the rogue feminist

a few notes about intersex people, to the dyadic people of the world

poptartsrfrosted

-don’t ask about their genitals
-don’t ask about their hormones/chromosomes
-shouldn’t be referred to as h*rm*phrodites, especially by dyadic people
-don’t necessarily have atypical genitalia
-can be of any gender
-not all intersex people have had surgery
-not all intersex people want surgery, actually!
-not all intersex people have atypical chromosomes
-not all intersex people have ambiguous gonads [e.g. ovotestes]
-not all intersex people want to talk about being intersex

asquintersex

Not all people with intersex conditions consider themselves intersex.

More you might like

piece of media: has huge cast of lgbt characters
cishet person: this is unrealistic!!111!1
piece of media: has huge cast of cishet characters and a token gay or trans person
cishet person: ah, this is the normal state of things
lgbt people in real life: all their friends are lgbt, has maybe one cishet friend

lgbt queer trans gay

culturalrebel

Source: vegan-anarchist-1312

Here’s a groundbreaking thought that really helped me stop worrying about “not being trans enough” and also might help ppl stop worrying about “transtrenders”:

trans writer Julia Serano makes the point that there’s no “inherent” cis or trans quality - like there’s no special secret sauce that makes you inherently trans or cis. like u can have gender nonconforming ppl who identify with their assigned gender & do things “trans ppl do” i.e. drag queens who get feminizing surgeries, butch lesbians who go by he him pronouns or bind - there’s not a strict divide

really, there’s just what makes you happy and content in the presentation, body, and role you inhabit that’s it. that’s all. so you just try on the language and clothes and lifestyle that you think suits you best and thats all you can do. the label is just a way to help make sense of and articulate that to yourself and other people. it’s actually incidental

so stop worrying if you’re “REALLY” trans. and stop worrying if “impressionable” kids are “being turned” trans or ppl are “faking” it. bc there’s no such thing. just focus on what makes you feel like your best truest self. you do you and let other ppl do themselves. end of.

trans transgender lgbt gender

anyone who is on the fence about socialism, here are some of the perks:

free food & housing
free healthcare & medication
free internet
equal education for all
no more advertising
elimination of most crime
more time to devote to your passions & hobbies
end to global warming & pollution
survival of the human race

so ive been reading about this growing hysteria among cis ppl that being trans is “contagious” and like…kids are being “turned trans” due to well-meaning parents or clinicians or even friend groups “pressuring them” to be trans and it’s weird to me bc it’s like a combination of the “turning gay” myths that used to be popular and the ableist idea that “too many kids are being diagnosed and medicated for something these days” bc a surprising number of cis ppl conceptualize being trans as a disability that you either can be diagnosed with accurately or not and literally mistake an uptick in trans identifying ppl as a sign theyre being “over diagnosed” as trans

to be sure dysphoria IS in the DSM but i kinda wish these ppl would understand that being trans in and of itself is not like a ”condition” you have or don’t - many trans ppl dont get formally diagnosed with gender dysphoria and most of the exp of being trans outside of physical transition has little to do with the medical world

the thing that’s disturbing to me about all this is you have reputable news organizations and journals literally publishing interviews and “studies” by cis “experts” pedaling this nonsense. but it is just so obviously baseless hysteria that can easily be debunked. and yet so many mainstream sources are treating it like a reasonable position! but it just quite literally makes no sense if you even know the first thing about being trans. it’s not something you can be misdiagnosed as or tricked into being. that’s really not how it works.

transgender trans gender identity esp since transitioning for kids is literally just wearing certain clothes and using certain pronouns or bathrooms lol nothing drastic or permanent

allfrogsarefriends

yuuri-katsuki-on-ice:
“ ladyflowdi:
“ thefingerfuckingfemalefury:
“ blackphoenix1977:
“ pleatedjeans:
“ Three cheers for these guys [x]
”
This is how to be a good ally.
”
Using their Bro-ness for good, not evil
”
So a tiny story: on Black Friday a...

Source: pleatedjeans

enby-spacerok

poseyslegtattoo

You know maybe amatonormativity exists but it’s hard to say that when I’m 90% sure gay people were not being encouraged to seek out relationships by the wider culture until maybe 2005-ish

im-fucking-asexual

what’s amatonormativity?

poseyslegtattoo

A Tumblr-based sociological theory that boils down to “compulsory alloromanticism” but I’ve also seen it defined to include monogamy as another expectation under the header of amatonormativity

srsblog4srsposts

Amatonormativity is not tumblr based- it was not created on tumblr nor was it popularised on tumblr. Amatonormativity was not even coined by asexual people or with asexual people in mind exclusively.

Amantonormativity was coined by feminist academic Elizabeth Brake in her book “Minimising Marriage” to refer to:

the assumptions that a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans, in that it is a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship is normative, in that it should be aimed at in preference to other relationship types. (Source)

Amatornormativity doesn’t just affect asexual and aromantic people. Whilst it’s often asexual and aromantic people you see talking about amatonormativity (because we become hyper aware of it due to how it affects us), it actually impacts the lives of people of all orientations, including LGBT+ people.

Amatonormativity in practice is…

The assumption that all single people are unhappy with their status and looking not to be single.
“Coming of age” milestones often revolving around romantic accomplishments (first kiss, first crush, first love, marriage, etc).
Non romantic partnerships (sexual or platonic) being looked down upon.
A sort of relationship hierarchy where marriage is at the top and everything else falls somewhere below it.
The expectation for romantic partners to be more important than jobs, hobbies or other commitments in a person’s life. And the belief that people who choose to pursue the former are selfish.
People who are not seeking exclusive romantic relationships being seen as less mature, stable, trustworthy or settled.
The structuring of laws and society on the basis that eventually everyone will be in a committed romantic partnership (marriage).
The toxic idea of a “friendzone” (which of course, overlaps with misogyny), where friendship with a woman is seen as “second prize” to a relationship with her.
People settling for someone they’re not really happy with or compatible with just to fulfil the desire or expectation to have a partner.
Non-aromantic asexual people trying to normalise their orientation by saying they can still “fall in love” or “have relationships” “just like anyone else”.
Asexual people or people who don’t feel attraction to anyone feeling pressured to seek out and enter into relationships.

And much more…

Violations of amatonormativity would include dining alone by choice, putting friendship above romance, bringing a friend to a formal event or attending alone, cohabiting with friends, or not searching for romance. (Source)

kyraneko

Also the way turning down a request for a date, while single, is often viewed as some sort of terrible insult instead of an analysis of poor compatibility.

Also the idea that it’s wrong to break up with someone unless they’ve done something objectively terrible enough to “deserve it” rather than because the relationship isn’t doing anything for you.

jabberwockypie

It also encourages people to stay in abusive relationships because it pushes being in a relationship is the highest priority/being alone is terrible.

theroguefeminist

How is this not just heteronormativity and patriarchal norms though? Heteronormativity doesn’t just mean heterosexuality in specific, but also norms associated with romantic relationships that are tied to normative values (such as coming of age milestones and the expectation to get married). Straight people are also negatively impacted by heteornormativity. But as other people brought up in the notes, this impacts women and queer people disproportionately.

theroguefeminist

Also I would argue that it’s important to frame these norms as stemming from the oppressive structures of patriarchy and heteronormativity because it’s not like they just randomly exist in isolation–they basically dictate gender and sexual power structures that frame queer people as abnormal and women’s role as subordinate and restricted. For instance, romantic relationships being centered furthers the nuclear family structure as well as men’s over-reliance on emotional and domestic labor from female romantic partners. It’s not that being in a romantic relationship grants you some sort of privilege in society–it’s that the inordinate focus on romance reinforces and furthers modes of dominance, such as misogyny and homophobia.

gilotyna815

it seems to me this analysis specifies amatonormativity as an aspect and feature of heteronormativity, naming specifically one way in which it affects our life. it was coined by a feminist author in her feminst writings so i presume she must have seen it as a feature of patriarchy and not think it existed in isolation. but as well, amatonormativity can also very much permeate queer communities as queer people can internalize it and not always realize it is a feature of heteronormativity, but assume it is part of human nature (due to internalizing it), which is why it is valuable to name it and specify as a phenomenom to facilitate discussion and awareness of it. many of the points on this list of amatonormativity in practice can be found in queer communities replacing heterosexuality with queer sexualities. it is still very much a remnant of heteronormativity but by giving it its own name we can bring attention to this feature which sometimes goes unchallenged even as other parts of heteronormativity are. but of course it should very much not be misunderstood as separate and independent from heteronormativity or not caused by patriarchy.

theroguefeminist

Yeah, I think the problem is the framing of it in this post and on tumblr in general seems divorced from heteronormatiivty and patriarchy. That’s why, to me, the separate concept/term as it’s being used on tumblr is resulting in a lot of bad theory and inaccurate discourse. I’m not denying that the original use of the term kept this context in mind, but I think a lot of people are now thinking about it separate from that context or without a thorough understanding of heteronormativity and patriarchy and the power differences that normative romance reinforces. There’s also a danger of lumping social views on gay relationships with straight ones or single men with single women, which is a lot harder to do if you’re using language like heteronormativity or patriarchal norms.

To me, it’s perfectly possible to discuss the societal privileging of romance without this concept, and doing so is more likely to encourage the writer to specify the social context without implying some sort of “romantic privilege.” So though I respect the original intent (from what I can glean about it without having read the text myself), I personally don’t really see a lot of utility in it.

enby-spacerok

This discussion can include both of those perspectives though. It’s a dialectic 🙃

theroguefeminist

That’s true. I guess this is just my perspective lol. I just see it as bad theory with some negative impacts, but of course people will always have different opinions on issues like this.

Source: poseyslegtattoo

Sometimes people become suspicious of certain modes of discourse not because they are new or come from a particular group of people, but because they can serve to co-opt certain struggles or occlude certain oppressive structures. Sometimes an issue is an expression of a deeper, underlying form of oppression, but people will analyze and dissect the symptom while ignoring the cause. For example, men’s rights activists who act like toxic masculinity or benevolent sexism oppresses men or privileges women miss the fact that these phenomena stem from patriarchy. If you look at these symptoms of patriarchy in isolation, it can look like men have it “worse than women,” but that ignores the structural realities that give rise to these instances in the first place.

So I think the negative reaction to tumblr’s framing of amatonormativity is reflective of that because queer people and feminists have already analyzed that phenomenon at length in the context of heteronormativity and patriarchy. So when people outside of those disciplines take the same concept and analyze it separate from that context, that can actually wind up minimizing oppression by missing the causes and power differences underlying the issue.

amatonormativity feminism patriarchy social justice

left-reminders

Anonymous asked:

in your last ask post you said that socialism will have "a greater emphasis on communal leisure that doesn’t involve consumption for the sake of consumption (socializing, open-source media, public entertainment, travel, lollygagging, etc.)" could you expand on that a bit?

left-reminders answered:

Capitalism has an internal engine that seeks privatization and commodification of everything, in order to turn everything into a consumable product. We usually view consumption and leisure as inseparable. But that concept was unknown for the overwhelming majority of human history. Any socialist future that values human wellbeing will need to return to decommodified leisure and community. Here’s a short list, in no particular order, of play and leisure that can be decommodified in that future world:

Publicly-managed parks with lots of places to sit and socialize (preferably with lots of greenery)
Public entertainment (music, plays, films)
Open-sourced media sites like Netflix or Youtube, made free to use and with constantly expanding libraries (think every movie or TV show that has ever existed, made possible after the abolition of intellectual property law)
Open-sourced technology in general, which would allow people to make innovations and improvements onto designs without the prohibitive bullshit of copyright and enclosure
The conversion of commercial malls and corporate headquarters into public plazas for stuff like learning centers, art exhibits, eating commons, collective housing, and libraries (perhaps with a lot of overlap among those things)
Community festivals (I argue that play-focused gatherings similar to Burning Man or renaissance fairs will become a lot more common under socialism)
Travel made easier and more fulfilling through the dissolving of strict borders and commercial industries that prepackage experiences into hollow bites

(People are also more than welcome to reblog this post and add more things that they envision in this regard!)

It’s often difficult for us to imagine a world of modern amenities without rampant privatization and commodification, but that’s why I believe “utopian” speculation like this is useful. We fight in the class war so we can help bring about that future, and so we absolutely must paint these pictures so people know what we stand for.

Marx argued that once socialism was fully off the ground, people would be able to “hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, and criticize after dinner, without ever becoming hunter, fisher, farmer, or critic.” To be honest his imaginative scope was a tad limited here, but his core point is hugely important. When you combine democratic thinking, labor-saving material conditions, and common ownership of utilities, you wind up with a society where careers and ranks matter substantially less; people would be able to jump around pursuing what they’re passionate about in whatever capacity because their freedom and leisure time have been massively expanded.

And I think you could take this logic into further conclusions too: who’s to say people will even have permanent private residences in a world like this? I absolutely think it should always be an option to have a separated personal residence if one wishes, but in a world of living commons it will probably mean less among much of the population. The nuclear family “ideal” would dissolve and a new interrelational individuality would take its place. This would have big implications for the realm of family, friendships, and romance, hopefully in ways that nurture both the individual and the community.

Culture, art, identity politics, spirituality, cuisine, aesthetics, linguistics, ethical values, probably no social quality will go unaffected in the transition to and through socialism. All of this would need to be consciously built by the people in a new society free from commodification and enclosure, but I think it’ll become easier to conceptualize as more and more people write about these possibilities and the material conditions for capitalism’s downfall continue to ripen.

Hope this answered your question!

sinkingtheark

I was thinking the other day about how it’s so difficult to find a variety of things to do in our society that don’t require consumption or money or breaking the law (because so much of the law is the protection of property and the privatization of otherwise public space). Even if they exist (they do, I mean libraries exist for now, but in low quantity) we’re so inundated with other options based on consumption that it’s difficult to break out of that pattern.

I wanted to go hiking the other weekend in my hometown and I found out that they were now charging for parking to get to the trails. You want to just spend time inside on a hot day? Probably have to buy something or get kicked out (which really sucks for people who are fasting and wouldn’t eat anyways). I mean yeah, you could just spend time in a mall or something, but that’s still a context in which you are expected to consume or at least perform as if you are consuming.

howieduet

I also picture more room for, like, creative collaboration. If there are all these public spaces and public property, you’d end up with people coming together to make art, fashion, video games, all sorts of things just because it’s fun to do.

Sometimes things that are more efficient are worse

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

a few notes about intersex people, to the dyadic people of the world

More you might like