URGENT APPEAL FOR DR CURTIS
As many of you know, London doctor, Dr Curtis, a trans doctor who treats trans people, has been at the centre of a huge NHS-sparked witch hunt against him. They have used my medical documents with my forced consent to twist my words and history of his care of me, whilst continuing to hurt and bar trans people, especially non binary people from life saving treatment.
See what we are saying by following the #transdocfail tag on Twitter- thousands of voices are speaking out and more and forced into silence in order to get meagre treatment, under a barrage of cissexism from doctors.
THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT UK GROUP GIRES IS COLLECTING SUPPORT LETTERS. They are coming to the aid of Curtis and need your letters and emails to back up the proof that he is a positive force in the world of UK trans treatment.
Please email them on: firstname.lastname@example.org for more information and ask for Bernard Reed who is the one orchestrating this.
TRANS* DAY OF REMEMBRANCE is today.
Please take some time today to think about your various privileges in a society that prizes white, cisgender, heterosexual, able bodied, neurotypical, class privileged, allistic men above all others.
(so many trigger warnings.) “Swedish man acquitted of rape because victim was Transgender”, Seattle Gay News; link courtesy solarbird.
Sweden, you are off the friends list. I thought you were okay, but I was wrong. Just. wow. no. I don’t. have words. nothing about this is okay.
Here’s the thing about genital attractions too
A lot of these radscum and other cisfucks who’re like “we’re only into genitals that’s why we won’t fuck you” still won’t fuck a trans woman who has a vagina. Similar little inconsistencies float around among these people that really show the entire thing to be a lying liar cisfucks who lie smokescreen.
That they really just hate and are revolted by trans women (trans people in general really, it’s just that this hits trans women the hardest) due to their bigotry and that they’ll do anything to hide that.
So when someone’s like, “I’m only into vagina that’s why I’m not into you” (especially if they were into me before they knew I was trans) I’m gonna be really suspicious of their motives and mindset and shit until I have some serious evidence that it really is about genitals.
I got a friend who’s like, “you’re hot, I just really like sticking my dick in places and you don’t have a vag yet and I know you can’t do anal”. That is a valid use of genital attraction as a reason.
I got a “friend” (more like someone I’m forced to deal with on a daily basis who drives me up a fucking wall) who’s like, “I like vaginas” and then later when he was drunk maintained that he wouldn’t have sex with a trans woman with a vagina cuz “it’s just different”. That is not a valid use of genital attraction as a reason. That is trans misogyny.
If you say, “I’m into genitals” think fucking hard about how true that really is and check your damn privilege.
So I’m sure you’re wondering what this blog’s all about.
Yeah, yeah, there are a lot of trans* blogs on tumblr already. A few of them might even overlap with this one in scope. But lucypaw and I got to bein’ utterly bewildered by some of the things we’ve experienced cis people do and say, which got us thinking about making a blog dedicated to these “WTF” moments.
Lucy and I were making a quick run to the gas station by the hotel she was staying at during her recent visit. My trans male self was dressed in a pair of khaki cargo shorts and a t-shirt with the sleeves cut off to form a muscle shirt, with my binder on under it. Totally flat chest, very stereotypically male attire, and I just wasn’t giving off a terribly feminine vibe, period. She and I go up to the register to pay for our purchase, and you know what the cashier calls us?
Somehow, in my muscle shirt and khaki cargo shorts, with my flat chest and impressively hairy legs and armpits, I was a lady.
WTF, cis people?
And thus, this blog was born. I just hope you’ll find it a useful, therapeutic, and entertaining resource!
Transgender People and the War on Women
These posts by Golden Notebook, Unkowablewoman, and Unhurriedheart address inclusion of transgender people in the War on Women. My thoughts follow.anonymous asks:Wait, are you against the terminology “war on uterus bearers”? :2unknowablewoman said:
it’s like you’ve never even read my Tumblr
yes, anon, yes
I believe that erasing the violent misogyny inherent in the anti-choice movement is dangerous because it only serves to further decenter women from the issue when we are alreadyseen as incubators and non-people. Referring to anyone as “people with uteri” is gross as fuck. Abortion/reproductive rights have been contextualizedas a women’s issue and I think it’s disrespectful and misogynist to remove that context, both rhetorically and practically. If woman-centered language is cissexist here it’s because we have been reduced to our reproductive organs. Furthermore, as a cis woman, it doesn’t even make any sense for me to talk about these things as a “uterus bearer” issue when I have no idea what it’s like to be seeking reproductive healthcare as a trans person. Why would I do that? When I talk about abortion rights, I’m going to talk about my experiences as a woman and the experiences of the other women I know who are being TARGETED by this legislation. This legislation IS about us. Tough fucking shit if you narcissistic babies cannot handle women talking about their experiences as women.
And finally, let’s get fucking real, people. How many non-women are having abortions? Really? Do we have any statistics on this? I’m truly sorry for anyone who experiences an unplanned pregnancy, but when 90%+ (and I’m being generous here) of the people actually seeking these services are women then I think it’s completely fucking asinine to expect us all to change the conversation. Not everything is going to be about you 24/7 and you can call it erasure until you’re blue in the face but I’m going to call it the real world.Andwhile you’re tearing down well-meaning, experienced activists, volunteers and reproductive health workers over something as petty as this, the GOP/Religious Right are fucking succeeding at rolling back access to reproductive healthcare of all kinds. They are SUCCEEDING and you honestly fucking think that now is the time to argue about this? You think this is a game? Protip: if women can’t access abortion, then nobody can.
Some insufferable SJW who I can’t remember made a post about this lamenting the fact that we don’t “count their dead at all” when we don’t acknowledge that non-women need these services too and I find that hilarious because they’re acting as if our dead are counted. As if society gives two shits about the woman seeking an abortion to get out of an abusive relationship and as if correcting all the language to ~uterus-bearers~ in our literature will somehow fix everything. There are enormous barriers that trans people face in accessing reproductive healthcare and those definitely need to be addressed but I hardly think telling women they can’t contextualize the attacks they are experiencing as a War on Women is going to solve that. In fact, I know it won’t, which is why I’ve stepped away from internet SJ for the most part and do not even care anymore how much hate/unfollowing I get for this. I consider anyone who disagrees with me on this to be nothing more than a child and I don’t need to argue with children anymore.
you can unfollow me now and send me hate mail and call me cis scum or whatever is hip these dayswait. someone is saying that cis-women should simply call themselves “uterus bearers”? FUCK that noise.
It is truly unbearable. While LORD KNOWS trans women are incredibly, incredibly marginalized by the medical community and problematized and God knows what else, the simple fact is that anti-choice discourse is centered around cis women. John Boehner is not trans-bashing when he attempts for the umpteenth time to defund Planned Parenthood. Rick Perry is not gleefully rubbing his hands, thinking about all the “people who don’t ID as women who are pregnant”, when he diverts money to crisis pregnancy centers.
This particular brand of misogyny is about cis women, and to insist we call ourselves uterus-bearers, which btw is incredibly robotic and dehumanizing, is imo just as misogynistic.
This is not to say that trans-bashing does not fall on a spectrum of misogyny - of course it does! - but that one-upping women who want to talk about their experiences with your special Social Justice Super Secret Password Handshake is not only annoying as hell, but actively alienating to those who actually work with women getting abortions, like unknowablewoman.
Discussing misogyny is not a zero-sum game, where excluding trans issues on this one issue means that there isn’t enough oxgyen to talk about it when it’s relevant to many other things. Those who act like it is are being willfully disingenuous and I’m over it.
I hope you don’t mind that I reblog this, but I just want to say that this really hits on the head what I’ve been mulling about for weeks. The reason being called a ‘person with a uterus’ is unappealing to me is that it strips me of my womanhood somehow. I am not just my reproductive organs and fuck you if that’s what you want me to identify as. I support the fight for trans* rights, but I am also a cis woman who is mainly interested in the fight against cis women. Although trans* and cis women overlap sometimes, to say that our entire fight is all about trans* rights is very off-putting. Cis women in particular are major political targets right now and although it’s all fun and rainbows to be inclusive, sometimes you just don’t fit into parts of a movement.
To quote Flavia Dzodan, My feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit. The arguments here about why it’s ok to keep excluding trans people from the war on women are bullshit. Yes, I agree “uterus bearers” is not the way to correct that. I don’t want to be reduced to a body part. But using that as an excuse to continue the exclusion of trans people is ridiculous. Cis-women are not the only political targets right now. Um, hello, reauthorization of VAWA was opposed by Republicans because it extended protections beyond heterosexual cis-women! The fact that most politicians aren’t thinking about trans people when they wage war on reproductive rights, equal pay, etc. is no excuse for the feminist movement not to think about the ways this war affects trans people. Do we want to be on the same level as right wing politicians?
And that language of “inclusion” is still used is illustrative of the fact that cis-women still believe that we own this movement. That we will let you in when we think it will benefit us but if it doesn’t then you are on your own. And telling trans people that not everything is about them 24/7 is absolutely laughable and insulting. As if the feminist movement in general is always considering trans issues and we just right now need to focus on cis-women so back off you greedy trans people! These arguments are basically saying that if we consider the ways these attacks affect trans people then that will lead to the erasure of cis-women! Ridiculous!! Figuring out how to take a white, middle class cis-woman led movement and turn it something that actually makes a difference in all people’s lives is hard as hell. But we must find a way to have an intersectional feminist movement that actually ends the multiple forms of oppression we face. And we must find a way to do that without erasing anyone’s experiences or contributions.
And I’m just going to point everyone to the amazing tumblr: Trans Repro Justice.
- My non-binary experiences are valid.
- My non-binary experiences are defined by me.
- I do not identify other non-binary peoples’ experiences, and they don’t define mine.
- Binary people do not get to define my or anyone else’s non-binary experiences.
- I have the right as a non-binary person to refuse to accept people brushing me or any other non-binary person under the fucking carpet because our existences complicate their inaccurate (mis)understandings of gender.
- I am real.
- I exist.
- I am valid.
- I am real.
- I exist.
- I am valid.
Anti-otherkin bullies, stop spreading anti-trans* ideas.
This is something I noticed for some time, and, it’s really started to annoy me and I want to call it out. But, I’m not trans*, so, if this is not my place in some way, or I get something wrong, please, let me know!
I am just very tired of people arguing against otherkin with the argument, “Being transgender is different, because brain scans have proved that trans* people have different brains.” As well as the problem to otherkin, people think this is supporting trans* people, but it’s not. It’s actually the opposite.
When you say this, you say that you don’t support trans* people because of their identities. Their identities mean nothing to you. You support trans* people because of their bodies. Because, in some way, the body says that they are that gender. The brain is part of the body, so, saying that “I accept this person as a woman because they have a ‘woman’s brain’”, is not very different from saying “I accept this person as a woman because they have a vagina”… it’s just moving it to a different part of the body, that needs to exist to “prove” that the person is biologically female in some way.
This is anti-trans*, because you are saying that how the person thinks of their self doesn’t matter. How the person experiences their self doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is whether there is scientific evidence, or, another way of saying it, their body “matches their gender” in some way. That is cissexism, because it is the belief that gender has to match the physical body in some way to be “valid” and “real”.
This is anti-trans*, because, what if future evidence shows that the studies have flaws? What if we discover a group of trans* people who don’t have a “different brain type” that shows on a scan? (The studies I can see all talk about binary identifying people. Do non-binary trans* people have different brains? If they don’t, do the people who say this think non-binary trans* people are “valid” and “real”?) What if some trans* people show on brain scans and some don’t? The second people, are they “not real”?
To avoid these problems, and to respect trans* people, I believe the only way to do it is to accept people for their identities. Not because “their brains are different”. Not because medical science shows a proof (they were not trans* people before people scanned their brains?) But because they experience being trans*. Because, anything else has a risk of erasing some people who do identify as trans*, because they don’t match the science, and also, because it is not respectful to ignore the experiences that a person is telling you, and say, “I will only believe it when I see medical evidence”.
You think you are “just” doing this to otherkin, but, in a way, when you use this argument you are doing it to trans* people, too. You are saying, “I only believe you because someone who is not you gives you an official right to exist”.
To everyone who uses this argument, I want to ask: if new evidence appears tomorrow that proves all those brain studies are wrong, do you still support trans* people?
If you say “no”, then you don’t really support trans* people, not matter what you say.
If you say “yes”, then, your argument that you support trans* people “because their brains are different” is hypocrisy, and you’re just using it because you don’t have a better way to say, “I think trans* people are valid because that sounds like it makes sense to my brain, but otherkin are not valid because that doesn’t sound like it makes sense”. And you know that’s a bad argument, so you’re covering it up with “but trans* people have SCIENCE on their sides!” But, that doesn’t help trans* people at all, because, it’s not the right reason to support them.
So please, stop using that argument. The reason to support people’s identities is not “because science says there’s a difference”. The reason to support people’s identities is “because they identify that way”. And the time to support their identities is before science says anything… because, a long time before people ever think “we should do a study about this!”, people are struggling to have their identities accepted. And if you really believe that argument, you are just proving, you’re the kind of person who would not have supported trans* people then, when they were most vulnerable. You only were ready to support when the rest of society gives you a way to do it, without looking so “strange”.
And, that is not really support at all.
[TW: cis person being a douche and fucking up when it comes to getting involved in trans issues she doesn’t properly understand]
In case anyone is wondering where the posts about genitals and trans identity went, I have compiled the entire debate into this post. I have done this for several reasons:
- I don’t want the issue to dominate my Tumblr any longer. I want to take the advice given to me and back out.
- I think the topics raised are important ones and should remain accessible for future reference. Especially if people want to see exactly how I fucked up and how they can learn from that.
- Similarly, having everything in one place makes it a lot easier for me to reflect on what went wrong.
I received an ask in response to my answer here.
I meant of the respective gender. If you’re a straight cis woman and you refuse to date a straight trans man then you’re cissexist. A trans man is a man regardless of what their genitals look like. If their trans status is the only factor making you not date them, you’re transphobic/cissexist.
It’s not discriminatory to have a gender preference/orientation. It is discriminatory to refuse to date a trans person who is the gender you are attracted to, but doesn’t have the genitalia you think that gender “should” have.
How is that any different to refusing to date someone based on their weight? Or any other characteristic that is also subject to institutional discrimination? When you combine personal prejudice with institutional power then it becomes ‘x’-ism.
This is particularly true because you don’t usually see someone’s genitals before you decide to start dating them. You simply don’t know what their genitals look like. And if you break up with them once you see what their genitals look like (because they don’t fit your idea of what a penis should look like, for instance) then that makes you - at the very least - an arsehole. I think that decision carries with it transphobic underpinnings as well.
In my view if someone says “I’m a straight cis man and I will only date cis women” then that is transphobic. I can’t see how it’s not.
My reasoning goes along these lines:
1) Genitals and reproductive organs are incidental to someone as a person. Would you refuse to date a cis woman who had their breasts removed from cancer? I’m assuming not. Then why would you refuse to date a trans woman who wasn’t born with breasts? It’s the same thing. They’re both still women.
2) A lot of trans people don’t refer to their genitals by the name society traditionally ascribes to those genitals. This ties into a greater shift away from viewing trans people as “born in the wrong body” andtowards viewing trans people as “born in the right body, but had that body mislabelled by society”.
3) There’s not one singular way genitals should look. Every penis is different; every vagina is different. And of course there’s overlap where these are indistinguishable and/or both are present. The fact only a narrow range of genitalia is seen as “socially legitimate” - this is cissexist. So when you support and perpetuate those views you’re upholding socially ingrained cissexism and transphobia.
If a straight cis woman is repulsed by or refuses to date a trans man with a vagina, then I think that is cissexist and sexist -and it also indicates a certain level of internalised misogyny (e.g. are they equally repulsed by their own genitals, and why do they feel this way?).
youarenotyou replied to your post:
Basically I think we are socialized to think that our sexual attraction is to genital configurations….idk I hear a lot of people make that claim.
Exactly. And that socialisation is underpinned by cissexism and cissupremacy.
I addressed the first question already. That is not transphobia. That is called having a sexual orientation. Gender is who a person is; genitals are incidental to who that person is and how they identify.
As for your second question, if someone is unable to experience arousal because their partner’s genitals look different to what they think a penis/vagina should look like, then they’ve evidently internalised cissexist ideas from society (or they’re not trying hard enough!).
And who are these people who can only achieve arousal exclusivelybased on the appearance of someone’s genitals? There is probably more variation between different vaginas than there is variance between an average vagina and an average penis. This is pretty much why I think claims like “I’m only turned on by one specific type of genitalia” are cissexist.
By way of extrapolation: do you make prospective partners fill out a survey making sure their labia are the “right” length? That their clitoris protrudes sufficiently? That their hood is baggy enough? That their pubic hair takes on a certain pattern? No. You don’t. Because it’s disingenuous to claim you are only attracted to one specific type of genitalia.
Sexual orientation is about gender not genitals.
Like I said, I don’t think genitals DO limit the potential for rewarding and arousing sex.
By way of analogy, if someone didn’t have hands then it would obviously limit their ability to provide hand jobs. But I think it would be ableist to refuse to date any hand amputees because of that. Yes, you could argue “well I’m only aroused by hand jobs and nothing else turns me on” and maybe that’s true. But I think it’s unnecessarily limiting. There are plenty of ways to get the effect of a hand job arousal without using hands.
I think that’s fair enough, and as a trans person you definitely get to make that call for yourself.
But even as a cis person, I would be very upset if someone refused to have a relationship with me solely based on what my genitals looked like and/or broke up with me after seeing my genitals. Using a similar line of reasoning, I imagine there are trans people who would feel oppressed and offended by that decision. I imagine that it would be much, much worse for a trans person when compounded against the general “trans genitals are bad genitals” rhetoric (which I’ve never even had to deal with due to cis privilege).
I’m not saying that’s invalid. And I’m certainly not saying that isn’t true for you. I guess what I’m saying is that those preferences have been socialised into you by a cissexist society. Would you not agree? That doesn’t mean you have to change them, but I think it means you need to be aware of that.
dionthesocialist replied to your post:Yeah, there’s no one way to fuck, but that doesn’t mean everyone wants to fuck in every way there is to fuck. For instance, I have no interest in being anally penetrated
I know. I never said anything about anal penetration. I think there’s something being lost in communication here…
Me too. And this has been a long process for me. I used to think it was totes legitimate to say “oh I’m just not attracted to brown people because that’s my preference” but the more I started analysing WHY that thought was imbedded in my mind, and how I came to think that way, the more I became aware of how racist it was and how it arises from a culture of whiteness.
I think the same line of thinking can be applied to everything else we’re discussing. In my view, skin colour is no more integral to attraction than the appearance of someone’s genitals.
Thanks for this. Would you care to provide your thoughts on whether “I am a straight cis woman who will only date straight cis men” is transphobic or not?
dresdenlowe replied to your post:Why? Internalised misogyny. I’m really shocked about all this anon stuff on your blog, I didn’t know we were supposed to know about a person’s genitals before getting to know them/seeing if we want to date them.
Yeah me too. It’s quite unsettling that people have a certain requirement for what genitals NEED to look like. Since all genitals belong to the gender of the person whose body they are attached to, all genitals must be ‘real’ genitals and all genitals must be good and valid genitals.
argleblarglebarglebah replied to your post:Eh, no. There’s a difference between “I don’t want to date you because you’re not a REAL MAN” and “I don’t want to date you because I can’t fuck you the way I’d like”.
If you can’t fuck a trans person “the way you’d like” then you just aren’t creative enough. There’s no one way to fuck? What even is this?
If someone says “I would never date a fat person” then I think that i sizeist. Especially if they find that fat person to be compatible and suitable in all other respects. I’m talking about if the SOLE reason you won’t date that person is because they are fat.
Of course there is no one correct way of sexual attraction. That’s not what I’m saying.
Sexual orientation is about gender not genitals.
As far as I understand, the prefix “sexual” is used because it refers to the genders you want to have sex with not because you’re specifying the genitals you are exclusively attracted to.
Surely you date a person not their genitals anyway?
I would really appreciate if any trans people could provide input into the current discussion. It would be good to hear from trans voices rather than having cis people dominate this dialogue.
Of course. But if you then rule out all people who possess vaginas (regardless of their gender) then that seems problematic and prejudiced.
Do you think it would be ableist to say “I’d never date someone with a <insert physical disability here>?”
Yes, of course.
Then it’s similarly cissexist to say “I would never date someone of the gender I’m attracted to if their genitals didn’t meet certain cissexistly constructed criteria”.
Since when are breasts not genitals?
Surely you mean “who” we’re attracted to, not “what” we are attracted to? You say you’re attracted to women, which is fine. But as soon as you say you’re only attracted to cis women then that seems transphobic. Can you explain how it isn’t?
And this whole thing should be more specifically framed according to who we rule out from being a potential partner (i.e. “I will never date a woman who has a penis”) rather than who you include (i.e. “any time I have vaginal sex I’m discriminating against penises” because this isn’t true at all).
bittergrapes replied to your post:But to some people that is important. And it’s not up to us to tell them that they are not allowed to only be attracted to one kind of genital. I respect you a lot but on this one I think you are off the mark. Sexuality is not a choice
I’m not saying people have to be attracted to more than one type of genitalia. I’m saying that if they aren’t, then that “preference” is rooted in cissexism and they need to acknowledge that.
argleblarglebarglebah replied to your post:Well, it’s as valid to reject someone for not wanting vaginal sex as it is for not being able to have vaginal sex.
Well this makes you one hell of a fucking douchebag. If your partner developed vaginismus and you dumped them because of it, then you deserve every derogatory label that people want to throw at you.
argleblarglebarglebah replied to your post:Ah, then we’re going to have to agree to disagree, because essentially what I was arguing is that it’s NOT ableist to refuse to date someone who has no hands for that reason.
I think we should ask somebody with no hands whether that’s ableist. I have the sneaking suspicion many would agree with me.
weexist-weresist replied to your post:but just bc you dont feel that way doesnt mean you cant speak for all people who have sex. i couldnt date someone who couldnt perform a certain way or didnt meet my standards for intercourse. but it wouldnt be ableist.
As I said, I’m not saying this doesn’t happen. But I am saying I think it’s a douchebag thing to do (and when it’s coupled with other social oppression I think it becomes x-ist).
If you refuse to date someone solely because they couldn’t perform sexually (e.g. maybe they had erectile dysfunction) then I think that would make you an ableist arsewipe.
youarenotyou replied to your post:Words like ‘evolved’ need to stay the fuuuuuck away from these convos holy shit.
argleblarglebarglebah replied to your post:Well, it’s as valid to reject someone for not wanting vaginal sex as it is for not being able to have vaginal sex.Well this makes you one hell of a fucking douchebag.
weexist-weresist replied to your post:wtf, um, no there really isnt greater variation between v to v than p to v. Functionally a vagina is a vagina - whether one created through surgery or someone born with it. you cant do with a vagina what you can with a penis. really that simple.
Well functionally not all vaginas are the same for a start. Secondly, for instance, some vaginas have really long clitorises that can be the same length as a very short penis - and are capable of erection. This variation supersedes any category of “vagina” and “penis”.
What are you even saying?
Not all vaginas emit the same pheromones and not all penises do either. What are you even saying?
This too! It’s like assuming that just because your potential partner has an anus that they will want anal sex.
I already responded to this: there is a greater variation from vagina to vagina than there is between penis and vagina. So both of those things are the same.
Well in my mind if you reduce a fat person to their weight (and isolate that as the only characteristic that will allow you to decide whether they’re eligible or worthy of your romantic attention) then I think that’s sizeist.
It’s also your personal right to be sizeist if you want. But don’t try and deny that it’s sizeist.
Physicality is a totality of someone’s appearance though…singling out one characteristic seems offensive to me. Maybe I’m being ultra sensitive though? I don’t know. The thought process of some of the anons just squicks me out and makes me feel uneasy.
I think it’s more complicated than that anyway as there are bound to be other factors influencing your attraction. Especially as you usually don’t know somebody’s genitals when you first start dating them. Would you break up with a woman if you found out her genitals didn’t look like you wanted?
Is it not obvious that one’s entire understand of what a vagina looks like is based on cissexist ideals?
Yes genitalia is important, but when it becomes the DEFINING and EXCLUSIVELY-DISCRIMINATING characteristic upon which you base your relationships then that is cissexist.
In my mind and in my understanding of morals and discrimination there is actually a fucktonne of stuff wrong with that.
Gay men are attracted to men. Some men have vaginas. Get over it.
Well yes it does, because genitals are a spectrum and there is overlap between what is considered a vagina and what is considered a penis (some people even *clutching my pearls* have both!!).
No one’s asking you to change unless you want to. I’m saying that you need to acknowledge the cissexist socialisation that has given rise to those preferences.
saltmarshhag replied to your post:If you are cis imo you need to back off quite a bit.
I have been told by trans people this categorisation of genitals is cissexist so I am trusting their authority on their own experiences. I never said all trans people would find that oppressive. But many evidently do.
dresdenlowe replied to your post:I still think the deconstruction of why genitals matter so much is very important. When people say “sex”, it most always means PIV sex. Why? That’s the only type of sex education offered, and even that’s limited.
I agree. The deconstruction is very essential.
youarenotyou replied to your post:I don’t think we should talk about choice here. socialization plays a huge role in sexual preferences. It feels like we don’t CHOOSE to find POC, hairy armpits on women, and fat ppl unattractive either… until we start deconstructing it.
are you dense?
this is just like the thing about how if you are asexual it would be really hard for you to date someone who considers sex to be a central part of a relationship because both lack of sex and demand of sex are equal and valid desires. sexuality cannot be compromised for some people, me included. sexual chemistry makes up a significant amount of my attraction to another person. ihave dated someone who couldnt get off and it was really difficult because we had totally different needs that the other person couldnt meet. we werent compatible.
not all disability is equal, some are things that are pathologized but are neutral (like autism or even an amputation) and some are things that are just bad(many sexual disorders are not liked by the people who have them, or diseases like cancer/diabetes/etc). fuck this SJ bullshit in which everyone has to treat disability like just another quirk.
just like there are a million reasons i couldnt date someone who was really messy or didnt like to cuddle or whatever, i couldnt date someone who couldnt perform sexually. why is being deprived of sex something i should just deal with but asexuals should not perform sex despite not enjoying it/liking it (coercion aside)? both are valid needs.
No I’m not dense, thanks.
I think you’re derailing the issue here with a lot of these points.
I will, however, say that no one is treating disabilities like a quirk. Disabilities are real and often very debilitating. Some people construct them positively but that’s not true for everyone.
Fair comment, I guess. But there’s still this troubling conflation of “sexuality” and “sex organs”. Sexuality is about gender, unless there’s this new meaning I’m not aware of?
I’m not policing anything. I am saying that just because your experience with vaginas has been unsatisfying doesn’t mean it would always be.
Would it be okay to say “all my experiences with PoC have been bad, therefore all people of colour are bad”? I hate using racist analogies to highlight my point but I feel I need to use an extreme example to clarify here; what I’m saying has been lost in this discussion.
No. I’m saying that it’s limiting to say “your penis won’t go into my vagina” therefore we can’t have sex. There are other ways of having sex if one has erectile dysfunction.
But this is beside the point. We’re losing sight of the original question.
I agree with the first part of what you wrote. No one is obligated to be attracted to anyone. And I never said they were. What I am objective to is reducing this hypothetical “one person” to their genitals, as if that’s the main thing worth evaluating when it comes to a relationship.
I don’t understand your comment about femme and internalised misogyny…?
youarenotyou replied to your post:socialization =/= choosing
dresdenlowe replied to your post:Oh sweet Lucifer I smiled reading that first part because I thought it was satire. >.< Wow. I’m not sure how to deal with this.
It just makes me desperately sad.
argleblarglebarglebah replied to your post:saltmarshhag is trans. So, uh, it turns out trans people don’t always agree on everything? Funny that.
Yes of course trans people disagree with each other. This is a moot point. Trans people are as diverse as any loosely connected group of people.
argleblarglebarglebah replied to your post:Just being able to have sex at all is not enough. If you can’t have the sex you want to have it doesn’t matter what other sex you can have. Lack of any kind of sex (or fuck, nearly anything else including nothing at all) is plenty enough dealbreaker.
I guess I view very differently. I view sex as a unique way of expressing a connection to the person you’re with at the time. Based on their body sex with each new person will be different.
Question: if you were in a long-term relationship with someone and they developed a medical condition that meant they couldn’t have any type of sex anymore - would you break up with them?
Yes. This is a very good way of explaining things.
YES! This is an important and crucial distinction.
My point was more about unravelling how that identity has been socialised and created within a cissexist society. This isn’t to say it’s chosen, though. Youarenotyou made a good comment in this respect.
argleblarglebarglebah replied to your post:…but you missed the point, which was you can’t just say “trans people back me up on this” because other trans people don’t. (Honestly I should probably let her say this, but she kind of is in her reblogs so I guess it’s okay to parrot it here?)
I never said “trans people back me up on this”. I asked for the opinion of trans people because I am interested in hearing different thoughts from different trans people. Some trans people have ALREADY said to me they find it oppressive and cissexist (e.g. autumnandeve and several others who I have engaged with on Tumblr in the past). I was trying to bring in a diversity of trans voices to the discussion.
argleblarglebarglebah replied to your post:Probably not, but I would feel I had the right to. For (almost) any reason including no reason, as well. Otherwise you could effectively force someone to maintain a relationship against their will on social pressure.
Of course you have the right to. But others have the right to tell you they think it’s a douchebag move.
ETA: I also support and respect the right of anyone to end a relationship for no reason at all, simply because there is no spark or whatever. If you think I’m saying people should be forced to stay in all relationships regardless of circumstances you are very much misunderstanding me
youarenotyou replied to your post:If I was monogamous, no sex would be a deal breaker for me. That’s why I am poly, though. I acknowledge that a single person cannot meet all of my emotional and sexual needs.
That’s an interesting way of looking at it. Thank you.
the ask box character limit is ridiculous, so here:
first of all i think people need to stop comparing this issue to other oppressions especially race as it just does the whole thing a disservice (like basically every time we rely too much on a comparison to another oppression before even adequately detailing how they’re similar).
second of all, yes there is cissexism behind an association between one’s sexual orientation and and a preference for genitals and people need to not make attempts to /naturalize/ that association, but the association is deeply deeply experienced by some people. the message really needs to not be “you need to go out and date/fuck someone you’re not attracted to” and the cis person for whom it isn’t an issue is not necessary less cissexist anyway.cissexism is a system we’re all trapped in (including trans people) regardless of our individual actions, not just mean people doing mean things to be mean. there are a lot more important and effective ways to dismantle a huge fucking system like this than to just go out and fuck a trans person. i would much rather a cis person want to only seek to date someone of their preferred gender with cissexistly congruent genitals (and of course that includes some trans people) while also giving a shit and making trans people a valued part of their communities and working to improve trans people’s access to concrete life conditions like housing, health care, employment, etc. than for a cis person to imagine they’re ~all good~ because they’re sexually attracted to people regardless of genitals, especially if they didn’t really have to work at that.so i think people need to worry more about how they’re making the world a less shitty place for trans people in a lot of other more important ways before they go trying to sexually reprogram themselves. being someone’s exploratory fuck makes for a pretty shitty experience for both of you anyway imo.
“not getting laid enough” is a seriously overemphasized issue on the periphery of the youngish radikewllish trans community bordering more on /personal problem./ it’s sleazy as fuck to me when people’s politics seem motivated by that and no one is entitled to anyone else’s sexual availability. as a trans woman i just tend to resent the hell out of ALL sides of these conversations.
and no, a trans man is not experiencing sexism when a cis straight woman doesn’t want to date him. cissexism yeah, but ew no.
Yes agree with all of this especially the bolded. Thank you very much for your thoughts and for your clear articulation of the issues. Some of the nuances you have described are beyond my ability to articulate, so thank you. Very sincerely.
I hope, however, I wasn’t presenting myself as a cis person who sees beyond genitals and is perfect. I know I’m not. I’m still learning, which is why I very much appreciate the input of trans people to help me understand these more complex points.
And I would like to unequivocally apologise for comparing this to other forms of oppression and marginalisation. I am aware that it discredits and muddies the issue further. By way of explanation (not excuse), I was becoming increasingly frustrated that I couldn’t find the words to explain what I meant. Hopefully that will help you understand why I resorted to such comparisons against my better judgement. I will definitely steer away from these sorts of comparisons in future as I realise how minimising they can be of other people’s experiences. Sorry again.
Re: the last sentence - I meant sexism in the “I hate vaginas” sense. But then it became clear it was more “I’m not attracted to this because of cissexism” not “I find vaginas repulsive” so I would like to retract that comment.
argleblarglebarglebah replied to your post:(To edit): Effectively you ARE saying that some people should be forced to stay in some relationships, if you’re saying that some dealbreakers are invalid.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT. Kindle stop putting words in my mouth.
I’m saying that if you break up with somebody because of what their genitals look like, then that decision is based in cissexism. I’m not saying you can’t still make that decision or that you have to stay with the person who has “the wrong” genitals. I’m saying you should try and deconstruct the cissexist reasoning behind that decision-making process.False. i find it disingenious for the very people who claim not to see race to be the same people who would never date X,Yor Z. If we’re all humans, how are you so positive you will never be attracted in the future?
Sorry…not seeing the connection here.But then if you want to be a good person (as everyone does) you’re stuck in the relationship. And the ability to trap someone in a relationship is a recipe for emotional abuse and all sorts of other nasty things.
No you are putting words in my mouth. If you want to be a good person you can try and understand your cissexism and try and deconstruct it. That doesn’t mean it will necessarily change or go away. As saltmarshhag highlighted, we are all bound by a cissexist world.i am a non binary so my very existence fucks with the concept of ‘straightness’. equating certain genitals w/ certain sex acts is fucked up & assuming you know how someone will want to fuck is a really bad idea.
I think one should try and understand the cissexism inherent in that attraction. That doesn’t mean they’ll have the ability to change it. As many people have explained, sexual attraction isn’t a choice. But that doesn’t mean you can’t deconstruct the socialisation process behind that attraction.
argleblarglebarglebah replied to your post:But if it’s cissexist, then it’s immoral, and since everyone wants to be a good person you’re effectively disallowing them from breaking up under certain conditions.
It’s not immoral. It’s an inevitable fact of the cissexist society that most of us live in.
And please stop putting words into my mouth and saying that I’m “disallowing people to break up under certain conditions”. I asked nicely once and now it’s just getting fucking annoying.
megachiropteran replied to your post:wtf.. um, also, there’s no such thing as “less evolved.” it’s not a hierarchy.
Yeah no one is saying “if you need sex you’re ableist”. It’s more like:
What we’re socially taught is “sex” —
good, right, proper sex… satisfying, desirable, the end point, the most important part of a romantic relationship, monogamous, the physical expression of love, what isn’t ”foreplay” —
is heterosexist and racist and sizeist. I think pretty much anyone who pays attention will agree with that. But along with all those things sexuality as constructed by western society is also cissexist and ableist. Which extends into non-straight sexualities, just like racism and sizeism. Why is it so much harder to acknowledge that? Why are we willing to say sexual preference is socialized into us when it comes to what straight men think is an attractive woman (white, thin, able bodied, young, hairless) but we won’t extend that to what we think of as being actual sexual intercourse, the “right” genitalia, male and female genitals, and what sexual acts are associated with certain genital configurations?
No one is saying EVERYONE CHANGE YOUR SEXUAL PREFERENCES NOW or EVERYONE CHOOSES WHAT THEY LIKE. The only message I’m seeing is please acknowledge how these preferences don’t occur in a vacuum.
Thank you thank you thank you thank you. This is the message I am giving.
argleblarglebarglebah replied to your post:So then for an individual person cissexism isn’t immoral? Or does it somehow now make sense to say that you should do the wrong thing sometimes? Because if both of these are wrong you are again banning certain dealbreakers.
I’m actually getting really fucking pissed off with you now. The same thing happened during our discussion about Dan Savage; despite having your question clarified and answered you just kept repeating the same comment whilst also twisting words to suit some personal interpretation.
Please read and re-read the entire discussion until you understand the answers that have been given to you. Read my words literally. Unless I say “cissexism is immoral” then I’m not fucking saying that. Unless I explictly say “I ban you from ending a relationship” then I’m not fucking saying that. Stop putting words in my mouth, and stop responding with issues that have already been addressed.
argleblarglebarglebah replied to your post:Ah, so, if cissexism ISN’T immoral than your position makes sense, except that it has the glaring flaw that cissexism isn’t immoral. I don’t really know how to respond, except I hope you can understand my dislike of this definition of cissexism.
What the fuck are you even talking about? Immorality doesn’t even come into this discussion. You brought it in. I’m not saying anything is immoral.
youarenotyou replied to your post:can we add immoral/moral to the list of words to not use here alongside ‘evolved’ dghdhhh
youarenotyou replied to your post:it’s all the ASSOCIATIONS that go with genital attractions and ideas about genitals and configurations and sex acts.
That’s a very good point. Unfortunately I missed that in trying to keep up with all these questions and comments and reblogs.
I didn’t realise this was a divisive issue among trans people. I thought it was more that some trans people found it offensive and some trans people didn’t.
Having thought about it in this light, though, I agree it would be best if I stopped commenting on this any more and simply backed the fuck off.
Anyone who has any further questions can direct them to the appropriate person. I’m not that appropriate person.
femjeymas replied to your post:IMO: It’s not cissexist to not be attracted to a man because of his vagina, but it is cissexist to claim that you are attractive to men and then exclude trans men, etc I know some people who say “I’m attracted to vagina/penis owners”
femjeymas replied to your post:IMO: So does this mean that since you are “straight and like vaginal intercourse” that you would sleep with a trans man who has a vagina? Because then you aren’t what you think straight means.
femjeymas replied to your post:IMO: people can not date a fat person if they’re not attracted to fat people, just like how i can not date a thin person because i’m not attracted to thin people. after all, “what i’m attracted to” and “beautiful” are not synonymous.
I’m not getting into any more hard arguments tonight. I don’t have the brainpower for it.
But I don’t think it’s in the least bit cissexist to simply not prefer certain genitals. No one gets to choose their sexuality. No one wakes up one morning and suddenly has a flavor for penis when they never did before. Maybe in certain cases where they fall in love with someone outside of their genitalia, but for most everyone else anatomy is a crucial part of sexual attraction, and that’s okay. No one owes it to me to like me even though I have a vagina. I don’t expect them to, nor will I shame them for not liking my vagina. It’s like wanting chocolate ice cream and not vanilla ice cream, and I happen not to be their preferred flavor. And that’s okay!
All sexualities are valid, all sexualities are acceptable. People who are only attracted to one kind of genital are okay, same as people who are only attracted to one kind of gender. Sexuality is vast and diverse and has lots of nuances and everyone has their own blend of it based on several factors. Everyone likes what they like and that’s it. No one gets to choose what they like or change what their like to be more ‘egalitarian’. And as a pansexual transman who is attracted to all gender and genitals, I don’t appreciate this attitude that my sexuality is somehow more appropriate, or more acceptable, or more egalitarian, than someone else’s. I didn’t choose my sexuality, nor did anyone else.
In which I fucked up badly…
I would like to publically apologise for two things.
Firstly, I would like to extend an individual apology to both Bittergrapes and Saltmarshhag. When I realised I was out of my depth answering questions, I called for help from members of the trans community. However, I made the mistake of not valuing these voices equally. I valued the voice of trans people who found gendering of genitals offensive (Autumnandeve, and others from previous discussions), and prioritised it over the voices of those who didn’t find it offensive or problematic (Bittergrapes and Saltmarshhag, among others who I’m sure did not make it known).
This was my first mistake and I shouldn’t have done it. But more importantly, I made the mistake of becoming a cis person moderating or balancing the views of trans people. This was not my place. I should have backed out of the conversation when I realised was further confusing/upsetting trans people. I shouldn’t have tried to explain my way out of the hole. That made things worse on top of my initial errors. This is a personal flaw of mine (not knowing when to leave a discussion) and I am working on improving this.
My biggest failure was a failure to realise or understand this division was a private thing for trans people. For this I am extremely and genuinely sorry.
Secondly, I would like to extend a more general apology to trans people who might have read this discussion and been offended or upset. Over the next day or two I will copy and past the whole discussion into one thread so it can be put behind a trigger warning cut. Hopefully this will ameliorate the potential for future harm. If anyone thinks the whole discussion should be deleted, please let me know.
To reiterate: I am sorry. I fucked up bad.
Basically in trying to understand my own cis privilege I was blinded by analysing that privilege and I felt entitled to share my thought process with trans people. This was not my right and it resulted in me attempting to speak for trans people. This is unforgivable and I understand that.
Just please know that I am sorry.