Just another lost soul swimming in a fish bowl. @youcancallmesteelnips - Tumblr Blog

From @resii140 #catsofinstagram [source: https://ift.tt/2ElD3Uw ]

“but your doctor needs to know what genitals you have or were born with!”

I agree, and I think this supports the ousting of the female/male dynamic.

The only people who need to know about your genitals is your doctor (and your partners that you’re sexually involved with), this is done through conversation and discussion. There is no need to have the F/M distinguishers on paperwork, IDs and the like.

“how will doctors know???”

By doing their jobs and talking to you, by doing their jobs and running tests. It’d change nothing.

This concept that “you’re a woman but biologically male!” is so convoluted that its disgusting. “Female” denotes woman and “male” denotes a man. These two terms are so heavily gendered that there’s nothing truly “scientific” about it, and this split of gender and biological sex only is out to support a misgendering view of trans bodies.

There’s no reason a trans woman can’t put a F on her medical forms. It’s arbitrary information and doing anything else only serves to publicly “out” her to possible hostile environments and people.

A doctor that paid attention in school will know what a penis is, they will be able recognize a post genital surgery by looking at such; and if a doctor can’t distinguish that without some arbitrary letter on a paper, then they need to go back to school.

There is no logical reason to be calling trans women male. To do so is transphobic.

cream-and-stars

And more to the point, modern medicine acknowledges that chromosomal sex, gonadal sex, hormonal sex, morphological sex, and behavioral sex (extensive overlap with but not the same as gender and/or gender role) are different and need to be considered differently under different circumstances. No one thing is biological sex.

If we are evaluating you for something where (say) your chromosomal sex (XX, XY, XO, XXY, etc.) matters, we can ask that question *specifically.* Same goes for estrogen-progestin dominant vs testosterone-dominant, Mullerian vs Wolffian duct derivatives, Sertoli and Leydig cells vs ovarian tissue, gender, and so on. Saying “male” or “female” is a heuristic that may cover most people, but FAR from most configurations and is inadequately specific for issues where “biological sex” is relevant.

There is no reason to call your trans women patients male. Like, ever. It’s transphobic, and it’s bad medicine.

And further to the point (and the below holds true for various biological sex markers, eg hormonal profile, not just “sex behavior,” e.g., the range of normal clitoral sizes is greater than the difference in size between the average clitoris and average penis):

(Nelson, R. (2005). An introduction to behavioral endocrinology (3rd ed.). Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates.)

See also: examining someone’s bits doesn’t a man or a woman make.

mioxenoblade

This was incredibly detailed and a great addition!

no-the-sandwich

fuck i love my mental health and the way it just [clenches fist] deteriorates

cutekittensarefun

The newest family member looking innocent before she attacks the feather wand (her brother preparing for the pounce, behind)

1esbrarian

friendly-animals

(Source)

gaypeopletwitter

matchingvnecks

teachingwithcoffee

It’s time to bring an end to the Rape Anthem Masquerading As Christmas Carol

bigbutterandeggman-deactivated2

Hi there! Former English nerd/teacher here. Also a big fan of jazz of the 30s and 40s.

So. Here’s the thing. Given a cursory glance and applying today’s worldview to the song, yes, you’re right, it absolutely *sounds* like a rape anthem.

BUT! Let’s look closer!

“Hey what’s in this drink” was a stock joke at the time, and the punchline was invariably that there’s actually pretty much nothing in the drink, not even a significant amount of alcohol.

See, this woman is staying late, unchaperoned, at a dude’s house. In the 1940’s, that’s the kind of thing Good Girls aren’t supposed to do — and she wants people to think she’s a good girl. The woman in the song says outright, multiple times, that what other people will think of her staying is what she’s really concerned about: “the neighbors might think,” “my maiden aunt’s mind is vicious,” “there’s bound to be talk tomorrow.” But she’s having a really good time, and she wants to stay, and so she is excusing her uncharacteristically bold behavior (either to the guy or to herself) by blaming it on the drink — unaware that the drink is actually really weak, maybe not even alcoholic at all. That’s the joke. That is the standard joke that’s going on when a woman in media from the early-to-mid 20th century says “hey, what’s in this drink?” It is not a joke about how she’s drunk and about to be raped. It’s a joke about how she’s perfectly sober and about to have awesome consensual sex and use the drink for plausible deniability because she’s living in a society where women aren’t supposed to have sexual agency.

Basically, the song only makes sense in the context of a society in which women are expected to reject men’s advances whether they actually want to or not, and therefore it’s normal and expected for a lady’s gentleman companion to pressure her despite her protests, because he knows she would have to say that whether or not she meant it, and if she really wants to stay she won’t be able to justify doing so unless he offers her an excuse other than “I’m staying because I want to.” (That’s the main theme of the man’s lines in the song, suggesting excuses she can use when people ask later why she spent the night at his house: it was so cold out, there were no cabs available, he simply insisted because he was concerned about my safety in such awful weather, it was perfectly innocent and definitely not about sex at all!) In this particular case, he’s pretty clearly right, because the woman has a voice, and she’s using it to give all the culturally-understood signals that she actually does want to stay but can’t say so. She states explicitly that she’s resisting because she’s supposed to, not because she wants to: “I ought to say no no no…” She states explicitly that she’s just putting up a token resistance so she’ll be able to claim later that she did what’s expected of a decent woman in this situation: “at least I’m gonna say that I tried.” And at the end of the song they’re singing together, in harmony, because they’re both on the same page and they have been all along.

So it’s not actually a song about rape - in fact it’s a song about a woman finding a way to exercise sexual agency in a patriarchal society designed to stop her from doing so. But it’s also, at the same time, one of the best illustrations of rape culture that pop culture has ever produced. It’s a song about a society where women aren’t allowed to say yes…which happens to mean it’s also a society where women don’t have a clear and unambiguous way to say no.

aphnxrising

xtrapockets-deactivated20171024

remember loves: context is everything. and personal opinion matters. If you still find this song to be a problem, that’s fine. But please don’t make it into something it’s not because it’s been stripped of cultural context.

vorked

This is actually really interesting. I’ve never known a lot of the background to this song.

unquietgravekeeper

Making its annual rounds

pleasespellgabbana

Like I have a hard time believing a person actually exists that would not understand the context and innocence of this song??? Like would actually just assume it was a song straight up about date rape????? Like….???

cutekittensarefun

He is 19, but never too old for chin scratches.

proudnb

If the gender binary was immutable, then there would be no need to defend it. It would be as inevitable and natural as the sun rise.

But it’s not.

It must be upheld by policing how people dress, act, love, etc. with the threat of violence if one gets caught deviating too far from this forced “norm.”

And I have no interest in being part of a fantasy perpetuated and defended by murderers, cowards, and the ignorant.