Instagram Just a plus size trans girl in a straight size cis world.Twitter Facebook Patreon Ko-Fi Questions? Email
my crazy take is that you can't really understand american gender roles unless you understand that they're basically a reactionary backlash / trauma response to the events of world war 2
When someone says they want to go back to “the good old days”, they are inevitably referring to this 1950s cultural ideal that was manufactured in the post World War II American society. This culture was devastating to queer communities, and supremely oppressive of women’s rights. It is no wonder that this spawned the intense feminist backlash of the 1970s.
Mommy’s Little Helpers was the colloquial name for Diazepam, aka Valium. It was the best selling drug from 1969 to 1982, despite becoming a Schedule IV controlled substance in 1970. The nickname was popularized by a Rolling Stones song about the drug. Housewives across the nation were tranquilizing themselves so that they could handle the stress and anxiety of running a home without any help from their asshole husbands.
Okay, y'all. This is going to be a very, very long thread because I am very, very tired of hearing "BDSM requires consent and therefore you Bad Queers should go back in the closet and leave Pride to us Good Clean Queers."
So we're gonna talk history, and we're gonna unpack shit.
Kink. Belongs. At. Pride.
Teaching about trans people by explaining that gender and sex are different is a mistake that actually bolsters anti-trans arguments based on 'biologicial sex.' What's important to know is that trans people exist and have needs similar to other marginalized communities.
Far too much energy in trans rights discourse is spent trying to justify why we exist to people who aren’t going to understand the reasons anyway. What is more important is educating that we do exist, have always existed, and we aren’t going to go away. You can’t extinguish trans people any more than you can left-handedness, or autism (despite numerous people’s best attempts to do so). This is the same shift that happened in pursuit of gay rights; for decades there was intense focus on why homosexuality existed, to no answers. We still don’t know what part of human development controls what morphology a person is drawn towards, but it doesn’t matter, because the discourse changed.
Once science stopped trying to prove why homosexuality exists and people just accepted that some people are gay, thats when the tide shifted (at least, in North America and parts of Europe). While there are still many people who wish to suppress gay people, society as a whole accepted that doing so is …
Trans people need so much approval from cisgender people in order to medically transition it's demeaning. For example, I am a 35 year old adult on HRT for 10 years. I've been diagnosed multiple times with gender dysphoria. In 2015, I had top surgery..
Imagine that, having been diagnosed with a heart condition, or hypothyroidism, or asthma, or any number of other long term medical conditions, you had to get re-diagnosed every single time you went in for treatment. If every time you change doctors, you had to justify to that doctor that your previous diagnosis was accurate. If you had to prove that, yes, I am actually sick, even when you have been taking the medications for years.
That is the state of trans healthcare. Every every time you change prescribers, you have to prove to the doctor that, yes, I really am the gender I say I am and that’s why I’ve been on hormone therapy for five years. Every gender affirming surgery you pursue, even ones that don’t require pre-auth to do on cis people (such as breast augmentations/reductions), requires multiple new letters (they wont take the old ones) affirming that, yes, you are the gender you say you are and no you are not delusional or suffering from psychosis. This continues to be requ…
the only stable definition of being trans is "not identifying with your assigned gender a birth" and I think that definition includes a hell of a lot of people who currently call themselves cis and are worried about appropriating being trans.
no one consented to their assigned gender at birth, and certainly not everyone grows into that assignment and accepts it.
people want to draw borders and boundaries around the risks they face for how they appear, but that's attempting to build communities based on trauma bonding and is not sustainable.
@DameKraft did a fantastic thread today about how a lot of trans people may be concluding that they are cisgender because their incongruence is not strong enough to feel like they have a right to identify as transgender. Firstly: YES YOU ARE TRANS ENOUGH.
Secondly, there is no such thing as “appropriating” being trans. If you do not feel a strong connection to your assigned gender, you can call yourself trans! You aren’t offending anyone (at least, anyone whose opinion matters).
I know how easy it is to fall into this trap, because before my own wakeup call I also was afraid to ever mention my feelings around my gender. I thought it would be insensitive or appropriative of “actual” trans people. It’s laughable when I think of that now.
It doesn’t matter if the world still thinks you’re cis, you know who you are, the people who know you know who you are, and that isn’t invalidated simply because you haven’t “transgressed” cisgender norms.
I don't need to point out how detached from reality this is, but I would like to reflect on a particular choice of word - 'sacrifice'. (thread)
The UK media is in a fit this week as transphobe after transphobe releases “opinion” pieces about trans people trying to erase women by forcing them to stop calling their chests breasts. This derives from a blatant misinterpretation of a new guideline issued by the NHS directing hospital staff to be prepared to use gender inclusive language for patients assigned female at birth who do not identify as women (eg, trans men and non-binary transmascs) and are uncomfortable with terminology that centers womanhood, such as breastfeeding.
Here is the “offending” document:
Note the second paragraph, which explicitly states that gender neutral language should not be used exclusively because it erases people who do identify as women.
Basically they’ve constructed a completely false narrative and are now shoving it down the public’s throats in hopes of inspiring further hatred towards trans people. Don’t believe the hate.
There's a clever little trick behind the outrage over "chestfeeding" as a suggested alternative (not replacement) to breastfeeding, and the reason it works is, once again, say it with me:
I’ve stayed away from “chestfeeding” discourse because it’s not my lane, but transphobes keep throwing it into the transfemme side of the road, and this thread explains why.
Trans men and non-binary transmascs exist in nearly a 1:1 ratio to transfems, but they are consistently ignored in transphobic discourse. It happens with breastfeeding, it happens with pregnancy, it happens with conversations about menstruation and menstrual products. There was a big stink last year about Always dropping the venus symbol from pad packaging to be more inclusive of non-women, and terfs were all blaming trans women for it.
I want to add some bits on top of this Tumblr post, because in addition this part about Christians no longer being subject to the old testament, it needs to be pointed out that no one is still subject to these verses.
I was raised in the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith. I’ve never believed in god, but was forced to participate until I finally moved out my mom’s house (and REALLY got out when I came out as trans), but for most of my life I was immured in their bible study culture. The JWs are totally a cult, but they really know their bible, and a huge part of their practice is spending time studying the context of the verses to reinforce their doctrine. Unfortunately, like most evangelical faiths, they still pick and choose which contexts to believe in, but it gave me a strong foundation to better understand just what the Bible says.
There are two scriptures in the book of Leviticus that are often cited regarding homosexuality. From the English Standard Version translation: