imagine if girls used the same style of joke to degrade men like “cool story bro now go chop some lumber”
GO CHOP SOME LUMBER“what r u doing out of the garage go fix my car”
“Don’t you have something to fix somewhere.”
get some duct tape & fix that attitude
Don’t you have some jars you could be opening?
here’s the thing about adulthood-
you will go for like three months with nothing happening and you’re bored as hell and then in the span of two weeks eight different things happen at once – some fantastic and some shitty and some just plain bonkers – and you’re just running around like a chicken with your head cut off and no clue what the fuck is going on
I think instead of saying ‘queer is a slur because it hurts me’ people need to start saying ‘queer is a word that hurts me’. It’s down to personal feelings, which are valid, but should not hold vocabulary hostage.
It’s the whole difference between expecting people to police their own identity and reject a well-established academic term in order to protect you, and requesting special consideration for your trauma.
Think triggers. Queer is not a slur, but it may be a trigger.
i wonder how many historic trans men we’ve lost to “this WOMAN went by a man’s name, wore men’s clothes, took the job of a man, lived as a man… GIRL POWER!”
this isn’t a “pushing my identity on historic people” thing, it’s the fact that every single time i or another person brings up the possibility of someone like us in history, we’re immediately shut down, told that we didn’t “exist yet”, given a billion different reasons why we aren’t ALLOWED to see these people as reflective of us and our struggles and experiences – i get that we didn’t have the vocabulary back then but for so many of you the IDEA that someone who went to the same stretches that we do today to separate from their dead selves and identify similar to the way trans people do is too “far out there” and “disrespectful” to them somehow. they’re dead. we’re alive. we’re trying to connect the pieces. go get your kicks out of isolating us from history somewhere else, away from me.
yeah, there were women who did crossdress in order to take up jobs they would not have been permitted to access
but when people say it about Albert Cashier, who donned Union uniform, bound his chest, and lived as a man even after the Civil War, when he was reclusive and lived in a tiny village, after there would have been no incentive for him to do so, I question their motives.
I also question their motives when they list Alan L Hart, who legally changed his name and was one of the first trans men to pursue a hysterectomy, referring to himself as “a fellow.”
people DONT want historical figures to be trans. they WANT to interpret these historical figures as women, not trans men, because that makes them uncomfortable.
same with the musician billy tipton, who hid his trans status from his wife and children his whole life, and whose son didn’t know his father was trans until billy was dead. he told his wife that his binding was necessary because he had been in an automobile accident before they met, never disclosing his trans status to her. the number of historians that refer to him by his deadname and call him an “actress” make me feel sick. he was a stealth trans man around everyone but his parents, and it hurts trans men everywhere to call trans men in history “lesbians”.
If you want to learn more about any of these men:
Honestly I think one of the most empowering things you can do for yourself is to separate your negative qualities from your identity.
Instead of saying “I’m lazy,” saying “I’ve made a habit of not doing work unless it’s absolutely necessary.” Instead of saying “I’m a bad friend,” saying “I haven’t communicated as much as I should with the people I care about.”
By being specific about your problems, and by framing it as an action that you are consciously either working on or ignoring rather than an unchangeable part of who you are, you allow yourself to accept your mistakes and work constructively on them instead of pretending they didn’t happen or wallowing in blaming yourself.
since some of yall dont seem to know
heres a friendly post from your neighbourhood intersex guy
- intersex oppression -> intersexism (yes theres a word for it)
- h*rmaphrodite is a slur/derrogatory lol stop fucking using it
- theres no i in lgbt… intersex people can be cishet, and it isnt a gender identity its a medical condition. go away. stop doing this.
- if youre dyadic, you shouldnt be arguing about intersex politics. period. intersex people are oppressed under intersexism and face systematic oppression (just this year intersex infant genital mutilation was illegalized in the US). even if youre gay, you still oppress even cishet intersex people under the axis of intersexism.
- seriously. read the above bullet again and get it through your skull.
- intersex followers feel free to add. dyadics can reblog and are encouraged to.
I’ve seen a lot of intersex people (like @xenoqueer) include intersex in the lgbtq+ so I’m uh confused? about this?
You know how there are lots of ace people who end up ace exclusionists and trans people who end up nonbinary exclusionists?
It’s kind of like that.
There are intersex people who see their intersex identity as purely medical, closer to a chronic illness or disability than to a gender or sexuality, and that’s their business of course.
But for the rest of us, who have been here for decades, having our intersexuality be a critical part of our queer politics, as well as for almost every major queer organization, as well as for almost every major intersection organization, the inclusion of intersex people under the banner of LGBTQIAPN+ is considered accurate and correct for three reasons:
1) Radical inclusivity is the name of the game when you stand in opposition to an exclusionary system of oppression
2) Historical basis, as intersex people have been attacked as and celebrated as queer for as long as such communities have existed, and the differentiation of intersex and trans is shockingly recent. I’m talking “the last 15 years” recent.
3) Shared goals and oppressions: intersex people are brutalized for not being gender normative enough, and we benefit from expanded understandings and acceptance of the actual breadth of human gender.
Now, let’s dig into the rest of the claims made here.
“Hermaphrodite,” is a slur basically the same way queer is. Having a simple group noun to refer to intersex people as a community and an identity fulfills a critical grammatical gap in English. Its use originates in neutral tone scientific research, and it was adopted and spread by and for intersex people ourselves.
However, the term reached the gender binarist majority and was used as a slur by them. At this point, many intersex people (as well as many trans people) have serious difficulty trusting anyone who uses this term.
Reclamation of the term is barely starting and is primarily being done by people like myself who have been using it for decades and refuse to give it up just because our oppressors got all pissy with it.
And even I find myself wary of its use by perisex people. But, there’s also not very many grammatically smooth alternatives. “Intersex people,” is probably the best choice, but it’s about as clunky as saying “male people,” instead of “men,” so I understand why some people don’t use the phrase.
Personally, I identify as a hermaphrodite (and as a herm, for short), as at birth I had two different types of gonad, as well as ambiguous genitalia, prior to being surgically altered in infancy.
It’s something of a personal choice. If you aren’t intersex, be very wary indeed of using the term until the person/group you’re talking about has used it first.
Additionally, intersex genital mutilation was not made illegal in the US.
The surgeon general issued a statement last year (not this year) urging doctors to stop treating IGM as best practice, but that has no legal weight, and both doctors and parents still get to decide how an intersex child’s body is altered, free of consequence.
This is a huge problem that persists in the US medical system, and acting like it is over is horrifying. It’s not over, it has never been over. We’re still out here being fucked up every day by doctors who want us to be cis, straight people.
Which brings me to the bogeyman of the “cishet intersex,” there’s… There’s a lot to unpack there, actually. Let’s break it down.
Can intersex people identify with the gender assigned to them at birth? Yes, absolutely. Indeed this is one of the more common ways for intersex people to identify.
Doesn’t this make them cisgender then? From a technical perspective, yes, it can. However, many intersex activists prefer the term ipsogender to refer to these non-trans intersex people, because the gender binary does not reward intersex people for adherence in the way it rewards the “truly cis.” The differentiation of trans and intersex identity took place around the same time as the differentiation of gay and trans identity: when AIDS started killing people off and everyone was struggling to find some form of safety.
Prior to this, all hatred of queers was presented as hatred for violating the “natural order” of man and woman. In many conservative areas, it still is. No matter what we do, we as intersex people will always violate that so-called natural order, and be punished for it. The gender binary hates us the same as it hates trans people, albeit with that hatred manifesting in very slightly different ways- and I do mean very slight. Everything you can think of as transphobia has absolutely been done to intersex people, and vice versa. Up to and including infant genital mutilation.
Can intersex people be heterosexual? Yes, if an intersex person identifies with a binary gender and is exclusively attracted to people of the other binary gender, then, of course, they can be heterosexual.
Doesn’t that mean they’re prioritized under heteronormativity, then? To some degree, yes, heterosexual intersex people are prioritized by heteronormativity. However, an intersex person does not have the same relationship to straightness as a perisex person. We cannot. So much intersex mutilation is rooted in the belief that we need A) a binary gender and B) to be sexually available to the other binary gender. The reason the vast majority of intersex people have our phalluses cut off and vaginas surgically formed or altered, is so that we can be “sexually functional women.“ Sexually functional meaning capable of receiving penetration from a man’s penis (I specify a man’s here for a reason). If our phalluses aren’t large enough or normative to make doctors consider us viable as penetrative, heterosexual men, we just cut up into “women.”
The fact that many of us will grow up with no desire to have sex with cisgender men, or to have penetrative sex, or anything of the sort is irrelevant. This is what we are forced to do, at the cost of thousands of dollars in medical bills and decades of forced surgeries and hormone treatments. We don’t get a choice. That many of us ultimately adhere to something we’re been violated repeatedly from birth to enforce is not a sign of our prioritization under heteronormativity. It is a sign of how vile and violent heteronormativity truly is.
So, if an intersex person can be cis, and an intersex person can be het, then they can be cishet, right? Again, from a technical perspective, yes. But intersex people are not rewarded, favoured, or protected by the gender binary in any way. We are brutalized, violated, mutilated, and medicated by it. To position us as being favoured by it is to ignore the factual reality that we face.
Finally, while intersexism is the oldest term for describing intersex oppression, many intersex activists consider it inappropriate because it positions intersex people as the oppressive force or as benefitting from it. Compare to heterosexism, where heterosexual people are the beneficiaries of the oppressive force, or binarism, where the gender binary is the oppressive force. Many intersex advocates prefer to use dyadism, perisexism, or intersexphobia/misia/antagonism to more accurately position intersex people as the oppressed rather than the oppressor.
All in all, this post comes from a place of good intention, but so does the road to hell. The fact that the OP is operating under so many different pieces of misinformation about our shared identity suggests to me that they are primarily getting their information from radical feminist revisionist sources.
Unsurprisingly, even a brief glance at OP’s blog shows that they think of asexuals as “cringe,” that positivity and pride posts are somehow something only asexual people do, lots of stuff about intersex exclusionism, tons of sex negative garbage, tons of “polyamorous peopel aren’t oppressed” business.
TBH, I take it back, this post definitely did not come from a place of good intention. It’s just wall to wall misinformation and general nonsense.
ERASE the idea that America saved lives by dropping two atomic bombs on Japan from your minds. ERASE the idea that it was anything more than a political move to scare Russia and also to satiate US curiosity as to the true ability of nuclear weapons. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not military bases. They were heavily populated civilian cities chosen precisely bc the U.S. wanted to see how many people an atomic bomb could kill in one go. Japan was on the verge of surrendering, the U.S. literally wanted to test out their nuclear weapons on people that they deemed disposable. That is it. If those bombs were dropped by any nation other than the US veryone involved would have been tried as war criminals.
Also erase the idea that America was the hero of WWII and got into the war because they wanted so save people. They couldn’t have cared less about the victims of the Holocaust, proven by the fact that they turned away so many shiploads of refugees that went on to die at the hands of Nazis.
“the us wanted to see how many people an atomic bomb could kill in one go” oh really? Source your bullshit, asshole
i left out sources bc i figured most tumblr users know how to use google but ok
– Report produced by the U.S Strategic Bombing Group (employed by Truman) to survey the air attacks on Japan concluded that:
“Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” – page 52-56
– Dwight Eisenhower future president and then Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces also said:
“I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to [the then Secretary of War] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.” – page 380
– Admiral William Leahy, one of the highest ranking officials in the US army during WW2 wrote of the usage of the bombs:
“It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. […] My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.” – page 441
– General Douglas McArthur, another high ranking US official in the war:
“[When asked about his opinion on bombing Japan] He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.” – page 70-71
– On September 9, 1945 Admiral William F. Halsey commander of the Third Fleet publicly quoted as saying:
“The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment… . It was a mistake to ever drop it… . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it… . It killed a lot of Japs.” – online source
– The US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, speaking to President Truman:
“I was a little fearful that before we could get ready the Air Force might have Japan so thoroughly bombed out that the new weapon [the atomic bomb] would not have a fair background to show its strength.” – diary of Henry Stimson which can be found online here
– Even those deploying the bombs questioned the decision to drop them on civilian cities:
“I thought that if we were going to drop the atomic bomb, drop it on the outskirts–say in Tokyo Bay–so that the effects would not be as devastating to the city and the people. I made this suggestion over the phone between the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and I was told to go ahead with our targets.” – online source
– Lewis Strauss Assistant to the Navy Secretary James Forrestal on the locations of the bombings:
“I remember suggesting […] a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood… I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest… would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. […] Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation.” – page 145
So to recap:
- A lot of American generals were against using the bomb as they felt it served an empty purpose.
- Those who agreed with its usage completely disagreed with dropping them on cities.
- Truman went ahead and had them detonated in two highly populated civilian cities anyway. Two cities that had remained mostly untouched by regular bombings throughout the war precisely bc of their lack of value to the Japanese war effort.
Draw your own conclusions.
I hope y’all know that this is common knowledge to everyone of every other country
Thoughtfulfangirling 