startyelling asked:

Just wondering why no one should use the phrases "female bodied" and "male bodied." My women's studies professor uses these phrases so I'm just curious to hear an alternative! Thanks

queerveganfeminist answered:

Using these phrases means gendering — and often misgendering — bodies. 

Trans women have female bodies because they are female.
Trans men have male bodies because they are male.
Non-binary people have non-binary bodies because they are non-binary. 

Instead of using “male-bodied” and “female-bodied” we should be more explicit about what we mean/to whom we are referring.

Here's a blog post addressing this in more depth. 
and here's one I read today that is also relevant.

alizarinaliped:

startyelling:

Thank you!

But sex and gender aren’t the same.

Okay.

Neither sex nor gender is black and white. Both are socially constructed.

See: herehere, and here.

aaronfunandmental:

barbie-verified:

satyrday:

sarahjhuynh:

gracediamondsfear:

assbutt-in-the-garrison:

alicetookadrink:

Hey so to protect one of my friends I’ve decided to help her out by posting this on my blog instead. Please share this!

"This is Ian Foote. My husband and I met this man at one of my shows at the Rickshaw Theatre in East Vancouver last week and I added him on Facebook that same night because he and his girlfriend seemed nice enough.

WARNING TO WOMEN IN EAST VAN.

This man is a potential rapist who openly admits to having to forcibly stop himself from raping on the daily. Please spread this around, I want everyone in Vancouver to know to stay far away from this man.”

(Vancouver BC)

Please please please signal boost the fuck out of this you never know where your followers are. Thank you ♥

What fucking piece of shit.

This is a nightmare.  He thinks he’s being clever and cute about his disgusting tendencies.  And I’m sure once all of this gets out and the world understands what a monster he is he’ll claim it was all one big joke or social experiment or some shit.  Or that he was being sarcastic to prove a point. 

Ian Foote

Ian Foote

Ian Foote

Ian Foote

rapists think all men are rapists

Okay so I went on his Facebook page (moron didn’t put it on private) and found some more disgusting things

On the same status, he said this in the comments

Here are some of his other posts:

Ian Foote thinks rape is normal.
Ian Foote thinks all men want to rape women.
Ian Foote harbors violent fantasies about non-consensual contact with women.
Ian Foote should probably be investigated to make sure he hasn’t already raped people.
Ian Foote wants to rape women.
Ian Foote should be avoided at all costs, to avoid becoming a victim of his depraved sexual violence.

Ian Foote, folks. Ian Foote.

Reblogged from easy2bvegan

necessaryveganism:

civil-anarchy:

necessaryveganism:


"I found that one quarter pound hamburger requires over 660 gallons of water to produce. Here I’ve been taking these short showers trying to save water, to find out just eating one hamburger is equivalent to showering 2 entire months."

 - Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret

I’m sure clearing the brazilian rainforests for soy (common vegan staple) has had 0 impact on the environment though :/

I apologize if you’re being sarcastic (in which case haha, hilarious, well done) but just so we’re clear:
“About 85 percent of the world’s soybean crop is processed into meal and vegetable oil, and virtually all of that meal is used in animal feed.  
Some two percent of the soybean meal is further processed into soy flours and proteins for food use… Approximately six percent of soybeans are used directly as human food, mostly in Asia.” 

necessaryveganism:

civil-anarchy:

necessaryveganism:

"I found that one quarter pound hamburger requires over 660 gallons of water to produce. Here I’ve been taking these short showers trying to save water, to find out just eating one hamburger is equivalent to showering 2 entire months."

 - Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret

I’m sure clearing the brazilian rainforests for soy (common vegan staple) has had 0 impact on the environment though :/

I apologize if you’re being sarcastic (in which case haha, hilarious, well done) but just so we’re clear:

“About 85 percent of the world’s soybean crop is processed into meal and vegetable oil, and virtually all of that meal is used in animal feed

Some two percent of the soybean meal is further processed into soy flours and proteins for food use… Approximately six percent of soybeans are used directly as human food, mostly in Asia.” 

Reblogged from necessaryveganism

startyelling asked:

Just wondering why no one should use the phrases "female bodied" and "male bodied." My women's studies professor uses these phrases so I'm just curious to hear an alternative! Thanks

Using these phrases means gendering — and often misgendering — bodies. 

Trans women have female bodies because they are female.
Trans men have male bodies because they are male.
Non-binary people have non-binary bodies because they are non-binary. 

Instead of using “male-bodied” and “female-bodied” we should be more explicit about what we mean/to whom we are referring.

Here's a blog post addressing this in more depth. 
and here's one I read today that is also relevant.

dynastylnoire:

-imaginarythoughts-:

hipsterlibertarian:

In July I shared a story of an incident in which my city’s police stormed a man’s house looking for drugs in the middle of the night and executed his two (understandably startled) dogs. One of the dogs was shot to death while fleeing in fear, and as I noted then, this isn’t an isolated incident. Just a few years ago, the Saint Paul Police killed another family dog…and forced handcuffed children to sit next to its bleeding corpse. The kicker? The raid wasn’t even in the right house!
Now, a new report has surfaced of SPPD brutality. This time, a young father named Chris Lollie was arrested while waiting to pick up his kids from school. The charges were “Trespassing, Disorderly Conduct, and Obstructing Legal Process,” and police claimed he refused to leave an area reserved for employees of the bank building he was in. However, not only were there no signs indicating that the location was private, but Lollie wasn’t even in the bank proper; he was in the skyway.
(For those who aren’t familiar with the skyway system, it’s a thing we have in St. Paul, Minneapolis, and some other Minnesota cities. Basically, it gets hella cold here in the winter, so they built enclosed sidewalks, or skyways, one or two stories up. In the downtown areas, the skyways form a whole second network of pedestrian roads, and once you get inside your office building—or whichever building is closest to your parking garage or bus stop or whatever—you can use them to move from building to building to get around the whole downtown area. It’s an easy way to go to lunch or meetings without having the snot in your nostrils freeze. I mention all that to say: Skyways are public spaces. You do not have to be an employee in the buildings they connect to use them. Lollie was not trespassing.)
Fortunately, Lollie had the presence of mind to capture his interaction with the SPPD on film. Here’s a transcript I’ve made of the first few seconds:

Lollie: So what’s your business with me right now?
Officer: I want to find out who you are, and what the problem was back there…
Lollie: There is no problem—that’s the thing.
Officer: So, talk to me, let me know, and you can be on your way.
Lollie: Let you know…why do I have to let you know who I am? Who I am isn’t the problem.
Officer: Because that’s what police do when they get called.
Lollie: Well, I know my rights, first off. Secondly, I don’t have to let you know who I am if I haven’t broken any laws. Like I told him, I’m going to New Horizons [School] to pick up my kids at 10 o’clock. I was sitting there for ten minutes…

As the officer brushes aside his explanation and continues to illegally demand he identify himself, Lollie cuts to the chase: “The problem is I’m black. That’s the problem. No, it really is, because I didn’t do anything wrong.”
Next, Lollie and the female officer he’s been walking and talking with meet a male officer. When Lollie politely asks the officer not to touch or obstruct him, because he has to go get his kids, the man immediately responds, “Well, you’re going to go to jail then.”
As the police initiate the arrest process—telling him to put his hand behind his back or “otherwise things are going to get ugly"—the camera visuals go black. Lollie continues to be heard pleading, still polite even while he’s assaulted, that he be allowed to go meet his children.
Next, they tase him.
If that’s not enough to convince you that this is gross police misconduct, seriously, take five minutes and watch the video. The calmness of his tone alone should make it obvious that there is no possible argument that the situation merited this kind of police action:

After multiple witnesses verified Lollie’s version of events, prosecutors dropped all charges against him. One woman who is also not an employee at the bank the skyway links noted that she regularly sits during her lunch break exactly where Lollie was sitting, but she has never been harassed by police. However, the SPPD continue to defend their actions.
At The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf points out how simple it would have been for police to resolve this situation without violence and an arrest had they cared to do so:

His story about getting his kids wasn’t merely plausible, given the man’s age and the fact that there was a school right there–it was a story the female police officer shown at the beginning of the video or the male officer shown later could easily confirm. 
Lollie is also absolutely correct that no law required him to show an ID to police officers. As Flex Your Rights explains, “Police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you’re involved in illegal activity,” and while 24 states have passed “stop and identify” statutes “requiring citizens to reveal their identity when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place,” Minnesota isn’t one of those states.

The female officer shown in the beginning of the video could easily have de-escalated the encounter by saying, “You’re right, sir, you have every right to refuse to show me identification, and if you’re just picking up your kids I’m so sorry to have bothered you. If you don’t mind, I just want to walk with you to confirm that your story checks out so I can inform the 911 caller of their error. That way we can make sure this never happens again when you’re just here to pick up your kids.”
Or she could’ve said, “Sir, I totally see why this is confusing–a lot of people would think so. Let me try to explain. That totally looks like a public seating area, but it’s actually private. Don’t you think they should have a sign saying so? Calling me may seem like an overreaction, but technically they can ask you to leave. You’re walking away now, so there’s actually no problem as long as you’re not going to go back. Are you? Okay, then we have no problem, have a wonderful day.”  

As Lollie is carried away post-tasing, he can be heard challenging the officers’ “legal” assault: "Who are you? You don’t rule me. I didn’t do anything wrong. I didn’t hurt anybody. I didn’t touch anybody." 
If only the SPPD could honestly say the same.

That video that was being passed around yesterday

boooooooooooooooooooooost

dynastylnoire:

-imaginarythoughts-:

hipsterlibertarian:

In July I shared a story of an incident in which my city’s police stormed a man’s house looking for drugs in the middle of the night and executed his two (understandably startled) dogs. One of the dogs was shot to death while fleeing in fear, and as I noted then, this isn’t an isolated incident. Just a few years ago, the Saint Paul Police killed another family dog…and forced handcuffed children to sit next to its bleeding corpse. The kicker? The raid wasn’t even in the right house!

Now, a new report has surfaced of SPPD brutality. This time, a young father named Chris Lollie was arrested while waiting to pick up his kids from school. The charges wereTrespassing, Disorderly Conduct, and Obstructing Legal Process,” and police claimed he refused to leave an area reserved for employees of the bank building he was in. However, not only were there no signs indicating that the location was private, but Lollie wasn’t even in the bank proper; he was in the skyway.

(For those who aren’t familiar with the skyway system, it’s a thing we have in St. Paul, Minneapolis, and some other Minnesota cities. Basically, it gets hella cold here in the winter, so they built enclosed sidewalks, or skyways, one or two stories up. In the downtown areas, the skyways form a whole second network of pedestrian roads, and once you get inside your office building—or whichever building is closest to your parking garage or bus stop or whatever—you can use them to move from building to building to get around the whole downtown area. It’s an easy way to go to lunch or meetings without having the snot in your nostrils freeze. I mention all that to say: Skyways are public spaces. You do not have to be an employee in the buildings they connect to use them. Lollie was not trespassing.)

Fortunately, Lollie had the presence of mind to capture his interaction with the SPPD on film. Here’s a transcript I’ve made of the first few seconds:

Lollie: So what’s your business with me right now?

Officer: I want to find out who you are, and what the problem was back there…

Lollie: There is no problem—that’s the thing.

Officer: So, talk to me, let me know, and you can be on your way.

Lollie: Let you know…why do I have to let you know who I am? Who I am isn’t the problem.

Officer: Because that’s what police do when they get called.

Lollie: Well, I know my rights, first off. Secondly, I don’t have to let you know who I am if I haven’t broken any laws. Like I told him, I’m going to New Horizons [School] to pick up my kids at 10 o’clock. I was sitting there for ten minutes…

As the officer brushes aside his explanation and continues to illegally demand he identify himself, Lollie cuts to the chase: “The problem is I’m black. That’s the problem. No, it really is, because I didn’t do anything wrong.”

Next, Lollie and the female officer he’s been walking and talking with meet a male officer. When Lollie politely asks the officer not to touch or obstruct him, because he has to go get his kids, the man immediately responds, “Well, you’re going to go to jail then.”

As the police initiate the arrest process—telling him to put his hand behind his back or “otherwise things are going to get ugly"—the camera visuals go black. Lollie continues to be heard pleading, still polite even while he’s assaulted, that he be allowed to go meet his children.

Next, they tase him.

If that’s not enough to convince you that this is gross police misconduct, seriously, take five minutes and watch the video. The calmness of his tone alone should make it obvious that there is no possible argument that the situation merited this kind of police action:

After multiple witnesses verified Lollie’s version of events, prosecutors dropped all charges against him. One woman who is also not an employee at the bank the skyway links noted that she regularly sits during her lunch break exactly where Lollie was sitting, but she has never been harassed by police. However, the SPPD continue to defend their actions.

At The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf points out how simple it would have been for police to resolve this situation without violence and an arrest had they cared to do so:

His story about getting his kids wasn’t merely plausible, given the man’s age and the fact that there was a school right there–it was a story the female police officer shown at the beginning of the video or the male officer shown later could easily confirm. 

Lollie is also absolutely correct that no law required him to show an ID to police officers. As Flex Your Rights explains, “Police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you’re involved in illegal activity,” and while 24 states have passed “stop and identify” statutes “requiring citizens to reveal their identity when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place,” Minnesota isn’t one of those states.

The female officer shown in the beginning of the video could easily have de-escalated the encounter by saying, “You’re right, sir, you have every right to refuse to show me identification, and if you’re just picking up your kids I’m so sorry to have bothered you. If you don’t mind, I just want to walk with you to confirm that your story checks out so I can inform the 911 caller of their error. That way we can make sure this never happens again when you’re just here to pick up your kids.”

Or she could’ve said, “Sir, I totally see why this is confusing–a lot of people would think so. Let me try to explain. That totally looks like a public seating area, but it’s actually private. Don’t you think they should have a sign saying so? Calling me may seem like an overreaction, but technically they can ask you to leave. You’re walking away now, so there’s actually no problem as long as you’re not going to go back. Are you? Okay, then we have no problem, have a wonderful day.”  

As Lollie is carried away post-tasing, he can be heard challenging the officers’ “legal” assault: "Who are you? You don’t rule me. I didn’t do anything wrong. I didn’t hurt anybody. I didn’t touch anybody."

If only the SPPD could honestly say the same.

That video that was being passed around yesterday

boooooooooooooooooooooost

Reblogged from littlest-vegan

stopheterophobia:

your loud, vocal annoyance and disgust towards children is not neutral just because you don’t have/plan on having children. you are still adding to and upholding a culture that allows child abuse to happen. it doesn’t matter if this is your intent or not.

children cannot communicate very well, they don’t know that adults can be wrong, and they don’t understand concepts like abuse. all they know is that they’re hurt and upset, and when this happens their behavior changes. their cries for help are written off, they’re just “crybabies” or “acting out.”  abusers know this and use it to their advantage. 

majiinboo:

  • Do not forget Michael Brown
  • Do not forget how the media dehumanized him and tried to justify his murder
  • Do not forget how peaceful protests were painted as savage riots
  • Do not forget police armed with military grade weapons terrorized and arrested black civilians
  • Do not forget Darren Wilson being awarded over $400,000 in fundraiser donations for murdering an unarmed black child
  • Do not forget that this system was not built to defend us, but to control us
  • Do not forget Ferguson 

jsadiqsfavpics:

sonofdust:

nolloresvato:

wakeupslaves:

Gandhi Spreads Racial Hatred of Africans

Gandhi was passionately prejudiced towards black Africans, as clearly displayed by his own writings over his 21-year stint in Gandhi’s writings during his 20 years in South Africa. He promoted racial hatred, in theory, and campaigned for racial segregation, in practice. In his newspaper, The Indian Opinion, he frequently wrote diatribes against the black community. Of particular concern to him was any contact between Indians and Africans. The following series of quotes, which is but a small selection of his extensive writings on the topic, documents Gandhi’s intense hatred for equal treatment of blacks and Indians, whether in culture or under the law. Indeed, his efforts to improve the status of the Indian community in South Africa were primarily focused on ensuring Africans were treated worse than Indians. His goal, thus was greater social inequality rather than universal equality.

All quotes taken from Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (CWMG).

Sept. 26, 1896: “Ours is one continual struggle against a degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir* whose occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and, then, pass his life in indolence and nakedness.” — Vol. 1, p. 410

Sept. 24, 1903: “We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do… We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race.” — Vol. 3, p. 256

Feb. 15, 1904: “Under my suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians, I must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population.” — Vol. 3, p. 429

Sept. 5, 1905: “The decision to open the school for all Coloured children is unjust to the Indian community, and is a departure from the assurance given… that the school will be reserved for Indian children only.” — Vol. 4, p. 402

Sept. 2, 1907: “From these views expressed by a White we have a lesson to learn: We must encourage the Whites too. It is a short-sighted policy to employ, through sheer niggardliness, a Kaffir for washing work. If we keep in view the conditions in this country and patronize the Whites, whenever proper and necessary, then every such White will serve as an advertisement for the Indian trader.” — Vol. 6, p. 276

Feb. 29, 1908: “The British rulers take us to be so lowly and ignorant that they assume that, like the Kaffirs who can be pleased with toys and pins, we can also be fobbed off with trinkets.” — Vol. 8, p. 167

Mar. 7, 1908: “We were all prepared for hardships, but not quite for this experience. We could understand not being classed with the whites, but to be placed on the same level with the Natives seemed too much to put up with.” — Vol. 8, p. 198

Mar. 7, 1908: “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilised – the convicts even more so…. The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company!” — Vol. 8, p. 199

Jan. 16, 1909: “I have, though, resolved in my mind on an agitation to ensure that Indian prisoners are not lodged with Kaffirs…. I observed with regret that some Indians were happy to sleep in the same room as the Kaffirs…. This is a matter of shame to us. We may entertain no aversion to Kaffirs, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is no common ground between them and us in the daily affairs of life.” — Vol. 9, p. 257

Jan. 23, 1909: “I acquainted the Governor with what had happened and told him there was urgent need for separate lavatories for Indians. I also told him that Indian prisoners should never be lodged with Kaffirs. The Governor immediately issued an order for a lavatory for Indians to be sent on from the Central Gaol. Thus, from the next day the difficulty about lavatories disappeared.” — Vol. 9, p. 270

June 5, 1909: “I received from General Smuts two books on religion, and I inferred from this that it was not under his orders that I had been subjected to hardships, but that it was the result of his negligence and that of others, as also a consequence of the fact that we are equated with the Kaffirs.” — Vol. 9, p. 355

Dec. 2, 1910: “Some Indians do have contacts with Kaffir women. I think such contacts are fraught with grave danger. Indians would do well to avoid them altogether.” — Vol. 10, p. 414

The term “Kaffir” is a pejorative South African term for black people which is equivalent to the ‘n’ word. Use of this term has been a criminal offense in South Africa since 1975. Despite always using it to describe black Africans, Gandhi was fully aware of the offensive nature of the word. This is demonstrated by Gandhi’s comment during a religious conflict in India, when he said: “If ‘Kaffir’ is a term of opprobrium, how much more so is Chandal?” [CWMG, Vol. 28, p. 62] “Chandal” is a racist term for low-caste Hindus.

Up to a couple years ago all I heard was the “good” side of Gandhi.. Good to know though

damn.

Fuck him too

Reblogged from innerbreathlessness

thatvegancosplayer:

vegan-pancake:

biomorphosis:

Climate change is pulling the sea ice out from under polar bears’ feet, forcing them to swim longer distances to find food and habitat. Long-distance swimming puts polar bears at risk of drowning due to fatigue or rough seas. 

A report published by the World Watch Institute in 2009 revealed that greenhouse gases produced by livestock comprise 51 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Methane gas, the gas produced most fervently by livestock, traps 100 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide within a 5 year period, and 72 times more within a 20 year period. The good news is that methane also leaves the atmosphere within a decade, whereas carbon dioxide takes several decades or even centuries. This means that a drastic shift away from raising livestock offers a very real hope that we can curb global warming.

*Watches as all of the meat-eating “environmentalists” pull out every “argument” in the book to defend their animal-consuming ways*

thatvegancosplayer:

vegan-pancake:

biomorphosis:

Climate change is pulling the sea ice out from under polar bears’ feet, forcing them to swim longer distances to find food and habitat. Long-distance swimming puts polar bears at risk of drowning due to fatigue or rough seas. 

A report published by the World Watch Institute in 2009 revealed that greenhouse gases produced by livestock comprise 51 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Methane gas, the gas produced most fervently by livestock, traps 100 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide within a 5 year period, and 72 times more within a 20 year period. The good news is that methane also leaves the atmosphere within a decade, whereas carbon dioxide takes several decades or even centuries. This means that a drastic shift away from raising livestock offers a very real hope that we can curb global warming.

*Watches as all of the meat-eating “environmentalists” pull out every “argument” in the book to defend their animal-consuming ways*

Reblogged from cetaceas

noahsjourney:

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.

BLESS THIS POST

noahsjourney:

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.

BLESS THIS POST

Reblogged from noahsjourney