fandomshatewomen
evelynvincible:

realmisandrists:

steelfemme:

misandry-mermaid:

conservativeatheist:

What are men supposed to do? Shut off the part of them that makes them human? She knows what she’s doing wearing what she’s wearing by posing like that. She knows the cause and effect with those sultry looks she’s showing. She’s sexually objectifying herself and she’s doing it on purpose so we’ll look. She’s fishing. However men are shammed when they take this bait. We’re pigs for checking her out. It could be an 18 year old or a 21 year old, 25 year old, 35 year old, etc dressed while posing like this.That’s sexism against men because you want us to repress our sexuality while teasing us in the process. 

Today’s repugnant opinion of the day is brought to you by professional whiner and potential rapist “conservativeatheist”.

"You’re making me feel bad for not seeing a 16 yr old girl as a human… Sexism against men!!!" - anti-fem logic

"All men objectify women and are physically incapable of respecting women who don’t obey the modesty police. It’s what makes them human."
- conservativeatheist

"Men can’t tell the difference between a child performing sexuality (i.e., trying to look "like a grown up"/"more adult") and actual adult women performing sexuality. Asking men to please not objectify children is sexism against men, because children are more responsible for adult men’s sexuality than actual adult men are."

"Men can’t tell the difference between a child performing sexuality (i.e., trying to look "like a grown up"/"more adult") and actual adult women performing sexuality. Asking men to please not objectify children is sexism against men, because children are more responsible for adult men’s sexuality than actual adult men are."

evelynvincible:

realmisandrists:

steelfemme:

misandry-mermaid:

conservativeatheist:

What are men supposed to do? Shut off the part of them that makes them human? She knows what she’s doing wearing what she’s wearing by posing like that. She knows the cause and effect with those sultry looks she’s showing. She’s sexually objectifying herself and she’s doing it on purpose so we’ll look. She’s fishing. However men are shammed when they take this bait. We’re pigs for checking her out. It could be an 18 year old or a 21 year old, 25 year old, 35 year old, etc dressed while posing like this.That’s sexism against men because you want us to repress our sexuality while teasing us in the process. 

Today’s repugnant opinion of the day is brought to you by professional whiner and potential rapist “conservativeatheist”.

"You’re making me feel bad for not seeing a 16 yr old girl as a human… Sexism against men!!!" - anti-fem logic

"All men objectify women and are physically incapable of respecting women who don’t obey the modesty police. It’s what makes them human."

- conservativeatheist

"Men can’t tell the difference between a child performing sexuality (i.e., trying to look "like a grown up"/"more adult") and actual adult women performing sexuality. Asking men to please not objectify children is sexism against men, because children are more responsible for adult men’s sexuality than actual adult men are."

"Men can’t tell the difference between a child performing sexuality (i.e., trying to look "like a grown up"/"more adult") and actual adult women performing sexuality. Asking men to please not objectify children is sexism against men, because children are more responsible for adult men’s sexuality than actual adult men are."

dicktouching
dicktouching:

blood-and-vitriol:

souzou-ryoku:

blood-and-vitriol:

ladybuglights:

zukosmind:

This would be funny if it weren’t so true

This reminds me of a workshop on gender that I attended once. Most of the people involved in the workshop were queer cis women, with a handful of cis het women, too. They’d put up large sheets of paper around the room, with words like “trans woman” “trans man” “cis woman” “cis man” “genderqueer” “non binary” “genitals” “chromosomes” “gender identity” “pronouns” and the like printed on them. Then they encouraged us to summarize in a phrase or short sentence what those words meant to us, and write them on the sheets of paper. 
When it came time to discuss the papers around the room, we’d see phrases like “hot” and “super attractive” and “sexy” on the trans man sheet, and “weird” “I don’t know what this is” and “fierce” written on the trans woman sheet. (Sadly, I don’t remember the other phrases for the other sheets, but those aren’t salient to my point.) I took a moment to point out the disparity between the two groups of responses, and received looks of astonishment from the other participants, as if nobody had actually realized they even had a biased or kind of really fucked up perspective.
That was kind of the beginning of the end, when it came to my involvement in that organization. :[

Literally had the first part of this comic happen to me several times. Someone who clearly and explicitly says they’re into you and wants to see you again/invite you home for/do the sexy thing/meet up in person is suddenly not attracted to trans women when they find out you are one. No matter how brazenly they were communicating their interest beforehand.

Please stop shaming people whose sexual attraction depends on genitalia. Above story is not an example of this but there are a lot of people who cannot help but be not attracted to and unable to have healthy relationships with people who do not have their preference of genitalia and that is how their sexual attraction functions.Sorry if you ever got your feelings hurt by this, but I know it’s something that some people are unable to change and it is how their sexual attraction functions. Above comic is a primary example of someone whose sexual attraction is probably based on genitalia not gender. Do not shame them for it.

You’re equating being trans with designated sex at birth with genitalia. I shouldn’t even need to point out all the reasons why that is ignorant, callous and harmful (and not just to trans women, even if it seems like a certain subset of trans men have decided to shrug it off in the name of getting laid), but here we find ourselves.
So the first thing is just, that’s factually incorrect. Like, trans people are kind of noted for being one of the few populations that regularly seek extensive genital modification. It’s one of the things cis folks can never stop focusing on, the whole changing thing, so it’s kinda hard to believe you merely forgot to take note of it.
The practical upshot of this is that you have no clue what a trans person has in their pants unless they decide to tell you. This comic, and my anecdote, share an important thing in common: *at no point were specific genitals described or even alluded to.* They do not depict a frank and open discussion between two explicitly-communicating parties about what exactly their bodies are like under the clothing, what they want to do in bed, and how well their respective interests line up. There is no talk of genital preferences: there *is* clear and open communication of attraction, followed by misgendering and a denial of that attraction *as soon as the other person finds out that a woman is trans.*
 Also, you’re either missing or ignoring the whole double standard on display here. We don’t know what’s in that trans dude’s pants either — in the comic, or in real-life interactions. Yet trans men who haven’t disclosed genital status are routinely sought after by self-proclaimed lesbians who “aren’t interested in men.” There really is no way to defend the vast disparity, when you have to either ask directly or roll the dice in the bedroom to find out (and really, how likely do you think it is they’re kicking out trans men who turn out to have penises?). Cis lesbians and DFAB genderqueers who claim to be attracted to women will show women the door just for disclosing being trans no matter how eager they were to find out moments before — but will happily take that chance, no questions asked even, with self-described men.
This is not the behavior of people with “genital preferences”, and attempting to tie it into orientation is dishonest. And even if that was really all that was going on — guess what? Sexual attraction and preferences are affected by social conditioning too — do you think it’s coincidence that tons of white queers will unabashedly insist that they’re “just not attracted” to PoC, (*especially* black) who otherwise fit their profile? Who they may have even voiced great attraction to moments before — especially if they were initially talking online and couldn’t see the person, or otherwise took the person for white?
Do you think it’s a coincidence that trans women, disabled people, people of color, fat people, etc find themselves in this situation on a regular basis? The same groups of people who are particularly likely to be told, by society and individuals, in a thousand overt and subtle ways, that they have no value and are undesirable even among queer folks? Even among queer folks who politicize their sexuality and claim it’s revolutionary to do so?
It’s not. There is a reason why that happens, and it has everything to do with bias against marginalized groups. Pointing that out, and having feelings about it that are not warm and bubbly and charitable, is perfectly legitimate. It is not “shaming” people for their “preferences.” Saying that is incorrect at best, disingenuous at worst. It also hurts people who may actually be targeted for bullying and harassment on account of having unpopular preferences, so don’t do that.

WOAH stop with the bullshit.
I really hate posts like this that assume sexuality is a simple thing that is easily predictable or always subject to mental whims surrounding prejudice. It’s not true.
For a lot of people (not all) sex is about trust and compatibility. Especially with a relationship in mind, you probably want someone you can tolerate being around a lot, so you judge on the basis of personality. if sex is important to you in a relationship, you want someone you know you will be attracted to. That is entirely your prerogative, and NO ONE should shame you for looking out for yourself and your future relationship.
In the above comic, it looks like the the person on the right has an attraction to female genitalia. The person on the left appears classically female, and given that NINETY-NINE PERCENT OF THE PLANET IS CISGENDERED there is nothing wrong with the person on the right assuming the other has classically female genitalia. She passes judgement upon the other person’s attractiveness, which is totally fine and normal, expecting a cis female. Upon finding out that this person is not cis, it is totally the right AND responsibility of the person on the right to call off something they don’t think they can handle were it to come to sex or a relationship. When speaking to the transman, that changes, AS IS THEIR RIGHT, though the reality of this change in tune isn’t (in my opinion) accurately represented here (likely because the goal is to point out “transmisogyny* rather than how such events are played out).
Let’s keep in mind, too, that what you said about bottom surgery in trans folks is incorrect. Bottom surgery is what many people, even trans people, consider the be-all-end-all in transitioning, but in reality, trans people don’t have all that much bottom surgery, and transmen even less than transwomen. If you’re even remotely familiar with trans issues (beyond the awareness of existence) you probably know that bottom surgery for transwomen is considered by the trans community AND DOCTORS to be far more successful than bottom surgery for transmen. Transwomen get a sexual organ from the one they already had that’s pretty damn close in look and function to the biological original. Right now, transmen get a micro-phallus or a slab of largely unresponsive meat taken from their forearm (that then scars very noticeably). In fact, less than 9% of transmen have bottom surgery, because of the expense (often upwards of $30k, averaging $50k) and the unsatisfactory results. By comparison, bottom surgery for transwomen is much more satisfactory at less than half the cost.
So bear in mind that the average person aware of trans issues KNOWS that bottom surgery really isn’t that common. It’s a safe and perfectly reasonable bet to assume that someone who comes out as trans has not yet had bottom surgery, so their original hardware is in tact. There is nothing wrong with being uncomfortable with that. 
As a person, it is your right and responsibility to make sure that you are comfortable with the commitment you might make to another person. It is sad that most people are not comfortable with anything besides cisgendered able-bodied folks, but you cannot blame them for their personal preferences.
Most importantly, you do not have a right, no matter how upset you may feel by rejection, to pressure or guilt someone into sex or a relationship with you.
Keep in mind that by saying someone owes you something because of who you are, you effectively sound like all those “friendzoned” douchebags who insist they are owed sex or a relationship just for being nice.
Sorry guys, but attraction is personal, and while it hurts when someone can’t handle the glory that is you, does not give you the right to shame or guilt them or call them awful.

Nik, I’m awfully dismayed to see this response, using terms like “classically female” rather than cis. And, worse … putting transmisogyny in scare quotes as if it is a concept to be dismissed. 
The comic talks about the inherent contradiction of being attracted to a trans woman and then claiming that they are not attracted to trans women. Like, that’s an objective falsehood. 
There is an unfortunately common practice of trans men and transmasculine people either not giving up, or pushing their way into lesbian spaces, and being welcomed with open arms, all the while shoving trans women and transfeminine people out of those safe spaces. 
I’ve never understood it because it supports the false claim that trans men are, in fact, somehow still women and belong in women’s safe spaces while also supporting claims that trans women and transfeminine people are, in fact, somehow still men and are dangerous in women’s spaces and safe spaces. 
None of use are saying that lesbians “owe” us their attraction and sexual desire, even though those words are constantly put in our mouths. We are saying that maybe, JUST maybe, the revulsion that so many cis lesbians express at the idea of trans female bodies (the same revulsion we receive from straight men, and the rest of society at large) might somehow be influenced by the same tacit and explicit messages that are threaded throughout society. Trans women, their bodies and sexual lives are a constant punchline, a constant source of disgust and a cultural joke. 
We live in a supremely cis-centric and transphobic society. Don’t you think that it’s even a little bit possible that it might just influence the way we all understand our own attractions? Trans people are just as susceptible to this as cis people.
I guess I am just very disappointed in this reaction. Perhaps I’m not making any sense to you, or anyone for that matter, but … *sigh* I’m just seeing a different source of bullshit than you, I guess.

dicktouching:

blood-and-vitriol:

souzou-ryoku:

blood-and-vitriol:

ladybuglights:

zukosmind:

This would be funny if it weren’t so true

This reminds me of a workshop on gender that I attended once. Most of the people involved in the workshop were queer cis women, with a handful of cis het women, too. They’d put up large sheets of paper around the room, with words like “trans woman” “trans man” “cis woman” “cis man” “genderqueer” “non binary” “genitals” “chromosomes” “gender identity” “pronouns” and the like printed on them. Then they encouraged us to summarize in a phrase or short sentence what those words meant to us, and write them on the sheets of paper. 

When it came time to discuss the papers around the room, we’d see phrases like “hot” and “super attractive” and “sexy” on the trans man sheet, and “weird” “I don’t know what this is” and “fierce” written on the trans woman sheet. (Sadly, I don’t remember the other phrases for the other sheets, but those aren’t salient to my point.) I took a moment to point out the disparity between the two groups of responses, and received looks of astonishment from the other participants, as if nobody had actually realized they even had a biased or kind of really fucked up perspective.

That was kind of the beginning of the end, when it came to my involvement in that organization. :[

Literally had the first part of this comic happen to me several times. Someone who clearly and explicitly says they’re into you and wants to see you again/invite you home for/do the sexy thing/meet up in person is suddenly not attracted to trans women when they find out you are one. No matter how brazenly they were communicating their interest beforehand.

Please stop shaming people whose sexual attraction depends on genitalia. Above story is not an example of this but there are a lot of people who cannot help but be not attracted to and unable to have healthy relationships with people who do not have their preference of genitalia and that is how their sexual attraction functions.

Sorry if you ever got your feelings hurt by this, but I know it’s something that some people are unable to change and it is how their sexual attraction functions. Above comic is a primary example of someone whose sexual attraction is probably based on genitalia not gender. Do not shame them for it.

You’re equating being trans with designated sex at birth with genitalia. I shouldn’t even need to point out all the reasons why that is ignorant, callous and harmful (and not just to trans women, even if it seems like a certain subset of trans men have decided to shrug it off in the name of getting laid), but here we find ourselves.

So the first thing is just, that’s factually incorrect. Like, trans people are kind of noted for being one of the few populations that regularly seek extensive genital modification. It’s one of the things cis folks can never stop focusing on, the whole changing thing, so it’s kinda hard to believe you merely forgot to take note of it.

The practical upshot of this is that you have no clue what a trans person has in their pants unless they decide to tell you. This comic, and my anecdote, share an important thing in common: *at no point were specific genitals described or even alluded to.* They do not depict a frank and open discussion between two explicitly-communicating parties about what exactly their bodies are like under the clothing, what they want to do in bed, and how well their respective interests line up. There is no talk of genital preferences: there *is* clear and open communication of attraction, followed by misgendering and a denial of that attraction *as soon as the other person finds out that a woman is trans.*

 Also, you’re either missing or ignoring the whole double standard on display here. We don’t know what’s in that trans dude’s pants either — in the comic, or in real-life interactions. Yet trans men who haven’t disclosed genital status are routinely sought after by self-proclaimed lesbians who “aren’t interested in men.” There really is no way to defend the vast disparity, when you have to either ask directly or roll the dice in the bedroom to find out (and really, how likely do you think it is they’re kicking out trans men who turn out to have penises?). Cis lesbians and DFAB genderqueers who claim to be attracted to women will show women the door just for disclosing being trans no matter how eager they were to find out moments before — but will happily take that chance, no questions asked even, with self-described men.

This is not the behavior of people with “genital preferences”, and attempting to tie it into orientation is dishonest. And even if that was really all that was going on — guess what? Sexual attraction and preferences are affected by social conditioning too — do you think it’s coincidence that tons of white queers will unabashedly insist that they’re “just not attracted” to PoC, (*especially* black) who otherwise fit their profile? Who they may have even voiced great attraction to moments before — especially if they were initially talking online and couldn’t see the person, or otherwise took the person for white?

Do you think it’s a coincidence that trans women, disabled people, people of color, fat people, etc find themselves in this situation on a regular basis? The same groups of people who are particularly likely to be told, by society and individuals, in a thousand overt and subtle ways, that they have no value and are undesirable even among queer folks? Even among queer folks who politicize their sexuality and claim it’s revolutionary to do so?

It’s not. There is a reason why that happens, and it has everything to do with bias against marginalized groups. Pointing that out, and having feelings about it that are not warm and bubbly and charitable, is perfectly legitimate. It is not “shaming” people for their “preferences.” Saying that is incorrect at best, disingenuous at worst. It also hurts people who may actually be targeted for bullying and harassment on account of having unpopular preferences, so don’t do that.

WOAH stop with the bullshit.

I really hate posts like this that assume sexuality is a simple thing that is easily predictable or always subject to mental whims surrounding prejudice. It’s not true.

For a lot of people (not all) sex is about trust and compatibility. Especially with a relationship in mind, you probably want someone you can tolerate being around a lot, so you judge on the basis of personality. if sex is important to you in a relationship, you want someone you know you will be attracted to. That is entirely your prerogative, and NO ONE should shame you for looking out for yourself and your future relationship.

In the above comic, it looks like the the person on the right has an attraction to female genitalia. The person on the left appears classically female, and given that NINETY-NINE PERCENT OF THE PLANET IS CISGENDERED there is nothing wrong with the person on the right assuming the other has classically female genitalia. She passes judgement upon the other person’s attractiveness, which is totally fine and normal, expecting a cis female. Upon finding out that this person is not cis, it is totally the right AND responsibility of the person on the right to call off something they don’t think they can handle were it to come to sex or a relationship. When speaking to the transman, that changes, AS IS THEIR RIGHT, though the reality of this change in tune isn’t (in my opinion) accurately represented here (likely because the goal is to point out “transmisogyny* rather than how such events are played out).

Let’s keep in mind, too, that what you said about bottom surgery in trans folks is incorrect. Bottom surgery is what many people, even trans people, consider the be-all-end-all in transitioning, but in reality, trans people don’t have all that much bottom surgery, and transmen even less than transwomen. If you’re even remotely familiar with trans issues (beyond the awareness of existence) you probably know that bottom surgery for transwomen is considered by the trans community AND DOCTORS to be far more successful than bottom surgery for transmen. Transwomen get a sexual organ from the one they already had that’s pretty damn close in look and function to the biological original. Right now, transmen get a micro-phallus or a slab of largely unresponsive meat taken from their forearm (that then scars very noticeably). In fact, less than 9% of transmen have bottom surgery, because of the expense (often upwards of $30k, averaging $50k) and the unsatisfactory results. By comparison, bottom surgery for transwomen is much more satisfactory at less than half the cost.

So bear in mind that the average person aware of trans issues KNOWS that bottom surgery really isn’t that common. It’s a safe and perfectly reasonable bet to assume that someone who comes out as trans has not yet had bottom surgery, so their original hardware is in tact. There is nothing wrong with being uncomfortable with that. 

As a person, it is your right and responsibility to make sure that you are comfortable with the commitment you might make to another person. It is sad that most people are not comfortable with anything besides cisgendered able-bodied folks, but you cannot blame them for their personal preferences.

Most importantly, you do not have a right, no matter how upset you may feel by rejection, to pressure or guilt someone into sex or a relationship with you.

Keep in mind that by saying someone owes you something because of who you are, you effectively sound like all those “friendzoned” douchebags who insist they are owed sex or a relationship just for being nice.

Sorry guys, but attraction is personal, and while it hurts when someone can’t handle the glory that is you, does not give you the right to shame or guilt them or call them awful.

Nik, I’m awfully dismayed to see this response, using terms like “classically female” rather than cis. And, worse … putting transmisogyny in scare quotes as if it is a concept to be dismissed. 

The comic talks about the inherent contradiction of being attracted to a trans woman and then claiming that they are not attracted to trans women. Like, that’s an objective falsehood. 

There is an unfortunately common practice of trans men and transmasculine people either not giving up, or pushing their way into lesbian spaces, and being welcomed with open arms, all the while shoving trans women and transfeminine people out of those safe spaces. 

I’ve never understood it because it supports the false claim that trans men are, in fact, somehow still women and belong in women’s safe spaces while also supporting claims that trans women and transfeminine people are, in fact, somehow still men and are dangerous in women’s spaces and safe spaces. 

None of use are saying that lesbians “owe” us their attraction and sexual desire, even though those words are constantly put in our mouths. We are saying that maybe, JUST maybe, the revulsion that so many cis lesbians express at the idea of trans female bodies (the same revulsion we receive from straight men, and the rest of society at large) might somehow be influenced by the same tacit and explicit messages that are threaded throughout society. Trans women, their bodies and sexual lives are a constant punchline, a constant source of disgust and a cultural joke. 

We live in a supremely cis-centric and transphobic society. Don’t you think that it’s even a little bit possible that it might just influence the way we all understand our own attractions? Trans people are just as susceptible to this as cis people.

I guess I am just very disappointed in this reaction. Perhaps I’m not making any sense to you, or anyone for that matter, but … *sigh* I’m just seeing a different source of bullshit than you, I guess.

rememberwhenyoutried
blood-and-vitriol:

souzou-ryoku:

blood-and-vitriol:

ladybuglights:

zukosmind:

This would be funny if it weren’t so true

This reminds me of a workshop on gender that I attended once. Most of the people involved in the workshop were queer cis women, with a handful of cis het women, too. They’d put up large sheets of paper around the room, with words like “trans woman” “trans man” “cis woman” “cis man” “genderqueer” “non binary” “genitals” “chromosomes” “gender identity” “pronouns” and the like printed on them. Then they encouraged us to summarize in a phrase or short sentence what those words meant to us, and write them on the sheets of paper. 
When it came time to discuss the papers around the room, we’d see phrases like “hot” and “super attractive” and “sexy” on the trans man sheet, and “weird” “I don’t know what this is” and “fierce” written on the trans woman sheet. (Sadly, I don’t remember the other phrases for the other sheets, but those aren’t salient to my point.) I took a moment to point out the disparity between the two groups of responses, and received looks of astonishment from the other participants, as if nobody had actually realized they even had a biased or kind of really fucked up perspective.
That was kind of the beginning of the end, when it came to my involvement in that organization. :[

Literally had the first part of this comic happen to me several times. Someone who clearly and explicitly says they’re into you and wants to see you again/invite you home for/do the sexy thing/meet up in person is suddenly not attracted to trans women when they find out you are one. No matter how brazenly they were communicating their interest beforehand.

Please stop shaming people whose sexual attraction depends on genitalia. Above story is not an example of this but there are a lot of people who cannot help but be not attracted to and unable to have healthy relationships with people who do not have their preference of genitalia and that is how their sexual attraction functions.Sorry if you ever got your feelings hurt by this, but I know it’s something that some people are unable to change and it is how their sexual attraction functions. Above comic is a primary example of someone whose sexual attraction is probably based on genitalia not gender. Do not shame them for it.


You’re equating being trans with designated sex at birth with genitalia. I shouldn’t even need to point out all the reasons why that is ignorant, callous and harmful (and not just to trans women, even if it seems like a certain subset of trans men have decided to shrug it off in the name of getting laid), but here we find ourselves.
So the first thing is just, that’s factually incorrect. Like, trans people are kind of noted for being one of the few populations that regularly seek extensive genital modification. It’s one of the things cis folks can never stop focusing on, the whole changing thing, so it’s kinda hard to believe you merely forgot to take note of it.
The practical upshot of this is that you have no clue what a trans person has in their pants unless they decide to tell you. This comic, and my anecdote, share an important thing in common: *at no point were specific genitals described or even alluded to.* They do not depict a frank and open discussion between two explicitly-communicating parties about what exactly their bodies are like under the clothing, what they want to do in bed, and how well their respective interests line up. There is no talk of genital preferences: there *is* clear and open communication of attraction, followed by misgendering and a denial of that attraction *as soon as the other person finds out that a woman is trans.*
 Also, you’re either missing or ignoring the whole double standard on display here. We don’t know what’s in that trans dude’s pants either — in the comic, or in real-life interactions. Yet trans men who haven’t disclosed genital status are routinely sought after by self-proclaimed lesbians who “aren’t interested in men.” There really is no way to defend the vast disparity, when you have to either ask directly or roll the dice in the bedroom to find out (and really, how likely do you think it is they’re kicking out trans men who turn out to have penises?). Cis lesbians and DFAB genderqueers who claim to be attracted to women will show women the door just for disclosing being trans no matter how eager they were to find out moments before — but will happily take that chance, no questions asked even, with self-described men.
This is not the behavior of people with “genital preferences”, and attempting to tie it into orientation is dishonest. And even if that was really all that was going on — guess what? Sexual attraction and preferences are affected by social conditioning too — do you think it’s coincidence that tons of white queers will unabashedly insist that they’re “just not attracted” to PoC, (*especially* black) who otherwise fit their profile? Who they may have even voiced great attraction to moments before — especially if they were initially talking online and couldn’t see the person, or otherwise took the person for white?
Do you think it’s a coincidence that trans women, disabled people, people of color, fat people, etc find themselves in this situation on a regular basis? The same groups of people who are particularly likely to be told, by society and individuals, in a thousand overt and subtle ways, that they have no value and are undesirable even among queer folks? Even among queer folks who politicize their sexuality and claim it’s revolutionary to do so?
It’s not. There is a reason why that happens, and it has everything to do with bias against marginalized groups. Pointing that out, and having feelings about it that are not warm and bubbly and charitable, is perfectly legitimate. It is not “shaming” people for their “preferences.” Saying that is incorrect at best, disingenuous at worst. It also hurts people who may actually be targeted for bullying and harassment on account of having unpopular preferences, so don’t do that.

blood-and-vitriol:

souzou-ryoku:

blood-and-vitriol:

ladybuglights:

zukosmind:

This would be funny if it weren’t so true

This reminds me of a workshop on gender that I attended once. Most of the people involved in the workshop were queer cis women, with a handful of cis het women, too. They’d put up large sheets of paper around the room, with words like “trans woman” “trans man” “cis woman” “cis man” “genderqueer” “non binary” “genitals” “chromosomes” “gender identity” “pronouns” and the like printed on them. Then they encouraged us to summarize in a phrase or short sentence what those words meant to us, and write them on the sheets of paper. 

When it came time to discuss the papers around the room, we’d see phrases like “hot” and “super attractive” and “sexy” on the trans man sheet, and “weird” “I don’t know what this is” and “fierce” written on the trans woman sheet. (Sadly, I don’t remember the other phrases for the other sheets, but those aren’t salient to my point.) I took a moment to point out the disparity between the two groups of responses, and received looks of astonishment from the other participants, as if nobody had actually realized they even had a biased or kind of really fucked up perspective.

That was kind of the beginning of the end, when it came to my involvement in that organization. :[

Literally had the first part of this comic happen to me several times. Someone who clearly and explicitly says they’re into you and wants to see you again/invite you home for/do the sexy thing/meet up in person is suddenly not attracted to trans women when they find out you are one. No matter how brazenly they were communicating their interest beforehand.

Please stop shaming people whose sexual attraction depends on genitalia. Above story is not an example of this but there are a lot of people who cannot help but be not attracted to and unable to have healthy relationships with people who do not have their preference of genitalia and that is how their sexual attraction functions.

Sorry if you ever got your feelings hurt by this, but I know it’s something that some people are unable to change and it is how their sexual attraction functions. Above comic is a primary example of someone whose sexual attraction is probably based on genitalia not gender. Do not shame them for it.

You’re equating being trans with designated sex at birth with genitalia. I shouldn’t even need to point out all the reasons why that is ignorant, callous and harmful (and not just to trans women, even if it seems like a certain subset of trans men have decided to shrug it off in the name of getting laid), but here we find ourselves.

So the first thing is just, that’s factually incorrect. Like, trans people are kind of noted for being one of the few populations that regularly seek extensive genital modification. It’s one of the things cis folks can never stop focusing on, the whole changing thing, so it’s kinda hard to believe you merely forgot to take note of it.

The practical upshot of this is that you have no clue what a trans person has in their pants unless they decide to tell you. This comic, and my anecdote, share an important thing in common: *at no point were specific genitals described or even alluded to.* They do not depict a frank and open discussion between two explicitly-communicating parties about what exactly their bodies are like under the clothing, what they want to do in bed, and how well their respective interests line up. There is no talk of genital preferences: there *is* clear and open communication of attraction, followed by misgendering and a denial of that attraction *as soon as the other person finds out that a woman is trans.*

 Also, you’re either missing or ignoring the whole double standard on display here. We don’t know what’s in that trans dude’s pants either — in the comic, or in real-life interactions. Yet trans men who haven’t disclosed genital status are routinely sought after by self-proclaimed lesbians who “aren’t interested in men.” There really is no way to defend the vast disparity, when you have to either ask directly or roll the dice in the bedroom to find out (and really, how likely do you think it is they’re kicking out trans men who turn out to have penises?). Cis lesbians and DFAB genderqueers who claim to be attracted to women will show women the door just for disclosing being trans no matter how eager they were to find out moments before — but will happily take that chance, no questions asked even, with self-described men.

This is not the behavior of people with “genital preferences”, and attempting to tie it into orientation is dishonest. And even if that was really all that was going on — guess what? Sexual attraction and preferences are affected by social conditioning too — do you think it’s coincidence that tons of white queers will unabashedly insist that they’re “just not attracted” to PoC, (*especially* black) who otherwise fit their profile? Who they may have even voiced great attraction to moments before — especially if they were initially talking online and couldn’t see the person, or otherwise took the person for white?

Do you think it’s a coincidence that trans women, disabled people, people of color, fat people, etc find themselves in this situation on a regular basis? The same groups of people who are particularly likely to be told, by society and individuals, in a thousand overt and subtle ways, that they have no value and are undesirable even among queer folks? Even among queer folks who politicize their sexuality and claim it’s revolutionary to do so?

It’s not. There is a reason why that happens, and it has everything to do with bias against marginalized groups. Pointing that out, and having feelings about it that are not warm and bubbly and charitable, is perfectly legitimate. It is not “shaming” people for their “preferences.” Saying that is incorrect at best, disingenuous at worst. It also hurts people who may actually be targeted for bullying and harassment on account of having unpopular preferences, so don’t do that.

rememberwhenyoutried

Anonymous asked:

hi, i'm sorry if this has been asked but in your powerpoint you said that the tumblr sj community is guilty of antisemitism. what kind of things has it done? also, i love your blog!

debigotizer answered:

I’ll take this one since I’m the blog’s resident Jew.  Oy vey, where do I start…

  • SJ community loves to police Jewish identity and silence actual Jews when they talk about their own identities.  This usually happens in context of either “Are Jews White?” or “Jewishness is just a religion” conversations.  In reality, Jews are an ethnoreligious group that ethnically originated in the middle east, and while some ethnic Jews have light skin, it’s actually due to centuries of forced assimilation in European and Slavic countries through rape, which is a big reason why Jewishness is matrilineal.  Furthermore, there exist Jews who do not look white at all.  There are black, brown, and asian Jews who are all ethnically Jewish, and these conversations erase them.
  • "Jewish privilege".  Fact: It’s not a thing.  It’s actually a very common anti-semitic trope that says that Jews run everything so they are not oppressed.  Jews are oppressed, and face anti-semitic violence.
  • "Anti-semitism is not just about Jews, there are other semitic people." While yea, there are other semitic people, the term "anti-semitism" was created by Germans in the 19th century to refer specifically to the hatred of Jews because it sounded more scientific.
  • Blaming anti-semitic violence in Europe on the actions of Israel.  I see this literally every single day on this site, and it’s very upsetting.  Jews that live in the diaspora are not responsible for Israel’s actions, and especially should not be suffering at the hands of white people in Europe under the guise of anti-zionism.  
  • Finally, and this is a big pet peeve of mine.  The only people I ever see reblogging posts about anti-semitism are other Jews.  Even a lot of my non-Jewish followers will reblog posts about racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. but ignore posts about anti-semitism, and that as a Jew makes me feel unsafe. 

That’s enough for now.  If you’re interested in learning more about Jewish identity and anti-semitism, you are welcome to check out my personal blog: yochevedke.  I discuss that stuff a lot.  

-Yeva

returnofthejudai:

Another Jew reblogging about anti-semitism. I’ve seen some increase in concern about this from goyim, but it’s been slow going. Hopefully we’ll pick up a big head of steam soon.

thepoliticalfreakshow
But let’s get something straight: a community pushing back against a murderous police force that is terrorizing them is not a “riot”. It’s an uprising. It’s a rebellion. It’s a community saying We can’t take this anymore. We won’t take it. It’s people who have been dehumanized to the point of rightful rage. And it happens all over the world. Uprisings and rebellions are necessary and inevitable, locally and globally. This is not to say that actual riots don’t happen. White folks riot at sporting events, for example. Riots happen. But people rising up in righteous anger and rage in the face of oppression should not be dismissed as simply a “riot”.

Don’t be distracted by terms like “rioting”. Whether you’re for or against uprising and rebellion (side-eye if you’re against it, though), it’s a tool, not the issue itself. The issue is yet another Black teenager murdered by police. His name was Mike Brown.