a reddit user hosted, a version copied from the original uploader’s video (which has since been removed) but they took it down when terfs started using it to doxx the trans women in the video.
I wasn’t mindful enough to take screencaps when I was watching, or to DL the video for my own, but there’s a still-shot here that is iirc a few seconds after the headlock, showing the terf (middle) grabbing and wrestling one of the counter-protesters (leftmost, blurry because she’s trying to get free of her grip)
The progression of events was, last I recall:
1. Trans counter protesters chanting and holding signs arrive on scene
2. TERF approaches with a camera and aggressively tries to photograph their faces.
3. Some counter-protesters use signs to try and block her ability to take their pictures.
4. In turn, the TERF shoves her way forward and around/over the signs to try and get shots of their faces.
5. One of the counter protesters goes to shove or hit her after it’s clear she’s not leaving them alone, but another counter-protester uses a sign to block the attack and get in the way.
6. One of the counter protesters grabs the TERF’s camera.
7. TERF wrestles her and puts her in a headlock
8. Camera is thrown to the ground and damaged.
9. TERF continues to hold the counter protester in a headlock. When she escapes it, the TERF grabs her from behind and keeps trying to wrestle her.
10. Trans woman who had attempted to shove/hit TERF before arrives and punches the TERF in the head. Then flees once the wrestled counter-protester is free and safe.
Like, sure, whatever, there was some property damage initially. A camera is not a person, though. I doubt anyone involved would deny that they took the woman’s camera and broke it. That’s just a fact. I’m no expert on british law, but I would imagine there would be a distinguishable difference between pushing/shoving another person, and the theft/destruction of property. Past that, I doubt there’d be a difference between wrestling a stranger into a headlock and punching another person. They’re both exertions of violent force upon another person.
The TERF was the one to initiate blatant physical contact first by putting the counter-protester in a headlock. If you’re going to assault some counter-protesters who you’re clearly opposed to, who you have systemic power over, simply because they’re doing what they can to limit that TERF’s ability to wield systemic power agaisnt them, then chances are decent that they’re going to fight back and defend their own. Which is exactly what happened. Had that TERF remained at a solid distance and took photos, this wouldn’t have happened. It was because she got in their faces when her doxxing attempts were impeded, and pushed and shoved them to try and get what she wanted, and made herself a clear threat to their safety, and then followed that up with a blatant physical assault?
Yeah, there’s no getting around that. She was the one that instigated the violence. There’s no punch without that headlock, without her shoving her way up against the pro-trans protesters who were trying to hide their identities.
Edit: Not a video, but this twitter account has a few more stills, with commentary
I did hear that the person who threw the punch was actually a non binary AFAB, not a trans woman.
I haven’t really kept up with all the details since. I was under the impression that the counter protester who grabbed and smashed the camera, the one who got wrestled, was an afab non-binary person, but lots of details were hazy, and it was freshly happened, so that certainly could be the case (or they could both be afab nb folks, too). We know a TERF got punched by someone who is trans/nb, or a pro-trans/nb ally.
Either way, the commentary of TERFs claiming male violence has been discredited simply due to the fact that the TERF initiated the violence in the first place. If the person who punched her was trans or nb, then that’s not so important, and I don’t really feel it’s a priority to identify the one who punched and put them in more danger than they may be in anyways.
Emily who? What happened?
Emily Andras, current exec and writer for Wynonna Earp, and former writer for Lost Girl.
During the other night’s episode, someone tweeted at her, criticizing her writing. Andras responded with a comment that was misgendering, but could have been an innocent mistake.
A friend to the critic corrected Andras, saying the critic wasn’t a girl, making it clear enough that using she/her to refer to the critic would be misgendering (critic is NB). Emily Andras proceeded to digest that information, and then continue to misgender the critic.
And when she kept getting called out for that, she defended her right to do so, saying the critic was rude, and that she doesn’t have to give respect to someone not giving respect to her. This went on for a while.
Eventually, in a style different than her usual language/writing style, much more formal, she apologized and said she’d never willfully misgender anyone (which she literally had just done and defended doing earlier that day)
This is the same woman who wrote a horrifically, violently transmisogynistic episode of Lost Girl that played in virtually every transmisogynistic stigma and trope. Lost Girl in turn, responding to the criticism back then, handwaved it away saying they hadn’t intended to cause harm, so it wasn’t a big deal.
We want to let you know that the Lost Girl writers base all episodic characters off of researched folklore, and that the character of The Warden in the premiere of Season 3 is a character based off the mythological shapeshifter known as the Liderc. The Warden was only intended to represent this mythic being. We did not intend this character to be seen as a transgender person, we apologize if the character was seen as such. We do hope that you accept that no comparison or discrimination toward the transgender community was intended by the depiction of this mythological character.
Lost Girl prides itself on being open and accepting to everyone, and are enthusiastic supporters of the GLBT community. We want to encourage a society in which everyone can feel comfortable to express and be who they are without judgment. Equality and a world without labels is important to all of us at the series. We strive to create three dimensional characters, who empower all viewers regardless of sexuality or gender.
So yeah, essentially a “Sorry you were offended, but we didn’t do anything wrong” non-apology, and given Andras’ lack of individual commentary (she was an exec producer in S3, so the above are probably her words, even if we can’t fully confirm), I can’t imagine her stance on the matter was any better.
It’s pretty telling that 95% of the time, the trans/nb people equating the violent transmisogyny TERFs spew to bi/a/etc.-phobia were afab.
Honestly, not that I figure any of my followers approve of that bullshit, but in case it needs saying:
AERF, as a term, is inherently violently transmisogynistic
And after a cursory twenty minute sifting through tumblr, I recognize a lot of the people I saw supporting it as folks who are routinely transphobic/transmisogynistic, and/or contest that transmisogyny exists or is meaningful, and often have some pretty ahistorical views on the LGBT+ communities at large (like believing calling the q word a slur is ‘terf rhetoric’ and originated with terfs, rather than it being a decades old intracommunity issue stemming from experiences of trauma and navigating slur reclamation and community identity development), so it’s pretty evident that there’s a problem there
So yeah. AERF is violently transmisogynistic. I shouldn’t have to explain why, it’s patently obvious to anyone who cares about trans women.
Additionally, as a refresher since we’re on the topic of violent transmisogyny in online spaces, using the term ‘gatekeeper’ within an LGBT+ context to describe anything but the medical/institutional oppression-fueled genocide against trans people? Violently transphobic.
Equating TERFs/TWERFs to cis het exclusionists, and using ‘TERF rhetoric’ as a catch all for any ‘exclusive’ commentary? Violently transmisogynistic.
This shouldn’t have to be said. Whatever folks’ views are on a spec folks in the community, they can talk about this without throwing trans folks, primarily trans women, under the bus and appropriating our history of oppression, and purposely undermining the clarity we require to name and discuss our oppressors and enemies
There are ways to go about this that don’t involve harming trans people to try and get a step up on those who hold views counter to your own.
Tangentially Re: that post abt ace/bi exclusion being = terf talk abt trans women. 1. Its not the same. There's a whole extra layer of violence and vehemence that I've watched expressed but never experienced as a cis girl regardless of how pple discount bisexuals. It did make me think of how queer women often lose/fear losing access to platonic affection from women friends cuz their attraction to women is "dangerous". Cuz attraction to women is coded as male/aggressive/predatory/dirty.<1>
Idk it just made me think about how womanhood is policed: acceptable desires, acceptable partners, acceptable bodies. Like transmisogyny is it's own whole thing but it is valuable (to me??) to see the way these things link up across different experiences. Idk. Quality content as always. Pls enjoy my musings. <2>
Oh for sure there are some experiences that overlap in spots. It’s important for folks t talk about the way that not being cis, or not being hetero can impact the way you navigate through society, especially in interpersonal relationships. Like, when I came out as trans, all of my previously affectionate cis friends pretty much stopped touching me altogether, probably due to transphobic/transmisogynistic stigmas. They only grew more averse when I came out as a lesbian, and I stopped being invited to girl’s nights and whatnot. Like, that sort of experience can be harrowing, and folks need to be able to discuss that and the similarities, how certain systems of oppression sometimes use similar tools to work towards their goal, etc..
It’s just important for folks to be specific, and to not ultimately equate the specific violent history of one group to the general oppression of others, since that is manipulative, and exploitative, and false. Like, we can point out that some of the same tools are used, but we can’t equate the violence, we can’t equate the manner in which those tools are used, we can’t equate the impact on each community, etc. etc.
I just find the “terf rhetoric” schtick endlessly insulting and frustrating, because I am certain I could change a few words in a transmisogynistic TERF rant and produce a biphobic rant, or an aphobic rant. But I could also make a white nationalist rant, and an ableist rant. I could also make it into a rant against transmisogyny, against racism, against poverty and capitalism, etc.
By flipping a few words around, I can turn the message into whatever I want. Does that mean that anti-capitalist activists are TERFs because they share similar rhetoric? Nope, that would be categorically absurd. There are vastly different histories, contexts, mechanisms, etc. involved, even if some of the same words and argument structures are used. Different words involve different contexts and histories, and that can’t be ignored as if it doesn’t matter.
The sentences “I love you” and “I hate you” are very similar. 66% similar. You couldn’t say they’re 66% similar in meaning, in context, though. One is expressing love, and one is expressing hatred. That one word in each determines the meaning. You can’t just swap words and say it’s the same thing. That’s what cishet people do when they criticize LGBT folks joking about them, and cry about heterophobia and cisphobia, and how we wouldn’t lauugh if the jokes were about gay, bi, trans etc. people.
It’s just frustrating.