Can We Please Talk About How Baed-youknowwhats Co-opted An Intersexist Slur Yet. I Feel Like That's Something

Galaxy brain genderfuck call yourself whatever you want cryptid neurogender fagdyke throwing up pissing and shitting himself at the transfem butch that goes by she/her

not to sound blunt but the idea that a trans woman who raises her voice or is rude or speaks over someone else is behaving in a uniquely male manner is just blatantly misogynistic and i don't think you need a gender studies degree to understand that

i am asking in what world conversations about the impact of terfs on trans people frequently center trans men and ignore the impact they have on trans women like

practically every conversation ive seen about terfs is entirely about trans women, to the point where bringing up the ways in which trans men are effected by terfs is considered derailing!

the comment about the "critique of how men interact with women" thing is also absolutely wild to me like. the whole "men are inherently Bad" thing is pretty deeply rooted in radfem (and thus terf) stuff, ime. so to see that reframed as "it's just a critique of how men interact with women" is just... wtf. like the bioessentialist views that radfems tend to have about like "the inherently evil nature of men" kinda stuff is a pretty major component in their treatment of trans women??? i thought this had been well established??? for years???

i mean seriously i had to double-check the blog name because i thought for a moment it was a very confused terf, because that kinda attitude is exactly how i'd expect a terf to defend their shitty idoleogy.

but i guess the issue isn't in "spouting essentialist ideology about the inherent evil of men", but rather in "people spouting bio-essentialist ideology about the inherent evil of men". because what we have here is "people spouting gender-essentialist ideology about the inherent evil of men".

or, in other words; diversity win! now your gender categories of "inherently awful violent brutes" and "inherently virtuous dainty victims" are gender inclusive!

yeah some trans women and men alike are desperate to just slot themselves into a radical feminist conception of the world and call it a day

Leftists: Everyone is a little bigoted. Bigotry is deeply integrated into our society. Everyone picks up on it. You have to actively unlearn it. Check your bias. Your intentions might be good, but you're not immune to bigotry learnt since childhood. Even if you're an activist already. Even if you have friends from the minority. Listen to marginalized voices. Take the critisism. This is the only way to overcome our internalized prejudices.

Jews: Hey so–

Leftists: ZIONIST!!

I’m not trying to attack you, but do you know that proshipper means someone who supports and romanticizes pedophilia, incest, and abuse? Your reblog on that post seems to read that you think antis just hate on people for having ships they don’t like. But it’s completely different than that. Just looking on the proshipper side of Tumblr and the internet and you can see people happily shipping children and adults and making nsfw content of such things.

i appreciate that you're not being outright hostile, but i have to say, that on its own put you above basically every anti i've interacted with.

i understand where antis are coming from, i really do. there are a lot of things on the internet that make me deeply uncomfortable, including the minor/adult ships that you mention. i don't want to anything to do with those kinds of ships and i would be happiest if i never saw them again. which is why i'm proship.

nine times out of ten, if i see that kind of ship brought up on my dash, it's because i was following an anti without realizing it, and they brought it up unprompted and untagged, to talk about how bad it is that they exist. they are the ones putting that kind of content in front of my face and making it harder to avoid.

the thing about people who ship those ships is that they're generally very aware that not everyone wants to see that kind of content, and so they tag it. they make sideblogs to talk about it. they don't go out of their way to shove it in people's faces. that means i, and everyone else who doesn't like it, can avoid it.

what antis want is for it to not exist at all. they want the tags to be purged and blocked, and for anyone who uses those tags to have their accounts deleted. and sure, that might get rid of some of it, but do you know what would happen to the rest? it would stop being tagged. people who don't want to see it wouldn't have the tools to avoid it. this isn't just a hypothetical, that's what's happened any time a fan space has tried to do that.

that's not even getting into the rabbit hole of what should be banned and what shouldn't. obviously any content that depicts real children or real life abuse shouldn't exist and shouldn't be allowed to be posted, but basically any platform that people use already enforces those policies, and there's not much of a slippery slope to go down there. if it involves real living breathing people being abused, it's bad. end of discussion.

but the same can't be said for fiction. ask ten antis for a specific list of all the content that should be banned, and you'll get ten different answers. what about kink? what about roleplay? what about horror and murder and anything that involves fictional characters being graphically tortured? what about people using art to process terrible things that have happened to them? what about art that uses dark themes as a horror element? if you just want to ban anything questionable to anyone, that's the line of thinking that gets any mention of lgbt existence banned. and again, this isn't just a hypothetical, this has happened before, and that's generally where it leads.

i know, from personal experience, that antis do, in fact, send harassment to people just for shipping things they don't like. i've gotten accused of absolutely vile shit for shipping two fictional characters who were both consenting adults. i've seen ship wars turn into moral battlegrounds, over ships that an average person wouldn't bat an eye at.

the thing about "romanticization" is a whole other can of worms. the anti logic goes like this: if someone sees something (even if it's very obviously fictional) in a positive light enough times, they will start thinking it's okay in real life, and go on to hurt real people. the problem with that is that it's just. blatantly untrue.

if it were true every horror movie fan would be a serial killer, every person that studies dark media would be an unhinged psychopath, and everyone who is into ddlg would be a pedophile. but they're not. they just aren't. people have directed movies just as fucked up as the darkest shit on ao3, and are still capable of being normal human beings who know right from wrong in real life.

even if someone is that impressionable, scrubbing away the existence of every piece of questionable content isn't going to solve their problem, because they're still going to be vulnerable to con men, scams, and cultists. the only thing that would actually materially help someone like that is developing their own morals and critical thinking.

children are also more impressionable, and there's a lot of content that's not suitable for them, but that doesn't mean that content shouldn't exist. it just means that they should stick to spaces designed for them (which most social media sites, tumblr included, are not) or, if they're old enough to be responsible for their experience online, they, or a trusted adult in their lives, should block and filter out things that they aren't comfortable with.

which is what everyone on the internet should be doing. it's what i do, and it's made the internet a much more pleasant place to be. and it's why i sometimes worry for antis mental health, especially teenagers, because they're being told it's right and moral to seek out content that makes them uncomfortable and to engage with the people making it. and that's just. really bad. it's not good for the creators that they're harassing obviously, but it's also really bad for them! it's not healthy to seek out things that make you feel bad, and it's a terrible internet safety lesson to teach minors that it's okay for them to seek out and engage with people making adult content.

individual harassment and crusading is never going to succeed at removing dark content from the internet. it just isn't. at best you might get a small percentage of people who create that content to stop sharing it, at worst you're just going to make people stop tagging it, and either way, you're exposing yourself to things that make you feel bad, when you don't have to.

if you want to materially change the type of content you see, you can. the block button is your friend, use it liberally. same with content filtering and tag blocking.

I spend hours scrolling through blogs to establish a link between transandrophobia theory and terfism...and...he just...tweeted it out

hate people wanting to shut down conversations about transandrophobia say that trans men and mascs "measurably" experience less violence than trans women and fems

one of the core aspects of transandrophobia is erasure. the rates of violence we face cannot be "measurably" different than anything, because the rates of violence we face are deliberately not measured and erased whenever posssible

So I recently saw this post about a video where a woman is saying "trans men are men because this one trans man yapped at me for ages about a history topic I didn't ask about" and while that post does bring up really good points ("is it mansplaining or is it just a man talking about a topic you aren't interested in"), I'd like to point out how this is actually one of the functions of transandrophobia.

It takes a very neutral behaviour - talking at length about a topic of interest - and, because of our gender identity as men or masculine, it takes that behaviour and turns it into something seen as "annoying" or "cringe" and demonises it as a specifically male behaviour.

It's malgendering as well, "trans men really are men because they're doing this thing I perceive as negatively associated with cis men".

There is something to say about how, within the context of the video, it didn't seem like the actual dude was "mansplaining" - which is a real misogynistic behaviour. But the post linked talks about that in depth so I'll only briefly touch on it here.

There is a difference between talking down to someone you perceive as less knowledgeable (in the case of mansplaining, men talking down to women because they see them as unintelligent due to misogyny, especially about a subject the woman does have an understanding of), and just talking at length about a topic that someone isn't interested in.

The latter of course gets twisted into misogynistic and annoying/cringe behaviour literally due to the person's gender identity.

And of course all that is to say, actually maybe you should let trans men speak because we are more erased and invisible than even cis women. Why are you (person in the video), as a cis person, putting negative gender stereotypes onto a trans person?

another day another post in which someone fairly complains about an issue affecting trans women, yet for some reason decides that this issue is Unique To Trans Women Only and probably orchestrated by The TMEs, despite trans men dealing with quite literally the exact same issue on a regular and public basis