The situation with FtMs is changing, though, with many now being people who are attracted to men. My impression from reading blogs, etc. is that women who would be straight if they didn't transition are transitioning more than they used to. I am not sure why this is, but think it could be related to gender theory and the Internet leading to people thinking transition is the solution to problems. Do you think this could be or is it all sexuality changing with transition?
I do think that the current state of gender theory—online and even offline in “bubble” environments like colleges, and urban hubs like NYC and the Bay Area—is fairly divorced from reality in ways that cause many more people to get caught in thinking they are trans, than would otherwise be true. It was a very fringe, almost unheard-of thing to be doing when I was doing it—and frankly, it still should be. This is where I have common ground with so-called “truscum.” They are a voice of reason from within. I hate calling them “truscum.” It’s not a coincidence that most the people who get called “scum” of one variety or another, are female-born.
It’s my impression that female adolescents as a whole are increasingly being pressured to question their “gender identity” as a kind of rite of passage. First it primarily hit the sex dysphorics and gender-noncompliant dykes, and it’s now broadening in impact so that you can be none of the above and still go through some kind of mindfuck with respect to “gender identity.” Part of this is that nobody wants to be stuck playing The Girl, and girls and young women quite reasonably do not see their reality reflected in what’s called “cis.” Even “femme”-identifying women are framing their “femmeness” as a “gender identity” and “gender variance,” to avoid that fate. Anything But Female=every female’s preferred identity.
About ftms who are oriented to men—I’ve written a little about this before, here, in response to a question about whether there is any counterpart to autogynephilia for ftms (ha, nope):
"…it’s inextricable from female striving for a different kind of power than what is available to women. I feel like the idea of “I want to be with men, but not as a woman; only as another man” can’t be understood outside of the deep social inequality between men and women. Similarly, women who perform femininity but want to be seen as feminine gay men understand that anything—even performing femininity—has more legitimacy when males do it. So, in the context of the sexual abuse that girls grow up with, I don’t know if it can really be seen as a “fetish” when a female can’t respond sexually without imagining being male i.e., human, a subject instead of an object in some fundamental way."
ideology is remarkable in its capacity to present itself as non-ideological
'common sense','human nature'
"Truthfulness has not been considered important for women, as long as we have remained physically faithful to a man, or chaste.
We have been expected to lie with our bodies: to bleach, redden, unkink or curl our hair, pluck eyebrows, shave armpits, wear padding in various places or lace ourselves, take little steps, glaze finger and toe nails, wear clothes that emphasized our helplessness.
We have been required to tell different lies at different times, depending on what the men of the time needed to hear.
We have had the truth of our bodies withheld from us or distorted; we have been kept in ignorance of our most intimate places. Our instincts have been punished: clitoridectomies for “lustful” nuns or for “difficult” housewives… It has been difficult, too, to know the lies of our complicity from the lies we believed.
Patriarchal lying has manipulated women through both falsehood and through silence. Facts we needed have been withheld from us. False witness have been borne against us.
And so we must take seriously the question of truthfulness between women, truthlessness among women.
Women have been forced to lie, for survival, to men. How to unlearn this among other women?
“Women have always lied to each other.”
“Women have always whispered truth to each other.”
Both of these axioms are true.
“Women have always been divided against each other.”
“Women have always been in secret collusion.”
Both of these axioms are true.
In the struggle for survival we tell lies. To bosses, to prison guards, the police, men who have power over us, who legally own us and our children, lovers who need us as proof of their manhood.
There is a danger run by all powerless people: that we forget we are lying, or that lying becomes a weapon we carry over into relationships with people who do not have power over us
I want to reiterate that when we talk about women and honor, or women and lying, we speak within the context of male lying, the lies of the powerful, the lie as false source of power.
Women have been driven mad, “gaslighted,” for centuries by the refutation of our experience and our instincts in a culture which validates only male experience.
We therefore have a primary obligation to each other: not to undermine each others’ sense of reality for the sake of expediency; not to gaslight each other.
Women have often felt insane when cleaving to the truth of our experience. Our future depends on the sanity of each of us, and we have a profound stake, beyond the personal, in the project of describing our reality as candidly and fully as we can to each other.”
- ‘Women and Honor: Some Notes on Lying’, Adrienne Rich, 1975, in On Lies, Secrets, and Silence: Selected Prose 1966-1978.
Introducing Awkwafina, a Chinese, Korean American rapper from Queens, New York. She is known for her quirky, extensive satire and comical rap verses and music videos. She went to LaGuardia High School, where she played the trumpet and was trained in classical and jazz music. She adopted the name Awkwafina, and began rapping and writing songs in GarageBand at age 17. From 2006 to 2008, Awkwafina attended the Beijing Language and Culture University in Beijing, China, where she studied Mandarin language. She majored in Journalism at SUNY Albany.
She gained a lot of attention with her songs “Vag” and “Queef”, which went viral on Youtube.
this queef song
in ancient egypt trans women were revered as demigods and were referred to as “two souled.” if that isn’t proof enough we’re superior to you cis people then I don’t know what is.
not to mention ancient egyptians thought transgender people were the offspring of a god/goddess and mortal being.
native americans, aborigines and muslims in indonesia had this too which is further proof that TERFs aren’t only cissexist but also colonial.
"Two-Spirit" is not the same as transgender, It is, more accurately, an expression of third or fourth genders that exist within certain Native American cultures, what you’re doing here is applying a Western framework (ie gender binarism) to cultures that have different gender roles (hint: this is a colonial attitude). “Aborigine” is a racist term, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People have repeatedly expressed their objections to this term.
Gender is a social construct dependent on culture. It is a way to categorise human beings and, in patriarchal culture, to establish a hierarchy. So before appropriating the experiences of other cultures in order to accuse people of “colonialism”, next time put on your thinking cap before you open your mouth.
Now, in regards to the above comments. OP claimed that ancient Egyptians worshipped “transgender people” (I could not find any reputable source on this information, and transgender is in quotes there because it is a Western concept OP has applied to a different cultural setting.) Down the line, checkingoftheprivilege suddenly chimes in and opines that “TERFS aren’t only cissexist but also colonial”. Unless this was a response to an earlier conversation or some kind of reference, I fail to see the connection between the ancient Egyptians’ “transgender worship” and modern feminists. Is it cissexist to not worship transgender people? Because it is certainly beginning to seem that way.
Sociologists have identified a phenomenon known as the diffusion of responsibility, according to which individuals are less likely to provide assistance when they are part of a crowd of bystanders as compared to the likelihood of an individual to provide assistance to another in distress if no one else is present.
Usually when we think of the diffusion of responsibility we think of the “bystander effect,” as in the Kitty Genovese case, when multiple bystanders fail to come to the aid of an individual in distress. Here no one takes responsibility, but another kind of diffusion of responsibility is when everyone takes responsibility. In the film version of The Handmaid’s Tale (I haven’t read the book) there is a scene where all the handmaids must collectively pull on a rope in order that they all participate in a hanging of one of their own.
It is not at all unusual for social institutions to engage in the engineering of this second kind of diffusion of responsibility, when everyone is made to feel guilty, especially when the engineering of the diffusion of responsibility can be employed to shift blame away from a powerful individual or a dysfunctional institution onto those who had little or no choice about participating in the institution in question.
Someone in a position of responsibility and authority, who is supposed to make a decision, may surround themselves with others so as to make use of the diffusion of responsibility in order either to avoid taking action or to shift blame for their bad decisions onto a collective body, proactively creating the conditions under which the diffusion of responsibility will prevail — to their advantage.
Meetings are an excellent venue in which to do this. Under the guise of seeking advice or “brainstorming” one can deflect attention from one’s own role as the responsible authority and draw others in on the pretext of soliciting their input, only to hijack this participation to diffuse responsibility.
As long as you can maintain a critical mass of persons around yourself, even after a failure of responsibility, when the responsible party ought to be held to account, a sufficient number of persons present can generate finger-pointing, charges, and counter-charges sufficient to muddy the waters and to allow the opportunistic individual to avoid responsibility as needed.
I am not suggesting that this is always done consciously. In fact, it usually happens without being noticed by the perpetrator. We all know people with a natural penchant for manipulation, who have no need of calculation because of the intuitive cunning that they possess. When we realize that we have encountered such an individual we usually take pains to separate ourselves from them, but in the workplace this is not always possible.
Saying “I support a sex industry - but only when the women are safe, healthy, and treated with dignity” is like saying “I support imperialism - but only when it works out well for the colonized people.” If the only version of a thing you support is a hypothetical version that has never actually existed in the history of that thing, you don’t actually support it.