You Can't Complain About Cramps

One of my father's stories that I have always, always hated is one from his days in highschool. The assigned-females of the student government were trying to get equal rights and treatments- and the assigned-males responded with "If you do, then you can't use your periods to get out of things" and that any difference that having high estrogen rather than testosterone causes would be ignored as well.

And that they backed down proves that women want to be treated as second class citizens and that they'd rather be given the "privilege" of getting off class (which actually means a lower quality education, particularly for people who have a difficult time self-teaching, putting them at an even greater disadvantage) than the privilege of being treated and seen as a human being.

First, hormones are a big deal. Hormones effect most changes in your body. Adrenaline, the hormone that can allow people to do super-human things in times of crisis, is a hormone. Hormone imbalances in the brain can cause you to have severely limited or altered functioning. In terms of sex-related hormones, your levels effect a ton of things such as fat distribution and loss/gain, ability to gain muscle, even height when you're still not past puberty. They also have a good deal of effect on how you think, based on evidence from trans men and women who have started hormones (one trans man tracks the changes testosterone had on him emotionally/mentally. Here's one just from 3 months:

It's been much harder to notice the little subtlties that I once noticed. I think sometimes I notice them, but I don't appreciate the importance of them anymore. I've been trying really hard to take notice of the little things and really think about what they mean. Similarly, it's much harder to multi-task. I've found myself much more methodical and more withdrawn from socializing with perfect strangers. For example, I'd much rather be in a quite library putting books in order than helping customers at a video game store. I've always had this personality, but it's definitely more intense now.

Plus, the differences between assigned males and assigned females who aren't taking anything that would effect their levels and are not intersexed are, like every other difference between the sexes, generalized. There are cis women with high testosterone levels and cis men with low, just like there are cis women who can outlift an average man and cis men who couldn't outlift a weaker woman. But, there are physiological differences between having high testosterone/low estrogen and low testosterone/high estrogen (and fairly big differences between hormone levels in people with ovaries over the course of a month). And those should not be ignored.

Now, for the part that makes too many people squeamish: periods. People's periods are, depending on your social group, not really talked about. I've seen a lot of instances where a cis woman had a genuine disorder related to her menstrual cycle that was literally disabling every time she menstruated- but she spent years with no idea because people don't actually talk about what it's like. I've also seen cis women who will go to the doctor to find out if they have a problem with that and a nurse will discount them as being whiny because "we all have to go through that"- assuming that everyone's cycle is identical to their own.

We also cannot forget that society was built by cis males for cis males- at least western society- without taking the needs of cis females, trans males, trans females, intersex people, or non-binary people into consideration. At times they created laws with the explicit intent of continuing to keep non-cis males as second-class citizens. In the 1700s, (perceived/assigned) women in the US were not taught to write as "there was no reason a woman should know how to write"- limiting their ability to communicate their thoughts in a permanent manner and making it so that most literature was, inevitably, produced by (perceived/assigned) men. One of our much hailed Founding Fathers, John Adams, found the idea of agreeing to his wife's request to "Remember the ladies" in laws to be laughable, referring to the thought of women's rights as the "despotism of the petticoat"- or tyranny, if you aren't sure what despotism is.

It is very probably that things would be different had society been built by women for women, or at least with women in mind and with allowance for them to ask for their own needs to be met. Perhaps, rather than weekends, we would have a week off of work every month- or maybe only having one day weekends and a mini-vacation that was actually a time to rest rather than a time to have to do work that your boss expects you to do in your spare time without pay. Maybe medicine would have developed to actually find out when menstruation actually has a serious impact and how to better fix it (I believe we're working on it) and assigned-females would feel empowered to talk about their period and how awful it is without being told that they're just being whiny- so that, if there is a problem, it can actually be fixed. Maybe we would have figured out much, much sooner how to keep people who give birth from dying and, today, focus on how to make them comfortable rather than on how to control them (trigger warning: equates people who are capable of giving birth with "women", erasing both the gender of those who do give birth and are not women and those women who, for whatever reason, are not able to give birth).

But that is not the case. Instead, we live in a reality where health concerns that are either specific to mis/assigned females or not prevalent in mis/assigned males (everyone with breast tissue can get breast cancer, including cis men, yet it's still seen as a "woman's disease") are only just now not being dismissed. And, still, the ones that are most talked about are ones that "diminish" a woman's sex appeal. There are a great deal of diseases that can effect women and cause them extreme, even lifelong pain, yet we focus on the ones that cause them to lose their hair or breasts. It's as if we still haven't gotten out of the disgusting idea that a mis/assigned female is defined by zir ability to attract a man and bear his children or to act as a sex object for male fantasies- rather than by who ze is.

It is very, very possible that some of the mis/assigned females on that student council had extreme period pains that genuinely caused them to be unable to do classes sometimes- and refusing to acknowledge the reality of that would have been extremely problematic, the same as telling a person with the flu that they have to go to school despite barely being able to stand upright because "Well, I don't think the flu is as big a deal as you say it is". The argument of "You are only allowed equal rights if we're allowed to ignore your physiological needs" is no argument. It is really saying "We are so opposed to you being treated equally, but we are sick of you asking for it so we will throw you this moldy bone and find a new way to mistreat you".

And it says volumes that anyone could take people refusing that as evidence that any group wants to be abused.

The Damage of Socialization

(warning, I think this post is fairly cis-centric and seems to take "assigned and socialized with the expectation of being female" to mean "woman", but getting into that with trans people is a big barrel of complicated that I'm hoping to tackle later so I can't blame anyone.)
From Another Post About Rape

Women who are taught not to speak up too loudly or too forcefully or too adamantly or too demandingly are not going to shout “NO” at the top of their goddamn lungs just because some guy is getting uncomfortably close.Women who are taught not to keep arguing are not going to keep saying “NO.”
Women who are taught that their needs and desires are not to be trusted, are fickle and wrong and are not to be interpreted by the woman herself, are not going to know how to argue with “but you liked kissing, I just thought…”
Women who are taught that physical confrontations make them look crazy will not start hitting, kicking, and screaming until it’s too late, if they do at all.
Women who are taught that a display of their emotional state will have them labeled hysterical and crazy (which is how their perception of events will be discounted) will not be willing to run from a room disheveled and screaming and crying.
Women who are taught that certain established boundaries are frowned upon as too rigid and unnecessary are going to find themselves in situations that move further faster before they realize that their first impression was right, and they are in a dangerous room with a dangerous person.
Women who are taught that refusing to flirt back results in an immediately hostile environment will continue to unwillingly and unhappily flirt with somebody who is invading their space and giving them creep alerts.
People wonder why women don’t “fight back,” but they don’t wonder about it when women back down in arguments, are interrupted, purposefully lower and modulate their voices to express less emotion, make obvious signals that they are uninterested in conversation or being in closer physical proximity and are ignored. They don’t wonder about all those daily social interactions in which women are quieter, ignored, or invisible, because those social interactions seem normal. They seem normal to women, and they seem normal to men, because we were all raised in the same cultural pond, drinking the same Kool-Aid.
And then, all of a sudden, when women are raped, all these natural and invisible social interactions become evidence that the woman wasn’t truly raped. Because she didn’t fight back, or yell loudly, or run, or kick, or punch. She let him into her room when it was obvious what he wanted. She flirted with him, she kissed him. She stopped saying no, after a while.

Misassigned At Birth

I'll be honest, I don't like the term transgender. It's incorrect- it implies our genders cross something when, with the exception of multigender and genderfluid people, they really don't. It works with transsexual in a way- most people do see their sex crossing over to the other. I know a neutrois who now considers itself "transsexed" because it finished transition.

But our language is difficult and trans people aren't accepted enough for me to figure out a viable alternative (although, of course, it's hard to find one that works for everyone no matter what you do). As I mentioned before, my definition for transgender is "an adjective describing a person who’s gender (part or all of it) does not match the sex they were assigned at birth". And I've been thinking about it- and I kind of like the idea of misassigned at birth. I've seen a few trans women say "the doctor should have said "it's a girl"." and, as I've been pointing out a bit lately, not all trans people feel that their body is wrong- just how people perceive them. Misassigned works better for me.

Aside from bodily issues that transsexual deals with, a big problem for trans people is that they were assigned and raised and, in no small part due to this socialization, are still perceived as the wrong sex. It also helps that a lot of people can have issues with the idea of "assigned-____" because too many people assume that it's a correct assignment (doctors know everything, right?). Misassigned emphasises the mistake that was made, that the assignment was not correct.

Like I said- it won't work for everyone. Some trans people don't think they were misassigned. But I hope it's a step in the right direction.

Ask

I was reading over an article about a woman of color dealing with reactions to her taking care of her children (varying from "his he yours" to complimenting how good a nanny or babysitter she is and asking if she can be hired) or asking a racially diverse family "Where did you adopt [your child]?". To "is zie yours?": mixed feelings here- if the question is "are you really his mother or did you adopt him/is he a step-child?": that's busted, because an adopted/step child can be just as much yours as a "biological" child, and because it's probably at least a bit race based (if they looked the same, no one would assume the kid is adopted). People assuming she's the nanny? Busted. But if people just ask if a kid is the adult's rather than assuming? Not so much. One homophobic person replied demanding to know why it's okay to not assume a person is straight because "What? You think I look butch?!"- busted. Which allows for an excellent way to start my post. The difference between "Is this a "traditional" family or two mommies?" and "You’re one of the most prompt babysitter’s I’ve met.".


The question "Is it a "traditional" family or two mommies?"- is showing tolerance, depending on the tone ( a sarcastic or "two "mommies"?"- not so great) and reaction to "two mommies". The doctor is showing that zie is accepting of same-sex couples having children together and is (hopefully) non-judgemental about the fact that some children are raised by two parents who are not hetero. Not only that- but it makes no assumptions*. It isn't calling the person a lesbian- it's keeping an open mind because you can't tell sexuality by looking at a person. Assuming that everyone you meet is straight  does damage.

The statement "You’re one of the most prompt babysitter’s I’ve met"- is showing intolerance. Or, at least, close-mindedness. And it makes assumptions. It's assuming that an adult who is not close enough to the skin tone/facial structure/hair color or quality of the child cannot be the child's parent, because two people who aren't obviously of the same race couldn't have had a child. It also assumes that she couldn't be related to the child in any way- not even by friendship. That this person who is darker than the child couldn't possibly be a good enough friend of the "white" family to be taking care of the kid.

Next is intent or "what are they really asking". For example, "Is zie yours"- on the surface, tame. But not when the real question is "Is zie your biological child?" (as opposed to adopted/step/kidnapped/whatever the person thinks) and can be followed up with "Where did you get zem?" (because you couldn't be related to a kid with that much darker/lighter hair color/skintone/eyes than you!) or "I mean really yours" (because only biological children are REALLY yours). Obviously, this is pretty messed up for the same reason that assuming the person is the nanny/babysitter is- it's clear that the asker doesn't believe that mutli-racial children exist and doesn't think that a parent who doesn't look "enough like" their child is "really" that child's parent.  But sometimes the question is asked because the person is aware that  they can't exactly tell family dynamics just from meeting people and asking avoids complications that assuming creates- and then it isn't really a bad question.

Next I'll go with entitlement. Take this scenario: Person 1: "That's a really cool bracelet you have. Where did you get it?" Person 2: "Actually, it's a really long story and I'm just not up to telling it right now and I don't really know you well enough, sorry." And person 1 replies in one of these ways: 1. the person says "Oh, alright, if you ever feel comfortable telling me then" and leaves it at that. 2. the person demands to know what the backstory is, pestering the person about it.

If the response is the first: That's good. Person 1 is respecting Person 2's wishes. If the response is the second: VERY BAD. The person clearly feels entitled to this knowledge about Person 2- regardless of how Person 2 feels. (and, if Person 2 relents, it's very possible that zir right to making these decisions will be further attacked by Person 1 saying "I don't get why you didn't just tell me that in the first place") This one really depends on your relationship- but if you have a close enough relationship, you know what questions you are and aren't allowed to ask already.  This guide is pretty much for near strangers. And when you don't know someone well, you have no right to know anything about them that they don't want to tell you

That said, I hope we have a pretty decent grasp on good vs bad questions. Good: Respecting the person, not making busted assumptions, not having an underlying question that you can't ask because it's offensive. Bad: Disrespecting the person, making busted assumptions, having an underlying question that you can't ask because it's offensive. That said...

ASK!

Ask about anything and everything! Ask about pronouns! Ask about orientation (when relevant) rather than assuming straight! Ask about personal space/contact limitations! Ask about acceptable/unacceptable labels to use for the person!  If you don't know: ASK!

And this goes to people being asked, too. If a question makes you uncomfortable: Ask why it was asked. (and don't make busted assumptions, either!) if a person asks you what your sexuality is- don't assume that they think you "look gay", maybe they just don't want to add into the bustedness of heteronormativity. If someone asks you your pronouns- don't accuse them of saying you look like a [opposite gender], maybe they just realize that you can't tell a person's pronouns by looking at them. (you can guess correctly 90% of the time, but you can't know).

For the world to be a place where privilege no longer hurts people (especially regarding things that aren't visible)- we need to ask. We need to stop assuming things. Don't assume everyone is straight (or even sexual), don't assume that you know someone's gender & pronouns from looking at them, don't assume that they have the same education/views/experiences/abilities/needs as you, don't assume that one aspect of anyone's life/personality necessarily determines how they feel in any other part of their life, don't assume that a person in a wheelchair or with a seeing eye dog or anything else needs your help just because they're in a wheelchair or have a seeing eye dog or anything else and you aren't. Just don't assume!

But we also need to be in a place where questions CAN be asked. I do NOT mean that you have to answer every question- I already made it clear that people 100% have the right to say "I don't want to answer that". But reacting violently because someone doesn't assume something? That's not going to get us anywhere (and, of course, it's mostly privileged people who do it- because privileged people are allowed to get offended when a person asks them something that attacks their privilege and are also allowed to demand answers and get offended when we don't get them).

*okay, well, it does. It assumes a monogamous relationship in which the two partners have binary genders. Baby steps....

Color Blind

Some parents love to brag about how their kids are color blind- which is pretty interesting to me. Now, if you've got a kid with XX chromosomes who's colorblind, that probably is something worth bragging about because it's just so uncommon! And the rest of the time, well, I suppose it depends- like many things, colorblindness has its ups and its downs. My partner, for instance, has an easier time telling if colors clash or identifying two things of the same color but different hues than I do- it's pretty damn awesome. But they also rely on me for parts of video games where the colors are too close because, for a gamer, that's a problem. But it's pretty cool that parents are happy enough about their kids colorblindness to openly brag about it- hopefully it also means that they're willing to do work to help get more things, like video games, that their kids can see and enjoy as well as everyone else.

Oh, wait, what? They mean that their child "doesn't see" races?

Haha, oh, white people with our white privilege- we never cease to be a source of amusement! Oh, you don't see why that's silly? Well, first, because it's not true. You can't raise kids to be completely race-blind. Raising children by not talking about race, but talking about nebulous concepts of "we're all equal!" (without defining the inclusiveness of 'we') without actually getting down and dirty and using the "r" word? Doesn't work. Doing so produces racist children- and it's actually part of white privilege to be able to. Children of color? Painfully aware of race and where they stand (or they realize quick enough). White children? They see differences, but they don't know what they are or why, so speculate on what's up with these brown people with weird hair that no adults talk about.

Yes is the ONLY thing that means yes

"That's wrong- it's one of the most violating parts of this whole thing. It's like me walking in your bathroom while you in there with your pants down. It's the highest degree of disrespect." -Zakariyya (Zuh-CAR-ee-uh) pg 243, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks

My college required "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" as summer reading. I've had a long history of stupid summer reading assignments (my last one, our professor said that he thought the book was trash). I'm still angry at my college for the wording of "What if Henrietta had been Henry?"- which I presume is supposed to be a cutesy way of saying "What if Henrietta had been assigned male at birth instead of female" (while also saying "It's completely unacceptable for an assigned-female to go by 'Henry', no matter what that person's gender", even though 'Henri' can be a nickname for Henrietta). So, I was not looking forward to it.

It was actually really good, I'd suggest it to everyone. One thing I adore is that the [white] author has done a good job at presenting the issue of race in a way that doesn't get white people's hackles up at being "attacked" by having their privilege pointed out. I now cringe to think of how absolutely stupid the white people in my 11th grade (~16/17 y.o) class were about the book we had to read- but I have to admit that opening a book by redefining 'racist' as "A white person who doesn't actively fight white privilege" (although, not in those words) and calling the Lion King racist because the black actors didn't sound black enough was not a great way to introduce white people to their privilege. And, of course, this is NOT a problem on the author's part. It's a problem on the part of the school who decided that a 301 level book was an acceptable way to introduce white people to the concept of white privilege- when most of us have grown up hearing people gripe about "reverse racism" and how affirmative action "just hurts white people".

One issue throughout the entire book, aside from race and class, is consent- namely, whether or not consent is required for doctors to take and test and sell our tissues (or inject us with cancer- that's cool, right? No reason anyone would say "no" to that).

"We Are Human" via Resist Racism

Read the full post here

But they want a tour guide. They want to watch somebody bleed. Pain as entertainment.

“Can you share with us a time when you experienced racism and how you dealt with it?” she asks, her eyes bright in a flushed face. “What was the worse thing that ever happened to you?”

I stopped relating my experience when I realized incidents that cut me deeply became cocktail-party chatter for others. When I realized that doing so caused white people to have a sense of false familiarity with me. When I realized that they recounted my life as if it were their own, as if they owned it, as if they owned me. When I realized they did so not to make others feel my humanity, but to reinforce their belief in their own.

Picnic lunches beneath a hanging man.

[...]

And yet it didn’t really matter. I am reminded of this years later, when a white woman in an upscale department store glares and refers to two nearby children as “dirty little things.” She thinks they are mine and that I am not “controlling them properly.” I look to see two extremely clean, well-groomed, very wealthy appearing Asian children, a little girl and a little boy, who are laughing and talking to each other. I mostly hate kids and yet I can’t see anything wrong with their behavior. But I see it in her eyes.

Their reflection: Dirty. Little. Things.

I grow up to be an upstanding citizen who yanked myself up by my bootstraps. I did not waste my money on anything that I could be criticized for. No rims on the Cadillac. No car at all, for that matter. No luxury items, shitty food, second-hand clothing, no-name shoes and generic cereal and I did all the proper suffering, working long hours at lousy jobs while going to school.

So when I achieved what most people consider success, I bought the car, the clothes were new, I sometimes bought luxuries and I traveled to other countries. And I was an uppity person of color who got ahead through affirmative action and some other form of cheating because nothing I had was earned. Or deserved.

When I am flying overseas, I get stopped and questioned: How exactly is it that you have the money to travel?

I am suspected of criminal conduct simply because of where I am: A four-star hotel. A tony neighborhood. A professional conference. A business. The upscale department store. Any old store, for that matter.

I am suspected of criminal conduct simply because of who I am.

And I learn the hatred of white people who have less than I do. Who resent wealth and education and nice clothing and a beautiful home. Because somehow this is not how it is supposed to be.

Because I am not human.

Because they are not really colorblind.

Because we don’t really live in a meritocracy.

Because the content of my character has never influenced white people’s thoughts in the same way that the color of my skin does.

Because I can insist on my humanity until the cows come home, but it will mean nothing until white people discover their own.

How to be a woman

By Zyfron, see the full size: here (although- I suggest you read all of their comics)

Who is it?

Before we get this post started, I'm going to say this on the pronoun "it" used for people: Yes, it is way too charged to be a pronoun to use when you don't know what the gender/pronoun of a person is- but it's still a pronoun that some people do prefer being called by. That should be respected.
Now, on with the show.

"Inspector, do you know if the killer was a man or woman?" -Journalist
"Well of course I know that! What else is there? A kitten?" -Clouseau (from 'the Pink Panther 2')

Because apparently the objections to 'it' actually run deeper than I realized, as a person has expressed that even "Is it a boy or a girl?" is dehumanizing. Now, unfortunately, the commenter has no public information on their blogger profile so I cannot send them a message to make sure that I'm not misunderstanding this (I also cannot send them a message asking their preferred pronouns, hence the 'they'- I'll happily fix it if someone who knows this person lets me know the right ones). I did ask in the comments why the person feels that asking "is it a boy or a girl?" about an infant is dehumanizing- but it's a personal blog and a post on an extremely sensitive issue so I can appreciate Helen not wanting to publish any comments she doesn't want on there. So all I've really got to work with is what the comment says, which is this:

I know that “it” starts bloody early (“is it a girl or a boy?” – whatever sex a child was assigned, they’re not a fucking ‘it’) and I hate “it”, it’s a cheap and nasty way to de-humanise someone.

This person is making it clear that if this child's preferred pronouns are 'it', which does happen, then that is unacceptable. The kid isn't even crawling yet- and already this person is setting limits to what its gender can and cannot be, what is and is not acceptable (along with the rest of society, so I'm hardly shocked). But, this person is also doing it while accusing other people of dehumanizing the child by using pronouns that express a lack of knowledge as to the child's gender or preferred pronouns (although the question does lead to the kid's gender and identity being heavily policed). So, basically, this person is complaining about other people being dehumanizing while possibly dehumanizing the child by saying its gender and pronouns are inherently insulting. (in this hypothetical the kiddo grows up to prefer 'it'- why not, I know enough people who have) And that's actually why I have an objection to people who get so angry whenever anyone calls anyone else 'it' and claim it's "dehumanizing" no matter what (even when a person calls itself 'it'- which was just busted).

No one gives a shit if you don't believe in gender

From shemale on livejournal.Some other points of her post:

• Trans people are not cutting-edge theories at the frontier of feminism/gender studies/whatever.
  


• Trans people are not under any more of an obligation to alter their bodies, gender identifications, or gender expressions for some higher goal than cis people are.


• If a trans person does not present/experience/identify/etc. their gender the way you want them to, it is none of your fucking business, nor does it mean you can generalize about all trans people (or subgroup of trans people) from your experiences with and observations of said trans person.

All of them are worth a read, but this one I like the most:

Nobody gives a shit that you don't believe in gender.

You don't have to believe in something for it to exist, and perhaps the fact that you don't ever think about gender speaks more to your privilege than to the way that trans people are "perpetuating norms and stereotypes" or "supporting the gender binary" or whatever.
[...]
Gender in-and-of itself isn't a bad thing, it is just a thing.

It is the forced assignment of gender to people against their identification and the inequality between members of different genders that is problematic.

(and am I the only one a bit saddened/enraged that this was posted 2 years ago and I still feel it's incredibly relevant to how people treat trans people today?)

Binary-gender Privilege

I've been adding things to this list and it may not be up to date, to see the full list, please check HERE

You can reasonably expect that...

• words to describe your gender not only exist in every natural language, but are commonplace
• characters with your gender commonly appear in fiction as more than just a joke, and are often mentioned in serious non-fiction
• everyone is aware that people of your gender exist and have met people with your gender
• words exist to describe your sexuality and to describe people attracted to those of your gender, and most people have heard those words
• there is a way to pass as your gender, and roles/clothing/actions associated with that gender that you can use if you wish to be read correctly
• people will not have to "get used" to using your pronouns, as they use them for people on a daily basis, and will not tell you that your pronouns are "too hard" or treat them as some sort of novelty
• no one will say that humans can not have your gender, or treat the words and pronouns you use to describe your gender as an insult
• you can expect to find safe spaces for people of your gender
• in gender-based safe spaces, it is obvious if people of your gender are welcomed/allowed or not (from the One With No Name)
• it will be obvious which bathrooms, locker rooms, and facilities to try on clothes people of your gender are allowed to use (from the One With No Name)
• you will not have a hard time finding a partner who has heard of your gender, much less one who understands and accepts your gender and pronouns
• you will not have to educate people about what your gender is to have any hope of having that gender respected, because they have grown up around people who have that gender
• when you see a gender therapist, zie has dealt with people of your gender and will treat you with respect
• if your body is not "normal" for your gender, surgeries exist to help fix it and you won't be denied them due to your gender
• you do not have to create an entirely new legal sex to be legally acknowledged as your gender
• if parents raise a child as your gender, people will not consider this abuse
• people do not think it's okay to tell people of your gender that asking your child to respect your gender and pronouns is wrong because no one has heard of your gender
• from a young age, you are aware that people with your gender actually exist and will not have to go looking for or invent definitions that fit you. -(from AlextheSane)

I thought we needed one. I'm sure I'm missing some, critique is welcome & encouraged. Although some are somewhat binary trans specific, the fact that much of cis society doesn't accept trans genders can limit the amount of binary privilege they actually enjoy, but it's still there.

For example, with pronouns- a woman who doesn't look like a cis woman will not always have her pronouns respected, but she can still expect that people are accustomed to referring to people as 'she' and 'woman' and other words associated with her gender, and she won't have to deal with people struggling to add new language to their vocabulary to describe her gender. Also, in terms of safe space, women who happen to be trans are often excluded from so-called "women only" spaces (and let in trans men)- which erases their gender, but it's still blatant that, by all rights women should be able to join women-only spaces; however it can be difficult for non-binaries to tell if they'd be welcomed or accepted even in trans-only spaces.

Dear Every[wer]man

From here:

When we complain about men raping, abusing, harassing, and refusing us our human rights, and you come back angrily with “But some men aren’t like that! How dare you imply that I might be like that.” Do you not think that the problem might come from the very fact that you are angry at us for complaining, rather than angry at your fellow boys and men for this enduring misogyny? Instead of being furious that we point out that many men do act this way - including men these women trust completely - be angry that there are men that will treat your mother, sister, daughter, friend, girlfriend badly purely because they are female. Not only that but they are giving you a bad name, not us.

This applies to everything of the "But not all of us are like that!", as I mentioned on Genderbitch's post. If you ever feel the need to pull out that defense, maybe you should re-evaluate: rather than being offended that people in your community are doing this, you get defensive and accusatory towards the people being harmed.

Gender and the Binary

During the talk I had with Milla the other day, I started thinking about what gender would be like without the binary. And before I go on- let me make something clear. When I say "without the binary" I do NOT mean "without wermen and women", I mean "without the idea that everyone must be either a werman or a woman. Not both, not neither. One. Or. The. Other." (as well as the cissexist binary which says "and what you are is based on your genitalia" and "breaking gender roles makes it okay to mistreat you").

-men

"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" - George Santayana

"Woman" derives from the combination of the words wif (lit. woman) and man (lit. human being). "Man" , on the other hand, used to be "wer"*. Going to werman in the same pattern that took wif to wimman, then getting dropped just to "man".

Why? Most likely because, over time, the assumption that wer was the default sex/gender, that you only had to specify gender when talking about the other gender. This has actually already happened in Esperanto, a language only 100 years old (based on language forums- I don't know Esperanto myself)- so clearly whatever caused it to happen isn't out of our systems yet. The distance between "man", a gender non-specified term for people, ended up being uneven- reflecting the same idea that "generic he" carries.

What the bible says- and doesn’t say- about Homosexuality

I'm not Christian, I don't belong to any religion, I'm not an atheist. I do like Jesus- he seemed like a great guy- but I haven't had the best experience with Christians have never been into religion and still can't get interested. But, it's a big deal to people. And I have to admit- I really appreciate and respect when people look into it this much.

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

We gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Christians take the Bible seriously, too. Personally, I've spent more than 50 years reading, studying, memorizing, preaching, and teaching from the sacred texts. I earned my master's and doctoral degrees at a conservative biblical seminary to better equip myself to "rightly divide the word of truth." I learned Hebrew and Greek to gain a better understanding of the original words of the biblical texts. I studied the lives and times of the biblical authors to help me know what they were saying in their day so I could better apply it to my own.

The entire thing is a good- though long- read. It covers the history of how human interpretation of scriptures has led to a great deal of bloodshed and pain throughout the years and still now, how many people don't actually know what the bible says and how humans can misinterpret it, the effect homophobia it has on, well, mostly on CLG(b) people- but it effects trans people as well, and then goes on to tackle the parts of the bible that are used to attack homosexuality. It even talks about the problems that translations have caused- including two words that no one is actually sure what a literal translation would be, but that someone decided to call "homosexual" in 1958.

Gender: Let's try this again

Let me start by saying that gender and sexuality are not the same thing. They are somewhat related, they effect each other, but they are not the same. Trans people and non-binaries and everyone else can have any sexuality. But, people have an easier time understanding sexuality than gender. Probably just the way the world is going- or maybe it's because they can understand "I find X hot" easier than "I know myself to be X".

I continually see binary-gendered people try to define everyone else as between the gender binary. This even happens right after a non-binary expresses that this is not true, usually accompanied by a condescending "Silly non-binary, you don't know what you're talking about" or a lovely amount of derailing. This is trying to base our gender on your identities, even if we insist that they are not based on them. This is annoying at best. So let's see if using sexuality will make this finally get through.

"It"

Binary trans people seem to have issues whenever a non-binary/genderqueer/multi-gendered/anyone who doesn't fit comfortably into the current two boxes person takes "it" as their pronoun. The reasoning I usually see for this is because 'it' is used to insult binary genders. So are "he" and "she"- in the form of misgendering- but I've yet to see a trans woman get angry at a man for calling himself 'he'.