The following post was tagged with radical feminism, which is one of the tags that I agreed to follow in order to get a group that I am often accused of being to be quiet.
It is a example of how some folks, thinking that they have a decent grasp on complex subjects from having read a few things, combined with teh normative understanding that already exists in the world (and is not radical), act when given misinformation and then decide to use their beliefs and the ignorance and misinformation they have been given to spout an uninformed opinion that they likely think is meant positively, without realizing just how destructive it is.
The individual who is posting it isn’t of import in what I’m about to do — it is the ideas that they are sharing that I’m going after. So here is the post:
No Gender = No Transsexuality
I already know I’m going to probably start a shit storm and get called transphobic by posting this so let me explain. I’m going to make this as quick and simple as possible.
Sex is what you were biologically born as. I was born with breast and a vagina so my biological sex is a woman.
Gender is what you identify as and I identify as a woman.
Gender is a socially constructed idea designed to make a clear distinction between men and woman. It feeds into patriarchy so men can clearly tell who is dominant vs. non-dominant in our culture. So because I identify as a woman I am automatically put in the non-dominant group.
Now, if we were to get rid of gender and just go by our sex and live whichever identity we feel we truly are, the term Transsexuality wouldn’t exist. This is because everyone would be living in their purest form. Of course I am thinking of an ideal society. But basically what it boils down to is that, if we got rid of gender, we could live how we want in whatever sex identity we wanted.
Note that the following things are the problem with this post.
First, it presumes that transsexuality is a socially constructed issue based on Gender, which only exists in a social system and social sphere. This is the first point of ignorance on transsexuality, which is better referred to as Transness. Transness has no basis in Gender — gender is one of the results of it, not the source. The source of it is in Self awareness, which is discounted and ignored because of the ignorance and prejudice of the author — which were passed to them by normative, conservative, anti-radical forces in the social groups they are active in.
Secondly, it presumes that transness is a disease, a wrongness, a fault. This is also incorrect, and an error that is derived from ignorance and the combined efforts of persons with a deep seated degree of animus, anxiety, and/or aversion to trans people (all of which, incidentally, are displayed above in the post). Transness, as we understand it today, has been present in every culture throughout all of time and is a naturally occurring variation of human diversity.
Next, it starts off with an ethnocentric (and racist) assertion of a patriarchal system that has a long and well documented history of being used to further the goals of patriarchy and white supremacy, and is still very much structured in such a way that it embraces, supports, and patterns effective understanding in a way that reifies the Patriarchal notions that there are substantive differences between men and women and that there are only two forms. This is patently false, not radical, and decidedly prejudiced. As sex is a socially constructed system that posits a binary (even though the science being cited here recognizes that such a binary does not actually exist), and this fact is not acknowledged or incorporated into the statements made, it fails to recognize that the determination of what it means when subject A has these parts, subject B has these parts, and other subjects have a blending or variation or absence of those parts was made and continues to establish the role of subject A as a dominant and culturally neutral figure, while all related forms are Othered.
The argument is specious, as well, as it relies on an essentialism that posits flesh before person, or essence before existence, when speaking within and about an existential framework, which fundamentally holds that existence precedes essence.It is, therefore, contradictory at a level that the author is almost certainly unaware of.
To justify this, they use an example of their own flesh,not realizing that the flesh is not the problem, since gender is a social system that is, in all ways, the manifestation of sex in the social sphere. This is important, as it demonstrates that the author does not understand what Gender is, and more importantly, continues to use the same standards that have been used by patriarchy for decades to reinforce the idea that women are inferior. Exactly the same two. Which happen to be the most prominent, visible traits associated with the role which patriarchy assigns and that are supported by the patriarchal system that they are relying on to prove their point — that is, they are literally using the tools of persecution of women to establish that they are defined by patriarchy and shaped by it and they do so without disagreement or noted radical statements, which means that they are accepting it and therefore are arguing on behalf of patriarchal standards.
Next, it makes a faulty leap that colludes personal identification with social identification, despite these being two separate things, and ignores the methodology that they are pretending to follow (which is critical theory).
How one identifies has nothing to do with Gender. Gender is how one expresses how one identifies, how one operates in connection with others while expressing it, and what roles one operates under within the given culture one is occupying — most of which base one’s gender on what one does, not what one carries around within them.
So there we can see that the understanding of gender, in general, is not only flawed, but is also deeply ethnocentric and uninformed.
It then presumes that gender is the mechanism of oppression, which is incorrect, It is a mechanism, but it is not the only one. Since Gender is the social system that represents sex, it can only be undone by ridding the world of any distinctions relating to sex, including the patriarchy inspired ones that the author uses to create a distinction.
This, then, indicates a juvenile understanding of the world at large, and an overly simplistic grasp of social system and in particular the Structures and how they operate interdependently.
THey then make the assertion that by getting rid of gender and just operating by sex, that an entire class of persons who are literally outside either of these social constructions will cease to exist — as if one can change an element that exists in all cultures and in all populations simply by changing one cultural normative that can only exist so long as the other does.
Gender is sex in the social sphere. Flat out. So getting rid of it means changing the social systems in which everyone operates to erase all distinctions of social sex and sex itself, since gender is social sex.
That’s ignorance for you, though. It is like peering through a tiny hole and think if you could just move a little further only to find out it is your own anus and you’ve stuck your head through it.
They then get to an argument about purest forms, which becomes even more hilarious and laughable once one realizes that the process that trans people — in this case, the subset thereof defined by transsexuality — go through is to live an authentic life, and the actions of this person in this specific case are intentionally focused on the act of denying them an authentic life, thus creating existential Angst and feeling as if that is a good outcome.
This is how the aspects of Violence against Trans people function and work without the persons engaging in that violence being aware that they are doing so intentionally, because of the source material (which is outside the trans world is based in the oppressive systems created to render trans people invisible already that they have been fighting for close to 175 years now) — the ciscentric source material that is hostile and prejudiced and filled with misinformation — that they have relied on.
This is akin to the sort of thing being written by people who wanted to find a solution to the Civil war that relied on the arguments of the slave owners, since those seemed reasonable and they could always make the same appeal to authority that this person has made.
They then get to the point where they note that they are referencing an idealized system, but it isn’t an idealized system because they are creating this thought from a position of ignorance. They presume that gender exists in a vacuum, separate from other systems of oppression, and that it can be tackled in some way without having to tackle these other systems at the same time, and when one is being as ethnocentric in their focus as this person, one can see just how far they have to go in learning about these topics.
this is why the stuff that is spoken by TERFs and other anti-trans type is so often poisonous and damaging to trans people, even when it seems reasonable and something that shouldn’t be argued with. It isn’t radical to oppose the lives and existence of trans people — that is part of the normative systems and an aspect of patriarchy, in and of itself.
This is also why I say that those who hate trans people cannot properaly be radical feminists and have any claim to the concept of being radical — hate isn’t radical, it is conservative and normative, and all one needs to do to realize that is look at the world around you.
The individual who wrote this piece is merely an example of something that is prevalent, a symptom of a larger problem, and the level of ignorance they are dealing with is not their fault — it is part and parcel of the system which they unwittingly were actively engaged in supporting.
They have seen a great deal of horribly false testimony from people with a vested interest in preserving the status quo (men are men and women are women) in order to preserve the minimal amount of self image and ego they need to enable them to function to some degree in a social system that they are trapped in, just as the rest of us are.
Rather than condemn this person for writing this, I think we should condemn the ideas that lead into this sort of thing and recognize the deception, deceit, and complexity of Structure, rather than attacking this persons Agency in trying to make sense of something they don’t understand, however misguided an attempt that was.
Unless they are a hard core Terf who thinks CB, AnnTagonist, BevJo, Gallus, etc are all cool people, in which case, hey, have at them.
THE DOG BEHIND THE “DOGE” MEME IS A PUPPY MILL SURVIVOR - “She was a pedigreed dog from a puppy mill, and when the puppy mill closed down, she was abandoned along with 19 other Shiba dogs…”
A Shiba Inu in Japan named Kabosu was one of 19 dogs in a puppy mill. Many of the others were killed, but Kabosu was rescued and adopted by a woman named Atsuko Sato. She posted some pictures of Kabosu online and somehow the pictures became the “doge” meme (along with another Shiba Inu). Read more from Kyle Chaka at The Verge:
The furry face that launched a thousand quips nearly never made it to the web. Sato adopted Kabosu from an animal shelter in November, 2008, saving her from certain death. “She was a pedigreed dog from a puppy mill, and when the puppy mill closed down, she was abandoned along with 19 other Shiba dogs,” the teacher explained. “Some of them were adopted, but the rest of them were killed.”
“Kabosu is very different from the typical temperament of Shiba,” Sato explained. “She’s very gentle and calm; she loves being photographed.” The hundreds of photos on the blog have paid off, and not just on Reddit. Sato started her blog in June, 2009, aiming to raise awareness about the dangers of puppy mills and adopted pets, joining a network of pet blogs where Kabosu quickly found an audience. The site is now the fourth most popular pet blog in Japan, getting around 75,000 hits a month…
Sato does have a goal in mind to take advantage of her dog’s sudden notoriety. “I want more people to know about animal shelters and puppy mills,” she said. “I’d like to give back to them somehow, helping those abandoned animals. It’ll be nice that Kabosu can play that role.”
Kabosu escaped a horrible fate and is thankfully living a much better life, both on and offline. Click here for the full story.
if ur cis and u follow a trans person making posts about institutional oppression and their oppressors do not make blithe comments or queries about whether they hate YOU because guess what
the post wasnt about YOU
not everything is about YOU
all YOU are doing is casually derailing a dialogue to make YOUrself feel better
Understanding the place of gender in pre-colonial societies is pivotal to understanding the nature and scope of changes in the social structure that the processes constituting colonial/modern Eurocentered capitalism imposed. Those changes were introduced through slow, discontinuous, and heterogenous processes that violently inferiorized colonized women. The gender system introduced was one thoroughly informed through the coloniality of power. Understanding the place of gender in pre-colonial societies is also pivotal in understanding the extent and importance of the gender system in disintegrating communal relations, egalitarian relations, ritual thinking, collective decision making, collective authority, and economies. And thus in understanding the extent to which the imposition of this gender system was as constitutive of the coloniality of power as the coloniality of power was constitutive of it. The logic of the relation between them is of mutual constitution. But it should be clear by now that the colonial, modern, gender system cannot exist without the coloniality of power, since the classification of the population in terms of race is a necessary condition of its possibility.
To think the scope of the gender system of Eurocentered global capitalism it is necessary to understand the extent to which the very process of narrowing of the concept of gender to the control of sex, its resources, and products constitutes gender domination. To understand this narrowing and to understand the intermeshing of racialization and gendering, it is important to think whether the social arrangements prior to colonization regarding the “sexes” gave differential meaning to them across all areas of existence. That enables us to see whether control over labor, subjectivity/intersubjectivity, collective authority, sex—Quijano’s “areas of existence”— were themselves gendered. Given the coloniality of power, I think we can also say that having a “dark” and a “light side” is characteristic of the co-construction of the coloniality of power and the colonial/modern gender system. Considering critically both biological dimorphism and the position that gender socially constructs biological sex is pivotal to understand the scope, depth, and characteristics of the colonial/modern gender system. The sense is that the reduction of gender to the private, to control over sex and its resources and products is a matter of ideology, of the cognitive production of modernity that understood race as gendered and gender as raced in particularly differential ways for Europeans/“whites” and colonized/“non-white” peoples. Race is no more mythical and fictional than gender, both powerful fictions.
The Gender Binary, which as this article explains, was used to erase Indigenous expressions of gender (or the lack thereof) while also limiting the capability of non-heterosexual relationships (and therefore excluding homosexual and transgender expressions) and is an artifact of white supremacist colonialism.
remember when i always say that i’ll write a thing only to see it posted on TiA with a bunch of white d00ds making fun of me….
and then someone will post some scholar who says much the same thing?
Whaddaya Call Normal People?
First, please don’t use “normal” to refer to people without disabilities. That implies that PWDs are abnormal, which is a perception we’re trying to change. Having a disability is as much a part of the human experience as anything else. It is normal to have a disability!
I’m sure some of you are thinking or have read “able-bodied/AB” or “TAB” (temporarily able-bodied). The problem with “AB” is that it indicates that all disabilities are the result of physical impairments, such as mobility issues. However, there are a multitude of disabilities that don’t fall into this category. Mental health disabilities, cognitive disabilities, and autism are examples of disabilities that do not necessarily have anything to do able-bodiedness.
TAB seems cool, but it’s actually problematic. It’s based on the belief that everyone will develop some disabilities in old age. Some people use TAB to try to raise awareness that disability is a normal part of life and something that can happen to anyone. I definitely support the goal of non-otherizing PWDs. After all, I lived my first twenty-odd years without disabilities, and now I have multiple disabilities.
However, the fact of the matter is that not everyone does develop a disability. Some people never reach adulthood, let alone old age. You can be perfectly healthy and nondisabled until you die in a car accident or of a heart attack. My grandmother was much healthier and more active at 82 than I was at 28.
In addition, I’ve seen people use TAB to dismiss the validity and uniquely different perspectives and experiences that come from living with disability. It’s much like saying, “Well, I have glasses, so I’m disabled, too,” or saying to a lesbian or gay person, “Well, everyone’s bisexual,” to negate the reality that living as a queer person in our culture is different than living within normative sexual/familial culture.
So, what’s the answer to what to call nondisabled people — i.e., people without disabilities? It’s in the question! It’s “person/people without (a) disability/ies” OR “nondisabled person/people”! What could be simpler?
This is a common expression I’ve seen used a lot which makes me cringe a bit whenever I see it.
Language is different everywhere, and especially language relating to disability, so I don’t think that do/don’t lists work universally. However, there are definitely some don’ts, and “able bodied” is one of them.
What would be appropriate instead depends on context - in North America it seems like “nondisabled” would be considered appropriate by people with disability and their advocates, but here it definitely would not.
Also, ageing is not the same as disability. Ageing processes occur for everyone, but differently for people depending on a whole range of factors (most often, the social determinants of health). And people with disability also age - their bodies and brains change over time due to both processes of ageing that happen for everyone, as well as issues relating specifically to their disability or health condition.
Whenever I’ve seen the international adoptee community get together to break down this ish — which is far more frequent than outsiders imagine given how our adoption
market pricesfees are literally determined by the intersection of our disability, race, nationality, and assigned sex —
we employ what best translates to in English as not “normal” but conventionally abled.
why the hell aren’t there anti-racist werewolf squads
Cos therians are awful.
Idk, being someone with a number of other souls occupying my body inclines me to believe people who don’t feel like they’re fully/conventionally human
Believing people who make unconventional claims doesn’t require also believing that they’re gonna behave decently to others, let alone go out of their way to combat racism.
reblog and make a wish!
this was removed from tumbrl due to “violating one or more of Tumblr’s Community Guidelines”, but since my wish came true the first time, I’m putting it back. :)
OH MY FUCKING GOD, IT’S BACK ON MY DASH.
THIS SHIT WORKS OKAY, I AM DEAD SERIOUS.
The last time I saw this on my dash, I didn’t think it would happen, so jokingly I wished I could go to a fun. concert.
AND GUESS WHAT, I WENT TO A FUCKING FUN. CONCERT.
THIS SHIT WORKS, TRY IT.
I SAW THIS ON MY DASH THE OTHER DAY AND THOUGHT “ITS WORTH A TRY” SO I WISHED I COULD GET A 3DS
LITERALLY LIKE 4 DAYS LATER MY DAD SENT ME A PICTURE OF THE 3DS XL HE BOUGHT FOR ME WHILE I WAS AT SCHOOL
IM STILL FREAKING OUT ABOUT THIS
holy fuck, I didn’t expect this to work, I was like psh, whatever it’s just a quick reblog, but I wished my Dad would actually respond back to me AND HE FUCKING DID A FEW DAYS LATER, I GOT A FUCKING TEXT FROM MY DAD TODAY WHO HASN’T SPOKEN OR RESPONDED TO ME IN MONTHS HOLY FUCK WHAT IS THIS MAGIC IT WORKS.
I WANTED TO SEE MY BOYFRIEND AND I DIDN’T THINK I’D GET DAYS OFF BUT THIS WEEKEND I’M HEADING UP THERE??? THIS IS CRAZY SHIT
SO LIKE I JOKINGLY WISHED FOR MY OWN LEN KAGAMINE AND THEN LIKE A WEEK LATER I GOT A LEN NENDOROID??? H ELP
WTF OKAY SO THIS SHOT ACTUALLY WORKS BECAUSE WHEN I WISHED, I HAD WISHED MY CRUSH WOULD LIKE ME BACK AND GUESS WHAT? I HAVE A BOYFRIEND NOW. WHAT THE HELLLLL?????
ok I’ve said this before but IM DOING IT AGAIN THE FIRST TIME I SAW THIS, MY WISH DID COME TRUE SO I REBLOGED AGAIN AND SAID IT IN THE TAGS BUT THEN I WISHED FOR SMTH ELSE AND IT LITERALLY LITERALLY HAPPENED LIKE A COUPLE DAYS LATER WHAT THE HELL SO NOW IM WRITING THIS HERE FOR YOU BC I DONT BELIEVE IN THIS CRAP BUT STILL IT’S AN AWFULLY BIG COINCIDENCE
Ok guys so I am doing a science.
It’s for my sexuality unit of my psychology class.
I want you to Reblog this post if you’ve heard AND believe in the existence of Asexuality.
I want you to like this post if you have either never heard the term, or if you don’t believe in it.
Please help with the science.