The Only Way Out Is Through

it/its xe/hir 25 transandrogynous • fag • lunarian • intersex

[xenineshroom]

I keep trying to write a pinned post but my toxic perfectionism keeps stopping me.

You all can call me Nine, or Bean (whichever makes you feel best). I use it/its and xe/hir pronouns, not they/them. My only auxiliary is she/he alternating.

I'm a xenogender boygirl, I'm intersex, a fag, a girlfag, a femboy, and a creature. Assumptions or accusations about my gendered or sexed experiences will earn an instant block.

This is a side blog, so if I follow you, it will be from another account with a different description.

I talk about transandrophobia, exorsexism, intersexism, mainly, I also boost conversations about transmisogyny, and passionately support frameworks that help us as gender and sex minorities communicate, and facilitate solidarity between us all. I also care a lot about generalized sexism, frameworks to discuss patriarchy and misogyny, as well as gender theory as a larger subject. I am also a sex abolitionist and gender liberationist.

Given this is a theory/discussion blog above all else, here's a non exhaustive list of other positions:

Anti-Zionist

Democratic Communist

Land Back

Anti-racist

Pro-kink

Anti-radfem

Anti-TERF

Anti-transmed

I seek to approach conversations with good faith and compassion. I may fail to do that, and if I do, I will do my best to take responsibility for it. Note my compassion only extends so far, I will never harass or insight harm, but I am not required to be nice to people who're out to harm others or especially spread TERF rhetoric.

Last of all, a few fun facts about me, I like to read, I love to sculpt, I struggle to write consistently, I play Dwarf Fortress religiously, my profile picture is traditional art by myself, and I dream of becoming a better artist.

[sluglover666]

Hot take, but even if you ARE punching up (instead of punching sideways at a group that is in the same boat as you), there's a limit to what you can say without sounding like a violent facist but woke this time.

Making fun of a group of people that are privileged over you is one thing, but wishing non-cartoonish violence and death on them ("they should fall off a cliff" vs. "they should be wiped out"), wishing sexual violence on them, dehumanising them, claiming that they're less capable of creating art or living meaningful lives, saying that their relationships are inherently shallow and fake - these things are fucked up. I understand venting and saying extreme things when in pain, but when you find yourself regularly posting about wanting certain people tortured and killed, you need to examine that.

When the only thing stopping you from completely dehumanising someone is your own judgement regarding their privilege level relative to yours, you are not a safe person to be around.

[darkladynyara]

[emfrots]

"convince your followers that their Oppressor Class (whether real or imagined) is less deserving of human rights" is the oldest and most reliable trick in the book to incite mass violence, and you're not immune to it because you're a Good Person with Correct Opinions. you will continue to be a potential breeding ground for fascist thought until you stop dehumanizing people in any context, regardless of whether they deserve it or not, or how serious you are. there can be no acceptable targets.

[standwithdaanes]

Rwandan genocide - Wikipedia

The Rwandan Genocide: From Colonial Roots to a Contested Future - Explaining History Podcast

In the spring of 1994, the small African nation of Rwanda was engulfed in a maelstrom of violence that saw at least 800,000 Tutsi and modera

I always think of the Rwandan Genocide when it comes to this. Thank you for bringing it up.

In particular, from that second link:

As we have already seen in this series of articles, Rwanda’s ethnic division between Hutu (around 85 %) and Tutsi (around 14 %) had deep roots in colonial rule. Under Belgian administration, identity cards fixed ethnicity as a rigid category, and the Tutsi minority was favoured for education and government work. After independence in 1962, this hierarchy inverted, and Hutu elites consolidated control. [...] When RTLM launched in July 1993, it combined pop-culture style with extremist ideology. This hybrid made hatred sound normal, even entertaining. Music, jokes, gossip, and death threats co-existed in the same broadcast. [...] RTLM’s language fused entertainment with ideology. It mocked Tutsis as arrogant “cockroaches” (inyenzi), accused them of conspiring to enslave Hutus, and encouraged listeners to “work” to eliminate them—a euphemism for killing. Humour, music, and familiarity disguised the lethal message.

[brainscrems]

“Anything goes as long as it’s punching up” is also the central tenet of antisemitism. Leftists think Jews are the ultrawhite ruling class, worst of the worst of whiteness, and conservatives think we’re a race secretly controlling the world and pretending to be white as a plot to bring down the white race. People who believe the latter are in charge of the US government rn. The nature of antisemitism is that we serve as a misdirect for the people with real power. Whatever issues you care about, people in power will find a way to blame the Jews. I cannot remember the exact quote or who it’s from, but I will paraphrase it anyways. Depending on who you ask we’re communists, capitalists, nationalists, rootless cosmopolitans, white, least white, liberals, conservatives, fascists, anarchists, or whatever other “existential and powerful” threat one may believe exists. But what we never are to these people is human. We’re the monsters who hurt them and so it’s okay to hurt us. The truth doesn’t matter, of course, because they aren’t actually afraid of us. We’re just a safer and easier target, and the lie that hurting us is dangerous and makes a change is easier than the hard truths and dangers one must face to fight real power. As Jean-Paul Sartre said, “If the Jew did not exist, the antisemite would invent him.” Because it is not about the truth, but having a comforting lie that you can make positive change through abusing the vulnerable.

[phoukanamedpookie]

Remember Audre Lorde, "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house."

Are you dismantling the system or just taking it over?

[vexatiousvic]

I actually hate learning new slurs. Like, yes, it's important to be able to recognize them, but man. I did not need to see/hear that. I did not need to know. I'm sad someone would something like that about a marginalized minority group :(

And if you use specifically 4chan slurs, you will be extremely sus. Nothing good ever came from there.

[johannestevans]

Watched a documentary about abuse and advice one guy said to give children was, "Tell them that if someone is hurting them, to tell someone - and don't just tell one person. Tell as many people as possible, and keep telling as many people as possible until the abuse stops." and i really liked that

Bc so many ppl focus on the idea of telling A Trusted Adult, but even a well-meaning individual can fuck up and let abuse fall through the cracks or not know what to do

Whereas if a child tells LOADS of adults AND other kids, there's far less opportunity for an abuser to do damage control

Consistently telling their story and spreading it around disempowers the abuser to control and coerce the flow of information, or to utilise gaps and weaknesses in systems of reporting or welfare to isolate the child

Just really good advice. Not suprised I don't hear it more often.

[flowercrowncrip]

This is really good advice and, in the UK at least, also applies to “adults at risk” as well. It’s what I did when I had problems with my social care provider that amounted to a safeguarding concern earlier this year.

If your school safeguarding lead, youth worker, scout leader, neighbour, doctors surgery, local citizens advice office etc. all make referrals and follow up on them to make sure they’ve been received and taken seriously then it’s more likely that it will be taken seriously and that action will happen.

[wiisagi-maiingan]

I wish general society acknowledged that "boy moms" are often incredibly abusive. They are controlling and manipulative and they often isolate their sons (and daughters, boy moms are deeply misogynistic) from other family members, friends, and especially romantic partners. There is a reason why so many men who grew up with "boy moms" struggle to stand up to their mothers even as adults with partners and children of their own; it's because years and decades of emotional abuse and manipulation make it extremely difficult to both stand up to your abuser AND to even recognize it as abuse in the first place, especially when your abuser has spent your entire life telling you that they're the only person on your side and everyone is out to get her.

This isn't a justification for the way that these men treat their own partners and children and put them below their moms, but I really think we need to talk about this like the abuse it is and recognize that it's extremely difficult to move past abuse and trauma when you don't even have those words to explain your experiences.

(Do NOT tag this as narcissistic abuse; linking abuse with disorders instead of behaviors is ableist and makes it incredibly difficult for people to get mental health care and talk about their experiences with their illnesses. Most abusers don't have NPD and most people with NPD are totally fine and wonderful friends, partners, and parents.)

[wiisagi-maiingan]

"Why do so many men put up with their moms manipulating them/pushing aside their partners/taking over their weddings/etc?"

The same reason why so many adults brush off their dad beating them as kids. The same reason why so many women don't bat an eye at how controlling their boyfriends and husbands are. Because that abuse is normal to them and it is painful and difficult to recognize how awful it really is, especially when the abuse is coming from someone that you love and don't want to hurt.

[hyperlexichypatia]

I know that "what if the genders were reversed?" isn't always a useful framework, and I know that fathers being sexually controlling of their daughters is all too normalized, but that said, I think if fathers went around talking about how they don't like their sons but they like their daughters more because daughters are their "little girlfriends" and being distraught that their toddler daughter might grow up and love another man instead of being his girlfriend forever, people might be more likely to recognize this emotional and borderline sexual abuse.

[grumpysskatesncrafts]

quarterly reminder to the white folk that just because you know racism is bad doesn’t mean you’ve stopped internalizing racist standards or ideals

take some time to consider the racial biases society has conditioned you to subconsciously subscribe to and have a good day 👍

[learn-how-to-love]

That “cringe” nonbinary xenogender genderfuck therian who uses neopronouns and may or may not go on HRT while being loudly, proudly themselves will always be more revolutionary and subversive than a binary trans person who aggressively reproduces the cis status quo and shames anyone who doesn’t do the same.

[learn-how-to-love]

By the way, I threw “therian” in here as a bit of a litmus test for those responding to it as something widely regarded as “cringe” but ultimately completely harmless and benign that’s often maligned by people with conservative beliefs. And well. It did its job quite amazingly given how many of the negative responses I’ve seen have focused on that rather than the overall message of shaming people for their identities is bad and counterproductive. It’s almost like these people view all of those stated identities this way but used the silly furry one as a “weak point” they’d get minimal pushback on to dismiss the very clear point of the post. Literally hilarious honestly

[genderkoolaid]

i did not realize Monet X Change was also nonbinary (she/her in drag, she/him out of drag)!!!!!! if god hates genderqueers why do we keep winning

& his drag sibling Bob the Drag Queen (she/her/him/his) is nonbinary, and their drag mother Honey Davenport (she/her in drag they/them out of it) is nonbinary.... this is why i don't like people always drawing a strict binary between "trans women" and "binary cis men who are gnc/crossdressers/drag queens." i hate the erasure of nonbinary/genderqueer/tgnc people who are seen as male. the world is so much more beautiful when you start assuming every person you see could potentially be nb/gq/tgnc & recognizing the ones who actually are

[luckyladylily]

So I have a point to make, but I think it is going to take a bit of a journey to get there. Lets start with a quote from Whipping Girl (Julia Serano).

When the majority of violence and sexual assaults committed against trans people is directed at trans women, that is not transphobia—it is trans-misogyny.

I think it is important to understand that for many trans women, Whipping Girl is formative. It is hard to overstate how important of a work it is to how trans femme people as a whole understand and view the world. With that in mind.

That quote is predicated on a false assumption. The best current data is that violence is directed across trans gender identities fairly equally. That is, trans men and non binary people suffer about as much violence as trans women. However, up until recently almost all studies of violence against trans people have been focused on trans women. Trans men and nonbinary people have been critically under represented and violence against them critically unreported. And yet many trans women continue to assume that trans women are the most targeted gender identity, largely because of an over reliance on a twenty year old manifesto that made a very strong claim based on bad data (which was the best data available at the time).

This is not a Julia Serano hit piece. I think Whipping Girl is fine. But I also think that Whipping Girl is not perfect. There are ideas and statements I personally disagree with. There are ideas and statements in there that are objectively wrong, like the above quote. And there is a least one statement I simply find indefensible.

While trans people on the female-to-male (FTM) spectrum face discrimination for breaking gender norms (i.e., oppositional sexism), their expressions of maleness or masculinity themselves are not targeted for ridicule—to do so would require one to question masculinity itself.

This statement does not line up with what I have observed. I have observed trans men's masculinity being ridiculed, though not in the same way as trans women's femininity is ridiculed. She is wrong. I think this is an ignorant statement made by a trans woman motivated to overlook discrimination because she was pushing a particular narrative and therefore failed to recognize discrimination as it is experienced by another group, assuming that because it is not like the discrimination she experiences it does not exist. I believe this statement is indefensible. It was ignorant then, it is ignorant now.

Again, this is not a hit piece. I don't think she is a bad person, I don't think we need to throw out all of Whipping Girl. Lots of people make mistakes like this, it is an occupational hazard of making these kind of strong theories and statements.

But how many trans women take this statement as gospel and build their understanding of trans masculinity around Julia Serano's dismissive, factually incorrect, and at times even ignorant statements?

And this is Julia Serano's Whipping Girl. One of the most respected trans feminine texts there is. If we should be able to trust any text, it is Whipping Girl.

And that's the point. It is dangerous to view these sorts of texts as objective sources of information. And it's not just trans women and whipping girl, I am just most familiar with texts relating to trans women because I am one.

The queer community has a problem where we view authority figures in the movement as sources of objectively correct information. And when you do this eventually some authority figure you respect is going to say something that's ignorant and wrong and you will adopt that incorrect idea.

You have to be critical of your sources. Especially sources that speak to you on an emotional level.

[yearst]

Do you know where someone could find the best current data about violence against trans people? Because every time I try to look, I find data that says trans women are significantly more at risk of violence than trans men.

I am not trying to kick the hornets nest here, but if you’re telling people to question their sources and then making a big claim without any links to data… people are going to question where you got that.

[luckyladylily]

So let's start with a critically flawed, if well meaning, source, to demonstrate why you have to be careful and the type of misinformation that is extremely easy to happen. The human rights campaign is one of the first sources people are going to come up against here. They also horribly mangle the data in ways that are, frankly, shocking. I'm pretty sure that they didn't have anyone qualified to do statistical analysis look over their claims. Maybe not even anyone with basic training.

So the hrc bases a lot of their claims on identified homicide numbers. Which, of course, introduces massive selective bias. Using a pool of 372 identified trans victims of homicide, the hrc claims that 83% of trans victims of homicide were women.

The problem being that identified victims are not the same as all victims. Especially when you are comparing a known highly visible demographic to demographics known for low visibility.

The discrepancy in those claims is subtle to those who are not trained in data analysis, but it is such a basic and major error as to call into question the ability of the HRC to do effective data analysis at all. It's classic survivorship bias, I'm sure you've seen the story of the WW2 planes with bullet holes, it's that sort of thing.

And it is true that all sources agree that trans women (especially black trans women) are far more often identified. We have more names of murdered trans women than other demographics. You might be forgiven thinking this means trans women suffer the most violence.

But competent data analysis paints a different picture.

Lets look at "Global Burden of Violence Against Transgender and Gender-Diverse Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis".

The first thing you will notice is that this source spends a huge amount of time going into exact methodology, what data was used, the source, what data was not used and why, and how and why it was analyzed in the way it was. This is what competent data analysis looks like. Lets pull some critical quotes from the source:

"Disproportionate violence burdens are experienced by transgender and gender-diverse people who are multiply marginalized.13 For example, transphobia, racism, and classism intersect to compound violence exposure for transgender women of color.14,15 According to the Trans Murder Monitoring project, 94% of the 321 identified transgender and gender-diverse people who were murdered in 2023 were transgender women or transgender feminine people, and the majority were Black, women of color, and engaged in sex work.16 Such disparities suggest the importance of considering intersecting identities in violence research and intervention strategies.13"

You will notice they acknowledge the data on identified victims is almost entirely trans women. What they do not do is suggest that this means trans women are the primary victims of anti trans violence, instead drawing the conclusion that intersecting identities are a key factor. This is important because of the results of the actual data of properly conducted data gathering. Here is their conclusion about violence across trans gender identities: "Our meta-analyses did not show significantly different levels of violence globally among transgender women, transgender men, and nonbinary adults."

"While we would have included homicide, we identified no studies that reported its prevalence." The first part is pretty plain. There is not a statistically significant difference in violence levels between trans identities, according to the data that was collected in a scientific manner.

However, homicide data has been completely neglected to be collected in a scientific manner (likely due to the difficulty of doing so). Instead reports are anecdotal - that is, we identify trans homicide victims after the fact, which means it is entirely based on demographic visibility. The source does suggest that it seems likely that black trans women in particular are disproportional victims of homicide, but no real conclusion can be drawn without further studies.

Given that general violence against trans people seems fairly flat across identity, and that intersectional factors seem to play a critical part in violence against trans people, I would suggest that anecdotally gathered evidence is the source of the discrepancy. Between a demographic known for hyper visibility (trans women), and demographics known for being practically invisible (other trans identities), it draws a very obvious picture of why the anecdotal evidence looks the way it does.

As a side note and purely my own opinion, I think there is a tendency for white trans women to claim the violence experienced by trans women of color, especially black trans women, and report it as general violence against trans women. But the data suggests that race (and class, which are often intertwined) play such a massive role in violence against trans women that I feel it is honestly kind of racist how the trans women community so often glosses over it, if it is even discussed at all. The simple fact is that a white trans woman like myself is much, much less likely to experience violence than a black trans woman, and that is a key part of the discussion.

Getting back to data, there is one more important piece I want to highlight. Specifically, how data has been gathered, and on who.

"Of the 94 studies, nearly all (90 studies [96%]) included transgender women, whereas 49% (46 studies) included transgender men, and 37% (35 studies) included nonbinary adults"

This is a massive discrepancy in visibility. It seems almost laughable that a study would include trans women specifically but not bother with trans men, a staggering display of systematic bias against trans men, and yet it appears that half of available studies that passed the minimum bar of quality to be included in the meta analysis did just that. And nonbinary people have it even worse. It is no wonder that violence against trans demographics other than trans women is less well understood and under reported in anecdotal analysis. Even the people actively looking for violence against trans people are heavily biasing their studies towards discovering violence against trans women.

I could go on for a long, long time breaking down this one meta analysis, but I think you get the point, and in particular how important proper data analysis is. The simple fact of the matter is many "reputable" sources are clearly not conducting proper data analysis when breaking down anti trans violence by demographic and making wildly incorrect claims because of it.

I have one more source I will be brief with. "Gender Identity Disparities in Criminal Victimization: National Crime Victimization Survey, 2017–2018". The critical quote for our purpose:

"Transgender women and men had higher rates of violent victimization (86.1 and 107.5 per 1000 persons, respectively) than did cisgender women (23.7 per 1000 persons; OR = 3.88; 90% CI = 0, 8.55) and cisgender men (19.8 per 1000 persons; OR = 5.98, 90% CI = 2.09, 9.87), but there were no differences between transgender men and women (Δ = 21.4; SE = 68.7; P = .76)."

You will note that the raw data shows higher violence against trans men, but with proper data analysis it is revealed to not be statistically significant. This is something you have to be careful of, there are tools experts use for data analysis that reveal that obvious conclusions from raw numbers are not always correct.

There are more sources out there, but I am not going to bother tracking them down. It was not hard to find these sources, these two major sources I found through simple internet searches on the first page (duck duck go, in my case). I don't know why you had problems, for me it was as simple as searching for something like "trans violence by gender identity" and looking for actual studies that talk about methodology.

This is a skill people really need to develop, but its not something I know how to teach. I personally think the queer community on tumblr is very over reliant on being spoon fed sources, and on top of that is really terrible at evaluating sources. I think it is genuinely quite likely that most trans people go straight to the HRC page, see their big bold graphics proclaiming that 83% of trans homicide victims are trans women, and don't even consider that it could be bad information.

[ftmtftm]

Alright — Since I got the Wikipedia Definition Of Male Privilege™️ thrown at me to say transgender men have male privilege let's unpack that definition within the context of transgender people shall we*?

*DISCLAIMER: I'm intentionally engaging with limited definitions of gender and sex for the sake of this post to prove a point. Please put on your thinking caps, I don't want to have to write a worksheet of reading comprehension questions about this post.

The Wikipedia definition of male privilege reads as follows:

“Male privilege is the system of advantages or rights that are available to men on the basis of their sex. A man's access to these benefits may vary depending on how closely they match their society's ideal masculine norm."

So, male privilege is defined here as "the system of adventages or rights that are available to men on the basis of their sex." Cool, seems straightforward enough.

Just for the sake of clarity and consistency, since we're using Wikipedia definitions, let's just take a peek at the Wikipedia definition of transgender really quick too:

"A transgender (often shortened to trans) person has a gender identity different from that typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth. The opposite of transgender is cisgender, which describes persons whose gender identity matches their assigned sex."

Alright, so, if a trans person has a gender identity that is different from that typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth (the typical association here meaning female=woman male=man), a man who is transgender is a man who was assigned female for his sex at birth.

I don't know about you guys but IIIII'm... already beginning to see some issues here.

Our definition of male privilege hinges on the conflation of sex and gender. It is, according to this definition, rights and privileges granted to men, on the basis of sex. The assumption here being man = male sex = male privilege, so definitionally: male privilege is a sex based privilege.

If a transgender man means a man who was assigned female at birth... how exactly is he granted rights and privileges on the basis of his sex? And does this mean trans women are granted rights privileges on the basis of their sex?

The obvious answer is, of course not. Sex and gender are two different, limited and binary, social constructs and sex =/= gender. Trans women are obviously not granted rights and privileges on the basis of their sex, and neither are trans men.

We can argue over transmedicalist bullshit until the cows come home regarding how we understand the physical sexes of (binary) trans people and if (binary) trans people are ""really deep down biologically"" the binary sex associated with their binary gender — but that's a stupid argument that frankly serves to hurt more people than it could ever possibly help.

If we're going to argue against TERFs and radfems by arguing that their definition of "sex based opposition" is limited and incorrect because of the way it excludes trans women — why are we trying to include trans men in a definition of "sex based privilege" that literally validates the concept of "sex based oppression".

That reads like a deeply hypocritical, contradictory, poorly considered double standard to me.

The discussion on the oppression of trans people simply does not work within our preexisting ideas of gendered or sexed oppression. It fails trans women, trans men, and nonbinary people across the board. I mean, how do we even begin to talk about nonbinary people in a restrictive system like this? How do we talk about intersex people in a restrictive system like this? How do we talk about intersex binary trans and intersex nonbinary people in a restrictive system like this?

The reality is we can't. The language fails us all because the language was designed by cisgender perisex people under a system that has decided that sex and gender are a congruent, interchangeable thing without transgender or intersex people in mind in the first place. We were not considered when the language was made so why are we trying to force ourselves into it? Into their system of understanding when we are obviously different — that's why we're marginalized from them in the first place!!

You HAVE to conceive of the marginalization of gender and sex outside of the cis perisex binary. The cis perisex binary understanding of sex and gender is literally what oppresses us. Trying to understand our oppression using the limitations of our oppressors literally only keeps us down.

[ifoundmybeatingheartagain]

the first tumblr post i read about "you're looking for someone it's ok to be cruel to" honestly rewired my brain.

tumblr is full of dimwitted reactionaries but ive also read a lot of things that have fundamentally changed how i think about justice, mental health, etc.

despite the best efforts of the site's staff and its manbaby ceo, there continues to be a contingent of people here who are committed to understanding things better, to doing better, and to changing the world for the better.

i hope we make it.

[asneakyfox]

the idea that restrooms, locker rooms, etc need to be single-sex spaces in order for women to be safe is patriarchy's way of signalling to men & boys that society doesn't expect them to behave themselves around women. it is directly antifeminist. it would be antifeminist even if trans people did not exist. a feminist society would demand that women should be safe in all spaces even when there are men there.

[asneakyfox]

btw this is maybe the single most key distinguishing feature of the terfy strains of radical feminism, the seed all the rest of it springs out of: they have absolutely no faith in the ability of feminism to actually destroy patriarchy. they do not think feminism can truly build a better world. they cannot really even imagine that possibility. they think patriarchy is an inevitable natural consequence of unchangeable biological facts, and therefore the goal of feminism can only be to mitigate the worst effects of patriarchy, not to get rid of it.

they can imagine a society where women get some designated safe spaces without men around. they cannot imagine a society where the presence of men is not inherently a danger to women.

[lastoneout]

I know it's more nuanced than this but I think having a hard policy of thinking anyone who genuinely hates one group of queer people for their identity might as well hate all of us and thus I should block any queerphobic queer person I see can do a lot to save you from believing anything exclusionists say.

"bomb that kills all-" "I just don't get bi women bringing their-" "pansexuality isn't a real thing-" "all lesbians-" "trans men really are the men of the-" "theyfabs-" "pfft aroace people are cringe-" "nonbinary people are actually all-" Instant block. Goodbye. Not listening. It's for both solidarity with your fellow queers AND to protect yourself, because once a person is convinced to hate one group for their immutable traits they can be convinced fairly easily to hate another too, and thus I do not trust them.

Just block these people the second they pop up, they aren't your allies and nothing they have to say is worth listening to.

[lastoneout]

These types will often try to guilt you into defaulting to their judgement by citing their own identities but that's bullshit. You can, should, and must completely ignore them. A bigot is a bigot, and if you wouldn't listen to a cishetperisex one then you shouldn't listen to a queer one either.

[tsunderecamour]

and YES this SHOULD and DOES include polyamorous people too

[lastoneout]

I am poly too and damn straight it does 🤝

[lastoneout]

AND INTERSEX PEOPLE

[tboy-cock]

being trans is awesome ill be like "hey someone was transphobic to me on reddit" and someone else will be like "then get off reddit" and im like "well theyre also transphobic to me on tumblr" and they're like "well thats because youre on tumblr" and ill say "well people are transphobic on instagram and twitter" and people are like "yeah twitter and instagram are cesspits" and its like. i think you guys are missing the point that trans people should not be forced out of any space due to violent rhetoric and threats about who we are and yet its happening all the time. and yall seem to think thats just how it is and it shouldnt be

[makingqueerhistory]

“You all know I’m queer, but I still have to play the cool hijabi[…] The not too religious hijabi, the hijabi who can rock it with the alternative crowd, who won’t judge you, who will be accepting and tolerant, the Good Muslim. I’m in full on silent rant mode now. Unlike those Bad Muslims, the religious ones, the ones who are inconvenient in their practice, the ones you have to pause for as they break their fasts, the ones who have to step out to pray. The marginalized ones you would fight for, organize for, protest for, but would never be friends with, who you would studiously avoid at a brunch. I’m the cool hijabi only because you’re projecting your xenophobic narrow-mindedness, your lack of imagination of Muslims into me. You’re still projecting them. Your prejudices are still in the room. ” ― Lamya H., Hijab Butch Blues (Affiliate link)

[enki2]

[babygalinlace-deactivated202511]

[genderkoolaid]

how many studies have to show that "just" using they/them pronouns or "just" calling yourself as nonbinary is enough to be affected by systemic transphobia before people stop acting like non-medical-transitioning nonbinary people are not living functionally cis lives.

[genderkoolaid]

Nonbinary workers in California are concentrated in lowest-paying jobs, report shows

Data from private employers with 100 or more employees showed that, as of 2020, between 50% and 55% of workers who classified themselves as nonbinary were in a low-paying category of jobs, those paying less than $30,679 a year, said the California Civil Rights Department. In comparison, 32% of male employees and 43% of female workers earned less than that amount. And between 35% and 40% of nonbinary workers were in the lowest-paying category of jobs, those paying $19,239 or less, compared with 22% of male employees and 30% of female employees.

2024 data: "5-10% of all reported non-binary workers were reported in the highest pay band, while 40-45% of all reported non-binary workers were reported in the lowest pay band."

Taryn versus Taryn (she/her) versus Taryn (they/them): A Field Experiment on Pronoun Disclosure and Nonbinary Hiring Discrimination

Nonbinary people have a gender identity that falls outside the male-female binary. To investigate hiring discrimination against this group, thousands of randomly generated fictitious resumes were submitted to job postings in pairs where the treatment resume contained pronouns listed below the name and the control resume did not. Two treatments were considered: nonbinary "they/them" and binary "he/him" or "she/her" pronouns congruent with implied sex. Hence, discrimination is estimated against nonbinary and presumed cisgender applicants who disclose pronouns. Results show that disclosing "they/them" pronouns reduces positive employer response by 5.4 percentage points. There is also evidence that discrimination is larger (approximately double) in Republican than Democratic geographies. By comparison, results are inconclusive regarding discrimination against presumed cisgender applicants who disclose pronouns; if discrimination does exist, it is of lower magnitude than discrimination against nonbinary applicants who disclose pronouns.

Workplace Experiences of Nonbinary Employees

The majority of nonbinary adults in the workforce are under age 35 (87%), and half (51%) are people of color. About three-quarters (74%) of nonbinary people in the workforce are making less than $50,000 a year. Our analysis [n=163] indicates that employment discrimination against nonbinary employees is persistent and widespread. At some point in their lives, about six in 10 nonbinary employees (59%) reported experiencing discrimination or harassment at work (including being fired, not hired, not promoted, or verbally, physically, or sexually harassed) because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Many nonbinary employees reported recent experiences of discrimination and harassment. Within the past year, 16% of nonbinary employees reported that they had been fired, not hired, or not promoted because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and 20% reported experiencing harassment at work. One in four (26%) nonbinary employees reported experiencing adverse treatment because of their LGBTQ status at their current job. Many nonbinary employees also reported engaging in actions to avoid discrimination and harassment, including hiding their nonbinary identity and changing their appearance or behaviors. Nearly half (45%) of nonbinary employees were not out to their current supervisor, and 17% were not out to any of their co-workers. Two-thirds (67%) of nonbinary employees reported downplaying their LGBTQ status at work by doing one or more of the following: changing their speech, mannerisms, appearance, or how they dress at work; avoiding work social events; or not talking about their outside activities at work. Nearly six in 10 (58%) nonbinary employees have looked for another job because of how they were treated based on their sexual orientation or gender identity at work, and half (50%) reported leaving a job because of such treatment.

The labour market outcomes of transgender individuals

[W]hen grouped by sex assigned at birth — (3) AMAB and (4) AFAB — the income of those with a genderqueer non-binary identity is significantly less than those with a transgender male/female identity (i.e. AMAB QNB < MTF and AFAB GQNB < FTM). These income gaps are consistent with GQNBs facing additional income penalties from identifying outside of the more socially accepted male/female binary, although the descriptive nature of these results precludes causal inference.