actualized-animal:

whenever people say shit like “i couldn’t be polyamorous, i’m so jealous and possessive. if my partner even LOOKS at another girl/guy i’m gonna kick them out of a window” i’m like well you should probably be working on that. like even if you don’t end up doing polyamory it’s probably good to not be like that

awildwickedslip:

like we really hate to hear this - but power is in every human relationship. unless you are the exact same as your partner in age, class, race, ethnicity, religion, language, nationality, citizenship status, gender, sexual orientation, physical and mental ability, salary, education, etc, you have to negotiate the problems material power differentials pose to love, to treating others well. the response to this seems to have been to make certain points of difference - like age - load-bearing, in a way that erases others - class would be my example: far bigger a power disparity than, say, a ten year gap in age between adults is class and inheritable wealth, but you almost never see that acknowledged in the same way. and even if you were at parity in all those areas (gay twincest sweep??) there is still the emotional power that someone’s love and desire for you gives you over them. you can’t get rid of it. you cannot find the perfect relationship where it doesn’t exist by steadily winnowing down your “ethical” options via widening designations of “problematic relationships.” you have to confront the power you have over other people and think how you will wield it most lightly. sorry!

sapphling:

sapphling:

to be honest apart from the fact that like, maintaining multiple romantic relationships obviously takes additional time and effort, the whole idea that polyamory is Relationship Expert Mode™ or is inherently more difficult than monogamy is largely just the product of the fact that a lot of that emotional work is sublimated or sidestepped by monogamy & its conventions. rather than work on your insecurities as a person you can always just deign to believe that your partner can only ever love you the mostest, and your relationship is the pinnacle of both of your social lives and histories, and any discomfort you feel about them having other relationships or feelings external to your dynamic is not the product of self worth and dependency issues that can be worked through but instead incontrovertible proof that they’re a lying cheating deceitful whore

and like it’s simply much easier to remain deeply emotionally immature and volatile and still keep your relationship when your partner is trapped in that dynamic with 0 outlet or alternative. common monogamy L

sizhens:

charlottan:

puppy dog city truther

meshugenist:

meshugenist:

in the sense that communism as a movement establishes an end goal of a classless moneyless masterless society and without this end goal as a target no matter how good the analysis it would all just be pointlessly useless wheel-spinning, any [trans]feminism worth its salt similarly needs an endgoal of the total abolition of the gender class system as a whole and anything less renders our efforts sisyphean

seeing a few ppl misinterpreting my words as the “abolition of gender class but not gender” in the vein of taking radfem “gender abolitionist/critical” types and the “antigender” movement at their words of actually being that. the two are not different things! let me be more clear then: by abolition of gender i mean the complete abolition of the institutional sexgender classes (men/male and women/female) and their coercive assignment at birth. when so-called transphobic “gender abolitionists” claim to aspire to gender abolition, what they actually describe is actually a reinforcement of gender through its reification in the social construct of sex, maintaining the existence of the sexgender class system. in an actual post-sexgender society, there would be no control or limits on anyone doing whatever they want with their bodies (including what we currently call transition), these embodiment-desires that are currently interpreted as dysphoria and desire-for-transition will just exist free of any and all constraints and limitations. identity itself is just a way of making ourselves understood in the current system, it is a tool, not an endpoint. i’m sure ppl are gonna be calling themselves a bunch of different shit ofc til and we don’t rly need to concern ourselves with that obv, we just need to concern ourselves with abolishing the sexgender system, first and foremost via first refusing and eventually fully abolishing the practice of coercive sexgender assignment

evergreen-femme:

im just so happy i live in a time period where actual meaningful biological transition is possible. even if we lose rights or the ability to exist in public, nothing can turn back the clock on that, and just by having any sort of access to that our lives are made immensely better. millions of our sisters throughout history would never have dreamed of a day where they could have what HRT does for us.

please don’t lose the plot of this. if you’re a trans person on HRT you’re a living miracle, the dream of hundreds of millions of your ancestors. your lives are all deeply meaningful no matter what anyone says.

sluttynurse:

rap has probably been the most consistently popular and influential genre of music for the past 40+ years but your average person on tumblr is less willing to listen to it than a random white teenage boy in the suburbs or a 4channer who lurks on /mu/ every once in a while

closet-keys:

my pitch to avoid transphobic language is, as always, to avoid euphemism.

“(coercive) assigned sex at birth” is not a euphemism, it is an accurate description of a literal process that includes a social, legal, and all too frequently medical component. it is legal assignment into a sex class. it describes something done to us. it is something done to every single person who has any official birth documentation.

when you use it as a euphemism to imply any specific trait (e.g. “AMAB” to imply “has a clitoris/penis capable of penetration” or “AFAB” to imply “has a uterus capable of gestation”) this is a transphobic assertion. it is equating the particulars of the body with one’s assignment, which is functionally how cissexism works. the point is to obscure the legal/economic reality of assignment into a class through suggestion that it is merely descriptive of bodies.

assignment does not describe bodies. it is used to determine what forms of medical abuse someone is subject to, what medical care and bodily modifications a person can legally pursue and economically access, with what required documentation and formal surveillance. in this way, it can describe what traits one is punished for having, what legal restrictions to bodily autonomy one must navigate around, but it does not describe what traits one has.

if you find yourself searching for a term to euphemistically suggest a sexed trait (whether a genital configuration, a gestational capacity, a hormone ratio, an amount of breast tissue, etc.) without having to say it outright, whatever you reach for will likely end up reifying sexgender (which is the construct that creates intersex and transgender/transsexual subjectivities). there is no non-transphobic way to use euphemism to avoid talking about the particulars.

and you can tell people use these terms euphemistically, because they will complain at terminology like “TMA”/“TME” by stating that it “describes genitals” or is “demanding to know one’s birth sex.” To say someone is transmisogyny affected (structurally, legally, socially, economically) is a relationship to a particular mode of oppression. Same with saying someone is transmisogyny exempt. It describes a relationship to structural power. It literally does not suggest anything about one’s physical traits at all.

now, because of how transmisogyny operates materially, it is a result of the sex assignment process, and the enforcement of that assignment. so trying to define TMA without respect to CASAB essentially attempts to redefine transmisogyny away from its material analysis of how it operates. however, TME has no direct relationship to CASAB– perisex cis men, perisex cis women, intersex cis men, intersex cis women, perisex trans men, intersex trans men, some perisex nonbinary people, some intersex nonbinary people, etc. are all TME. it’s a relationship to a particular power structure, not a physical descriptor.

if you want to avoid transphobia, then make a practice of thinking through what you’re actually talking about (a practice? documentation? physical traits? a relationship to power? someone’s gender?) and then talk about it with specificity.

and if you discover that talking about it specifically would be inappropriate (e.g. you wanted to ask if someone “is AFAB” but your actual question is “do you have a penis?” and you don’t want to ask them that because you’re in a context where you aren’t in a sexual encounter and this information is not necessary) then do not say it. using a euphemism would not make that question any less inappropriate, it would just layer transphobia on transphobia.

kosmogrl:

kosmogrl:

the secret to life is always having something to look forward to

to anyone saying there’s nothing to look forward to, I’m not saying it has to be anything spectacular or huge. it could just be a song or a book that will release in a few days, a tv show, anything!! no matter how small it seems it can keep us going

pervpuke:

it’s not easy being the naked in the window transsexual neighbor but someone has to do it

sizhens:

sizhens:

the DSM-5 is not an arbiter of truth. it is a manual for insurance policies. that’s it. that’s all it’s for that’s why it exists. you must understand this if you are going to have a correct understanding of the ways psychiatry and psychopathology are primarily used as ideological tools of capital to maintain the integrity of the workforce.

something being In The DSM or being Framed A Certain Way In The DSM doesn’t make that Objectively True. it just means it’s a framing or device which is relevant or valuable or necessary for the functioning of health insurance companies in service of a capitalist mode of production and a capitalist understanding of health.

closet-keys:

it’s so wild that trumps executive order has that bit about sex being assigned at conception.

I assume this is the anti-abortion position being encoded into the anti-trans legislation. no one is testing what gametes their embryo has— such a thing isn’t possible (embryos don’t produce them yet; there are primordial germ cells, but they aren’t differentiated as sperm or egg cells).

it just goes to show that gender/sex policing is never based on any science— there is no “scientific” definition to what “female sex” or “male sex” is. It doesn’t exist as a material reality. It is a legal construct that is assigned with the first legal documentation assigned to a subject—the birth certificate.

and that isn’t based on chromosomes or gametes. it’s a decision based on whether a doctor thinks the infant will be mostly likely to be capable of penetrative heterosexual sex as “female” or “male.” because penetrative heterosexual sex is the point, the determination is based on whether the clitoris is long enough to penetrate (in which case “it’s a boy”) and if not whether there is a vaginal canal deep enough for penetration (in which case “it’s a girl”) and if neither or both are true the child’s body is forcibly surgically altered.

they can’t define sex “biologically” because it is not a “biological” reality. it will be determined, as always, punitively, on a case by case basis on varying traits and legal documentation, to enforce patriarchal economic systems that depend on misogyny and transmisogyny.

one of the most telling parts from the executive order, to me, was this (emphasis mine):

“The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system. Basing Federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself.”

this bit gives the game away with how important the institution and enforcement of sex assignment is to capitalism, the united states economy, the carceral/legal system, and the ideological buy-in to us-american hegemony.

lysistra:

the way nowhere (gregg araki), muholland drive (david lynch), pulp fiction (tarantino), and inherent vice (paul thomas anderson) are all quite different in their own ways but have similar vibes and occasionally end up being compared to each other isnt because of any purposeful narrative structure similarities, its because they all take place in LA and thats just how LA actually is irl

sludgenaut:

David Lynch just passed. If everyone could spend the next few weeks becoming a little more offbeat, a little more in touch with the strangeness of our world, maybe we could begin to replace the massive void he leaves. We may not see another artist like him reach prominence within our lifetimes, so please go out and search, in the world and in yourself. Embody the truth, lead with love, hold the hands of those outstretched to you, and go as far as you can, no matter how deep and how dark, face it with love.