@transfaabulous / transfaabulous.tumblr.com
Customer: "ugh *laughing*. Are you one of those transgenders?"
Me: "Only on weekends :D"
Him: [visibly confused] Excuse me?? What do you mean
Me: :D *walking away* have a nice day
He told my manager I was rude to him after that LMAO
So the wolf in the Shrek movies seems to identify as a man, and just happens to wear a pink dress as his outfit of choice. Meanwhile Doris the Ugly Stepsister is definitely a woman while having some masculine features. Then there’s Pinocchio who is unambiguously male (he celebrates becoming a “real boy”) but secretly wears womens’ underwear. And I know this was mainly done for cheap transphobic comedy but like. They’re all basically decent people who are on the heroes’ side and get to live happily ever after, so there’s not reason not to read it completely straight. The only person who shames the wolf for cross-dressing is Fairy Godmother, and she’s a villain so we’re meant to dislike her. Shrek’s extended friend group just contains a lot of genderqueer weirdos who are living their best life and I think that’s great.
Actually, Doris IS trans or at least a Drag queen. It appeared in the extra material from one of the DVDS
According to what I saw in a Facebook post, it says that it’s on the extra material from Shrek 2 and she made the transition thanks to the Fairy Godmother
The Onion pulling zero fucking punches.
Yknow I really do not like ppl trying to use the murder of a young trans girl that very much occurred in the context of long term transphobia and persistent failure to protect abused children in the UK to legitimise the very recent and largely performative push back against what is largely an anti semitic game with very little in the way of transphobia which has not had a significant enough impact to play a part in the murder.
Youre all tacky
Transphobes who say their pronouns are beep/boop or something else in their bio underestimate my willingness to adhere to those pronouns
I love the normalization of neopronouns for this reason. Transphobes are just gonna get their "ironic" pronouns used and respected lmao. Neopronouns users were so based for doing this.
A classmate in undergrad once tried to test me by claiming she would only agree to respect nonbinary pronouns if I used Her Majesty as pronouns for her.
She lasted 2 days before she realized I had absolutely zero problem doing exactly that and was too embarrassed to ever argue with me about pronouns in class again.
"Trans people can't take a joke"
Getting married has been something I’ve always wanted and simultaneously knew I would never have. I’m not the easiest person to deal with. I’m particular as shit, ornery and I like my space, my independence, my solitude. But at the same time- well. Everyone wants to love. To know and say they have a family that loves them. And my birth family might’ve said they loved me. They certainly loved their daughter.
It turned out they didn’t love how she insisted she was their son.
You know how that kind of thing goes. It really doesn’t have too much to do with this story except giving me a complex about belonging to a family that wanted me for myself.
When I saw the ad on Craigslist, I was looking for used furniture. Scrolled too fast, accidentally opened up domestic gigs. The first listing caught my eye.
“Wanted: Compassionate man to marry our recently deceased daughter.”
The initial click was just out of morbid interest.
It read, simply enough, “Our daughter wanted to be married and we want to keep our promise to her that she would be. She has passed away, and we are seeking a kind and compassionate man to engage in a quiet, non-legally binding ceremony and become our in-law.
“This is not a joke and we are in bereavement. Please keep this in mind when considering your reply.”
It got taken down within the next five minutes, either by the family or moderation, but I’d already texted the number provided.
LGBT people who don't give a fuck about "iconic" gay media on the basis that it's racist, transphobic, antisemetic, or ableist aren't ignoring their history; history ignored them, and prioritizing their safety and listening to their stories going forward is always gonna be a more valuable use of your time than defending some dead dudes.
I'm bisexual.
I'm lucky. I've never had any serious internalized struggles with my being bisexual. Of course, I've had to remain selectively closeted throughout my life: I've felt the pressure of a clearly unwelcoming and outright dangerous surrounding community. It's not something I mention if I feel unsafe. But I grew up mostly safe. I've had girlfriends and boyfriends and partners. I'm lucky. I didn't internalize hatred in any significant amount. But I did struggle with something else.
My feelings about pansexuality.
This wasn't from external pressure. It was a mix of things, but mostly I felt threatened. Here is a group of people, I thought, whose existence threatens mine. Did they feel too good for bisexuality? Were they trying to show off how ~progressive~ they were; how ~accepting~? Why were they splitting hairs? Why did they have to do that? It was similar for polysexuality and omnisexuality too, but they weren't as rooted in my mind as pansexuality. Pansexuality was what my mind latched onto.
I felt threatened. I felt that pansexuality's existing made bisexuality a target: that I wasn't inclusive enough, that I was old hat, that I was part of the problem. I felt that pansexuality's existing was supposed to be a move "forward," a sign that bisexuality was becoming a defunct, outdated term that people didn't want to associate with nowadays.
But it's who I am.
And I was scared.
It's only now, as I'm writing it out, that I understand what it was. I didn't, back then. I wanted to be be open and accepting. I wanted to be happy for pansexuals, and I wanted to be excited that pansexuality existed, that there was another community, another label, another way for people to understand themselves. But I wasn't. And I didn't know why. And instead, I found anger.
Do you want to know how I dealt with that?
I worked through it.
No, really. I didn’t harrass anyone, I didn’t repurpose community flags, nothing. I just spent time trying to understand why people used pansexuality as a term. I found out that pansexuality has been a label for decades. I learned that it was used in certain areas to indicate support of and attraction to trans people, because - yes - some people did use "bisexual" to mean cis men and women only. Some people still do.
I learned why people use it, ranging from things like "I like the flag better" to "I need the specificity" to "I want to emphasize the nature of my attraction as including all gender variations" to "It just feels right."
And, yeah, bi doesn't only mean two, but that doesn't mean it has the same specific connotations of pansexuality that some people just...need. And that's okay. Bisexuality is a broad term, but broad terms don't feel like home for everyone who might be able to live there.
Pansexuality does not take away from bisexuality. It gives a new opportunity for people who need it. Pansexuality is not an attempt to outdate bisexuality. It's just another expression of attraction that happens to overlap.
I'm still dealing with the last bits of my strange defensiveness against pansexuality, and of my negative feelings about other m-spec identities there are only shadows left. I'm still confronting and working through the automatic feelings that still sometimes pop up. But I can do that and still support my pan, ply, omni, and overall m-spec siblings, because at the end of the day, my feelings about someone else's identity are not only irrelevant, but also are not any sort of moral basis for mistreatment.
I owed it to myself and to pansexuals to confront these feelings, and I owed it to myself and to pansexuals to be an ally and a friend even as I was doing so.
I did not make my personal feelings their problem. A continuous assault on someone else's identity is a conscious decision. Make the conscious decision, instead, to be kind.
Personal feelings are not an indicator of morality, nor should they be the basis for action. Act with radical kindness.
[ID: Image is of the multisexual pride flag, displaying five horizontal stripes. The top and bottoms stripes are thick, while the middle three stripes are narrow, so that all three of the middle stripes put together are as thick as the outer stripes. The top and bottom stripes are pink and blue, respectively, and the three stripes in the middle are the colors of the bisexual, pansexual and polysexual flags' middle stripes, in that order: purple, yellow, and green. /end ID]
NNNNNNNGGHHHHHHNNNGGGFL DKFKSKDMSFKSNXNSBFKSFBSKWBSKSBFKSFNDNDKDKSDKDNSLDLDKDKSFKSLDKKDLSFLDLDKSLDKDKDNSKSNDSLDKDLSSNSL
mathematician michael spivak coined neutral pronouns to use in his textbooks, which are considered a mainstay of rigorous calculus.
they had heavy usage in early online communities.
remember and make a transphobic STEMbro cry.
people forget usenet existed
whew ok i made a powerpoint thing for nounself pronouns…..
i’ve really been wanting to try and help others understand these pronouns? so i made this ah!! i hope it can help. if anyone has questions, feel free to send me a message and ask.
you know what always gets me about nounself pronouns? the way that some trans people will attack them for being weird, and unnecessary, and something that will supposedly make cis people think trans people are all fake… but then totally accept pronouns like xie, per, aer, and ze. because they don’t see a reason to be wildly ableist and ridiculous about them. it has zero to do with how understandable or common the terms are.
Anyway, @rivergst did a transcription!
Transcription:
nounself pronouns and how to use them
by otherkinlogic/vulpinekin/roborenard
b/c everyone keeps complaining about these pronouns/ asking how they work and it needs to stop
with unironic comic sans bc it’s helpful for dyslexics
what are nounself pronouns??
* nounself pronouns are “newer” pronouns that replace traditional binary ones such as he/him and she/her
* nounself pronouns may also be called neopronouns, non-binary pronouns, or otherkin pronouns
* they are very useful for anyone who is uncomfortable with the more traditional pronouns and the gender binary that goes along with them
so how do they work??
* to make a set of nounself pronouns, you first need a noun! i will be working with the noun “bunny” or “bun,” which are a very common set of pronouns.
* the pronouns need to be set into 4 different categories- personal/subject, possessive, reflexive, and object pronouns
subject/personal pronouns
* personal pronouns are pronouns to *represent* something. traditional examples of personal pronouns are he, she, it, and they.
* an example sentence would be, “he walks around.”
* for our nounself pronoun “bunny,” the personal form will be “bun.”
* example sentence, “bun walks around.”
possessive pronouns
* possessive pronouns are pronouns to show the *possession* or *relationship* of two or more items. examples of traditional possessive pronouns would be his, hers, its, or theirs.
* traditional example sentence, “that is his hat.”
* for our nounself pronouns, the possessive form will be “buns.”
* “that is buns hat.”
reflexive pronouns
* reflexive pronouns are used to show when *something is done* by a noun/another pronoun *to itself*. examples: himself, herself, itself, themselves
* “rowan likes himself”
* with nounself pronouns, you can usually just take the noun and add -self to the end. reflexive form of “bun” would be “bunself”
* “rowan likes bunself”
object pronouns
* object pronouns are pronouns used alongside verbs to show *who or what the action is being done by/to*. traditional examples: him, her, it, them.
* “i hugged him.”
* for the bunself pronouns, the object form is “bun.”
* “i hugged bun.”
now, how do you write it all out?
* usually, pronouns are put in the form of personal/possessive/object/reflexive.
* he/his/him/himself for example
* with the bun pronouns, it will be set as bun/buns/bun/bunself
* if you’re confused by someone’s pronoun set, ask for some example sentences!
i don’t support these pronouns, but i’m able to learn them. can i use auxiliary1️⃣️ pronouns instead?
* no
* definitely not
* this is intentional pronoun misuse
* it’s very rude, disgusting, and transphobic
* you are intentionally making another living thing uncomfortable by refusing to learn 4 new words. that’s very disappointing
1️⃣️ auxiliary pronouns are a secondary pronoun set that can be used if you are unable to understand/ use nounself pronouns!
i’m neurodivergent/ english is my second language/ disabled. can i use the auxiliary pronouns?
* yes! definitely!
* it is totally understandable to not be able to understand these pronouns. they can be difficult for anyone.
* if someone does not have their auxiliary pronouns listed, ask them for these pronouns! chances are, they are more than happy to show you.
Honestly, the “all men have insatiable sex drives” mindset that a lot of people seem to have is really fucked up for so many reasons.
1) In a way, it can be transphobic, because they usually mean all people with dicks, not just cis men (although they do usually mean only cis men).
2) It ignores the fact that there are both men without a sex drive, and women with a sex drive, as well as nonbinary folk who are one or the other.
3) It also ignores a-spec men completely.
4) It’s also an insult to all men because it implies that none of them have the self-control to ignore their sex drives.
5) And it harms children, too, mostly teens, by telling them that girls have to give in to their boyfriends because a boy’s “insatiable” sex drive grows strongest when they’re teens and young adults.
Basically r*pe apologists don’t care about anyone except r*pists. But we all knew that.
6) It throws actual factual hypersexual men under the bus, and normalizes the idea that a constant need to have sex, often past the point of physical damage, is something every man does and isn’t a serious medical issue.
6a) As said above, gives ammunition to misgender trans women who have a sex drive, especially hypersexual trans women.
7) Normalizes the idea that male sexual assault survivors, no matter what age they were when they were assaulted, don’t exist, because their ‘insatiable sex drive’ makes them incapable of not giving consent, even as children, or when they’re unconscious.
8) Fundamentalist Xtians use this lie to explain why men aren’t at fault for their own actions and that women have to keep their husbands in check by giving them exactly what they want at all times and hiding their bodies so as not to ‘tempt men.’
8a) Which is also one of the excuses they use to harrass men in relationships with other men, because they think that if there’s not a woman to keep them in line, their ‘innate urges’ won’t be tempered. This leads to the idea that m/m relationships are based solely on ‘sinful’ sex and have no love, commitment, or respect involved whatsoever.
8b) Initially, the pushback against that line of reasoning was to say, ‘Well, what does it matter that we aren’t in love or committed to one another? A lot of us are in committed, loving relationships, but guess what? We love our filthy disgusting sex and we’ll keep making it weirder solely to piss you off. And some of us aren’t going to have any kind of sex at all, and we’re gonna be proud of that too because our lack of a sex drive is also an awesome sinful thing that goes against your ideals and your ideals suck.’
8c) Which really makes it suspect that the stereotype of a-specs, even from others who are marginalized for their sexuality, upholds these same misogynistic, sex-negative ideals that we were all so proud to flaunt just a couple decades ago.
every single goddamn time someone gets called out for abusive or shitty behavior (as in for real, not just crappy callout posts), people use it as an excuse to shit on their kinks & everyone who shares them. and then on the off chance the person was never abusive and it was all a lie or misunderstanding? everyone can just say "oh but she's into ___ so who cares what she thinks?" it's like they dont give a shit about actual victims and just want someone to have fun attacking-- oh wait lmao
That’s the one thing I hate- especially when people do it to like. Misogynistic, transphobic, racist dudes who reply to a post with some asinine garbage and the response to that is “lol bad kinks” like. You had all that material and you fucking chose THAT? In one particular grating instance of this bullshit someone said along the lines of “a grown-ass man has a piss kink” and I just. Yeah??? Do you think kinks, a sexual thing, AREN’T for grown adults or what? Who’s supposed to be into that? -mod taint
If I had to deal with a Nazi with a vore kink, I’m going to focus on the fact that they’re a Nazi and how that ideology is harmful, because their sex lives are very rarely relevant to any sort of argument and are therefore completely unimportant, and also obviously I’m going to want to address the fact that uh they’re a fucking NAZI, that’s kind of the important part here, fuck, y’all, who gives a shit about their kinks when they’re a literal Nazi, like prioritize your shit please
If you can’t discuss why they’re a bad person without bringing up their kinks, then they’re either probably not a bad person, you don’t understand why they’re a bad person, or, very very rarely, they actually have and engage in a kink that they both publicize to people who don’t want to know, and is actually dangerous or a huge red flag – and even then, the emphasis should always be less about the kink itself, and more about ‘this adult is telling minors to do things that are blatantly fetishistic, especially without telling them that it’s sexual,’ or ‘this person doesn’t understand that having a kink for X is automatically something that requires extreme care and consideration, may cause or be caused by Y prejudice, and makes it even more important to hold yourself and others accountable for Y prejudice,’ which is, again, less a ‘this person’s kink is bad,’ and more ‘this person is not doing this kink safely or while being aware of the risks, and is putting themself and others in danger.’
I love how y'all have decided people wanting things like queer cafes is ~homophobic~. Way to throw sexual assault survivors and people with sensory issues under the bus for an excuse to shit on ace people.
Stop pretending bars, queer or straight, aren’t highly sexualized. It’s not homophobia to point this out. It doesn’t make these spaces wrong, it just means we need more than one type of space.
Y'all used to be in favor of having all kinds of queer spaces and openly advocating for them until being against them meant an excuse to shit on and bully ace people.
Also, stop telling aces to “just make your own spaces” and then harassing them when they try, just like you’ve done to the bi and trans community for decades. We don’t need to repeat history. :)
Also a huuuuge issue with us is alcohol dependancy and other addictions, so maybe making the only safe place to be yourself a place where everyone drinks alcohol is kind of a shitty move.
Funnily enough, this used to be part of the conversation about it until shitting on a-specs became the new fun game 🤔🤔🤔 Maybe being a terrible person to a-specs is more important to exclusionists than working to build an actual safe community for the ‘real gays*’
~ p r i o r i t i e s ~
* And the transes! Can’t leave them out or it will just be more obvious that this is literally radfem rhetoric uwu
I guarantee you, anyone with “x critical” wording in their blog description is either a radfem or unwittingly drinking radfem koolaid
not to be that dude but what about kink critical or people who are critical of the media they consume (like su critical). i dont think they’re drinkin the koolaid, i think its just unfortunate that radfems ruined ___ critical. (which im confused anyway because I’ve literally only seen radfems use gender critical)
Swerfs often consider themselves kink critical so that’s been ruined for me, too. That might not be the case for other people but it is for a fair amount of people.
kink-critical is 12,000% radfem koolaid and that’s just the facts. Like I hate speaking about this publicly in any capacity for a lot of reasons but this is like the 4th example of this misunderstanding I’ve seen this week and it needs to be addressed because I feel like people are starting to lose the thread of radical feminism and its pervasive toxicity by boiling the entire ideology down to only the TERF [and occasionally SWERF] archetypes so I guess I gotta bring this discussion down on my own damn head. So here’s the deal: the foundational tenets of radical feminism result in many wide-reaching beliefs About The World, and men, and women, and people of other genders, and the way they interact–and they have a great deal of interest in classifying those systems of interaction in ways that reinforce the foundational tenets. One of those beliefs is that men are abusers and women victims, unilaterally. They believe also that women are brainwashed by patriarchy to accept, normalize, or overlook violence done against them by men. This is tied in directly with beliefs about BDSM being a system which allows men to abuse women, and which encourages women to believe they want it when in fact they are being conditioned to accept violence. If you’re seeing some kernels of swerf n’ terf ideology in that portrayal, good–you’re getting the point. BDSM [or a straw man of it, anyway] is usually the big bad in this system of beliefs, but the formation of the argument allows it to reach well into other kinks and sexual practices, reclassifying them into some form that denies the agency of everyone involved, paints at least one party as an abuser exploiting a power system, and positions radical feminists as the noble crusaders defending Good Misled Women from Bad Exploitative Men–tying the whole thing back into the core ideas they have about the shape of the world, and also tying them into their other beliefs–what kind of people are men, for example, or what kind of behaviours women are A. not allowed to do and B. are too ignorant to realise they shouldn’t be doing [in their belief system]. Because that’s the thing about radical feminism at the end of the day. All of the beliefs are interconnected and products of the same twisted logic, usually reinforced with just enough grains of truth or plausibility to make them appealing–and to make them likely to be picked up, embraced, and circulated by people who may not recognize their origins. This is deliberate. Recruitment is a major game for radfems, and rather than hit a potentially open-minded, reasonable person over the head with “trans women are men” right out of the gate, they seed these other, tangential beliefs first. They package them in conspicuously TERF-free wrapping. They sprinkle them into communities where they’ll be taken at that face value. They market them to vulnerable people looking for a way to explain, understand, and heal from bad things that have happened to them. And then, when you’ve swallowed that key piece of their logic, they bring you into the fold by giving you more and more of the big picture, each step leading naturally and by design from the one you’ve already accepted. And I know this, because that’s how they got me. They found a young, scared, confused, hurt person–someone who had had their interest in kink used by unscrupulous people to rape and abuse them, and someone who had been alienated from mainstream feminism due to complicated trauma reactions around those same events. It wasn’t my fault, they assured me. Of course Other Feminists weren’t equipped to understand me. They could help me heal. They could help me understand. They knew what I’d been through and they had the answers. They got me hook line and fucking sinker by using their kink-critical ideologies to exploit my trauma and vulnerability and position themselves as the answer to my pain. And then they fed me more, and more, and more beliefs that all seemed like such a natural extension of that first one, the one I was the most receptive to. It took me years to figure out what had happened and disentangle myself, and I’m still deprogramming a lot of it. So, yeah. Kink-critical is radfem ideology down to the bones. And because I know it’s gonna come up–you’re allowed to not like kink in general. You’re allowed to be squicked or triggered by specific kinks, or even the whole affair. Complicated or even outright negative reactions to those things are well within the range of normal. But “kink-critical” as a whole, and as an unexamined belief including refusing to question where it came from, who it benefits, and what it leads to, is pure radfem bullshit.
