Online, women face unwanted “compliments” that focus on their appearance, and which sexualise them in a way that men are not subjected to, and which takes focus away from what they say and the content they create. The abuse is not simply sexist; it is often racist and sexually violent and at times homophobic. In this video, content creators, comedians and writers, including Gaby Dunn, share some of the comments they’ve received, and they explain that no matter what they’re discussing, men will argue against them. 

The women here say that they either ignore comments if they’re “annoying” or block commenters who are especially graphic. These women say they are bothered by the comments but at the same time, “I just expect it.” Women are told they have “victim privilege” or they’re accused of being “angry” when they stand up for themselves. This demonstrates how sexist online culture expects women to simply put up with abuse. Such an expectation goes to broader patterns of gender violence against women. These are not just words on screen. Feminist Anita Sarkeesian was recently forced to move out of her home because she received death threats, having lived with hate speech for years, including a violent game created to let men “bash” her face… all because she raised funds to support her series that provides a cultural analysis of sexism in video games.

As Erin La Rosa says in the video below: “This is my work…. it’s a problem. It makes me feel demoralised.” 

In an article about the sexism that former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard faced, I noted that the law protects women against workplace sexual harassment. Just as a woman Prime Minister should not be expected to tolerate verbal sexual violence because she is in the public eye, women online should not be expected to tolerate it either. The idea of block and ignore leaves gender violence to individual women to manage. Online abuse is a public health issue that requires social action, including:

  • Standing up against it when you see it: speak up and let others know it’s not okay; 
  • Reporting formally when you see it (even if it’s not directed at you): all social media platforms have ways of flagging abuse, make sure you use this function every time you see abuse; 
  • Content platforms like YouTube and Twitter need to take stronger action to ban trolls quickly; and 
  • Improving laws dealing with online abuse.

italicizedvagina:

What’s that you say? Been wondering when these crazy cute and now internet famous pillows would be for sale?

WELL LOOK NO FURTHER.

My etsy shop My Breast Friend is up and running and ready to take special orders. I have two pillows currently up for sale, one in the making, and infinite possibilities! If you are interested in the original three, please send me a message and we can talk about it. 

Hope this venture works out. Fingers crossed. 

(via littledimples)

A post I co-authored with Dr Buddhini Samarasinghe and Professor Rajini Rao has just been published on the science website, Nature.com. We address the false idea that girls are fundamentally inferior to boys at science due to our biological capabilities. We examine how gender stereotypes negatively impact women’s careers in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM).
Gender stereotypes are perpetuated through the stories we tell children as soon as they’re born. We show how children in Prep and Grade 1 tend to draw scientists in gender-neutral ways, but by Grade 2 onwards, they start drawing White men in lab coats. By Grade 5 the stereotype that only White men are scientists has taken hold. The stereotype is both gendered and racial, as research shows that even minorities tend to draw White men, thus affecting diversity in science on multiple levels.
This stereotype is used in other ways by teachers, parents, the media and by other figures of authority to force girls to consider that maybe they’re not fit to do science. This is known as the “leaky pipeline,” with studies showing how girls and women leave STEM at various stages of their education and careers due to the cultural pressures and institutional obstacles they face.
It is imperative that those of us committed to equality and diversity collaborate with scientists from other fields in order to make progress. We can’t take for granted that our colleagues will eventually come to see the damage done by biological arguments. We can’t simply leave girls to navigate gender stereotypes on their own. We can’t rely on women being “more confident” and assertive when faced with discrimination, as research shows these individual approaches don’t work.
Read our article including the empirical evidence on the Nature website: http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2014/09/04/nature-vs-nurture-girls-and-stem High-res

A post I co-authored with Dr Buddhini Samarasinghe and Professor Rajini Rao has just been published on the science website, Nature.com. We address the false idea that girls are fundamentally inferior to boys at science due to our biological capabilities. We examine how gender stereotypes negatively impact women’s careers in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM).

Gender stereotypes are perpetuated through the stories we tell children as soon as they’re born. We show how children in Prep and Grade 1 tend to draw scientists in gender-neutral ways, but by Grade 2 onwards, they start drawing White men in lab coats. By Grade 5 the stereotype that only White men are scientists has taken hold. The stereotype is both gendered and racial, as research shows that even minorities tend to draw White men, thus affecting diversity in science on multiple levels.

This stereotype is used in other ways by teachers, parents, the media and by other figures of authority to force girls to consider that maybe they’re not fit to do science. This is known as the “leaky pipeline,” with studies showing how girls and women leave STEM at various stages of their education and careers due to the cultural pressures and institutional obstacles they face.

It is imperative that those of us committed to equality and diversity collaborate with scientists from other fields in order to make progress. We can’t take for granted that our colleagues will eventually come to see the damage done by biological arguments. We can’t simply leave girls to navigate gender stereotypes on their own. We can’t rely on women being “more confident” and assertive when faced with discrimination, as research shows these individual approaches don’t work.

Read our article including the empirical evidence on the Nature website: http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2014/09/04/nature-vs-nurture-girls-and-stem

apihtawikosisan:

amandamped:

I have never been considered a hipster and if you knew me in person I’m sure you’d all agree.

I have a purely innocent obsession with Native American life, culture, and style; to the point at which I believe I was a Native in my past life. I love everything about their ways of life now and in the past, everything they stand for, and the respect they have for the world.

I had just recently come across a few memes you depicting all the hate and anger the Native population has towards the pictures of obviously white/european people in headdresses and face paint, for being racist towards the Native American culture. As ignorant as it sounds I was shocked these photos could be taken as an insult… Here I am re-blogging them thinking they’re all so creative and beautiful and supporting a culture i love, not knowing that these very pictures had been taken offensively. 

The point of this post is just for me to apologize for taking part/ encouraging (in a way) the ‘hipsters’ to continue they’re racism I will do my best to avoid re-blogging pictures of this nature, although I cannot make promises it won’t happen.

I believe the best way anyone of any culture could look at these pictures is to just take it all in as a compliment; They obviously like the way the Native culture is and are trying to be a part of it, unaware of how their actions can be interpreted. 

That’s my take on the whole thing— Sorry for the rant.

Tan’si,

Your first problem is that you seem to think Native American cultures are homogenous, or singular.  There are over 50 distinct indigenous linguistic groups in Canada alone, and within each linguistic group can be found extreme variations in regional culture.  So which Native American culture do you have this purely innocent interest in?  All of them?  Wow, that’s a huge amount of diversity to start looking into.

Your second problem is related to the first.  When you discuss Native American style, what are you talking about?  The inaccurate and romanticised idea of what ‘natives wear’, with all the fringes and dreamcatcher themes and silly headbands that only very few indigenous nations actually use? (Headbands as an ‘Indian’ thing became popular because of westerns, where they helped keep the wigs on the non-native actors portraying natives)  Produced in mass quantities by corporations who cater to stereotypes, selling products that in no way benefit actual native peoples?

Or are you talking about the vast variety of styles that we actually wear, both modern and traditional?  Would you actually even recognise these styles?  Would they fit your mental image of what we look like?  It’s unlikely.

Some of the things we wear are not just ‘fashion’.  They mean something very important, and if you do actually have an interest in our cultures, you will respect those items by not wearing them unless you have earned them.

Other items actually made by us, are available to you.  Again if you are interested in our cultures, you should make an effort to learn about these items and purchase them from our artisans rather than from big box stores that have nothing to do with any Native American nation.

Your third problem is that you don’t actually seem to know anything about any of us, which suggests that the ideas you have about our ‘ways of life’ past and present, are probably extremely inaccurate.  It is very frustrating to have people believe stupid things about us, or make things up about us, and then have them tell us they are respecting us.  No, if you valued our cultures, you would learn about them, and stop doing the disrespectful things that add up to systemic discrimination against us.

Do not tell us to ‘take it as a compliment’ when someone disrespects us.  Do not tell us to ‘take is as a compliment’ when someone profits off stereotypes about us, while so many of our communities struggle with the kind of extreme poverty you aren’t supposed to see in a ‘developed’ nation. 

And do not tell us to excuse ignorance as though it is innocent.  It is not.  The kind of ignorance surrounding who Native American peoples are, is responsible for some of the most horrific massacres, sexual and physical abuse of children and cultural violence ever seen.  You probably don’t know much about that, but it is a part of your history too, and if you want to honour us…ANY of us…then you need to start learning about it.

When you do, you’ll no longer be confused about why these images are so fucking offensive.

(via apihtawikosisan-deactivated2014)

pinkcookiedimples:

lagiaconde:

jaimie foxx wears a trayvon martin shirt to the BET awards.

the headlines:

image

image

image

macklemore mentions trayvon martin during his acceptance speech at the AMA awards.

the headlines:

image

image

image

the message: PoC are racist crybabies until a white knight notices the issue and plays champion.

This isn’t even surprising

(via marinashutup)

We need to talk about Anne Frank

historicity-was-already-taken:

As of this writing, John Green’s The Fault in Our Stars has sold over one million copies, and holds a place on several bestseller lists. The film adaptation of the book has made over two hundred million dollars in the domestic and foreign market. The book and the movie tell the story of two terminally ill American teenagers, and both contain a scene where the protagonists, Hazel and Augustus, share a kiss in the Anne Frank House. John Green made the following statement regarding the scene:

“Anne Frank was a pretty good example of a young person who ended up having the kind of heroic arc that Augustus wants—she was remembered and she left this mark that he thinks is valuable—but when he has to confront her death, he has to confront the reality that really she was robbed of the opportunity to live or die for something. She just died of illness like most people. And so I wanted him to go with a sort of expectation of her heroism and be sort of dashed.”

Here, Green makes it clear that he reads Anne Frank’s death as being from an illness like “most people,” like his protagonist. In doing so, he erases the circumstances under which she contracted typhus. “Most people” are not Ashkenazic Jewish teenage girls who contracted typhus in a concentration camp during the Holocaust. This fundamental erasure of the context of her death allowed him, those involved in the cinematic adaptation, and yes, a large portion of his readership, to accept the use of Anne Frank and her death as a prop in this American YA love story. Indeed, when further called on the issue, Green stated:

“I’ve been getting this question a lot. I can’t speak for the movie, obviously, as I didn’t make it, but as for the book: The Fault in Our Stars was the first non-documentary feature film to be granted access to the Anne Frank House precisely because the House’s board of directors and curators liked that scene in the novel a great deal. (A spokesperson recently said, ‘In the book it is a moving and sensitively handled scene.’) Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League and a Holocaust survivor, had this to say: ‘The kissing scene in ‘The Fault in Our Stars’ in the annex of the Anne Frank House is not offensive or against who Anne Frank was. What Anne communicated in her diary was hope. She celebrated life and she celebrated hope.’ Obviously, the Anne Frank House and the ADL do not have a monopoly on Anne’s life or her legacy, but their opinions are important to me.”

I take issue with this response. Here, Green is divesting himself of responsibility for the scene, and communicating to his critics that he is not to blame, because the Anne Frank House board of directors, curators, and a Holocaust survivor approved of it. In other words, he is drawing these peoples’ assumed authority to silence criticism, and to avoid taking responsibility for the filmed version of a scene he created.

The Anne Frank House, for all the wonderful work it does, is a museum. Like all museums, it must work to attract and reach out to potential patrons. In other words, museums have to advertise because they require patrons and revenues to exist. Therefore, I read the official approval of the Anne Frank House simply as a targeted attempt to reach out to and attract a pool of untapped, younger patrons. They chose to support the filming of a sympathetic romantic scene about terminally ill teenagers in their institution to reach out to young people. While that is a sound business decision, I would argue that it’s hardly an ethical one for the Anne Frank House, an institution devoted, as per their website, to:

“the preservation of the place where Anne Frank went into hiding during the Second World War, and to bringing the life story of Anne Frank to the attention of as many people as possible worldwide with the aim of raising awareness of the dangers of anti-Semitism, racism and discrimination and the importance of freedom, equal rights and democracy,”

to support the filming of this scene. For, in Green’s own words, that scene had nothing to do with the context of Anne Frank’s death, and therefore, it did nothing to bring Anne Frank’s story to life. And it hardly raises awareness of contemporary European anti-Semitism.

As for the ADL, I very much agree with Mr. Foxman’s assessment of Anne Frank. However, what she celebrated in her life and her writings have little to do with what she has come to mean in within public memory of the Holocaust of European Jewry. Her narrative has been used by nations and educational systems to the extent that for many, she is the Holocaust; she is the face of the Holocaust. But what we inherit from her isn’t the experience of the Holocaust. That experience, and her death at Bergen Belsen take place outside the pages of her diary. Readers are never forced to experience the Holocaust through her eyes; they are able to embrace the tragedy of the Holocaust through her story while remaining removed from its experiential realities. Thus, Anne Frank becomes the Holocaust without forcing anyone to experience it. Her name can be invoked to summon tragedy, without forcing anyone to feel it.

While Anne Frank may be the face of the Holocaust of European Jewry, the memory of the experiential reality of the Holocaust is male. The way we conceptualize and remember the concentration camp experience is constructed by male narratives. More Jewish men survived the Holocaust than Jewish women. Due to attitudes towards education in the interwar period, more male Jewish survivors had the education and literary capital needed to craft enduring narratives of their experiences than did female Jewish survivors. There are three foundational male Holocaust survival narratives: Night by Elie Wiesel, Survival in Auschwitz by Primo Levi, and Maus by Art Spiegelman about his father’s Holocaust experience. Never have I seen those three men and their narratives used as a joke, or a meme, or a cheap narrative device, or as self-promotion by an American pop star.

These men are revered, and their narratives taken extremely seriously. And none of them, none of them have been used in a prop in a story about terminally ill gentile American teenagers. They survived, in perhaps the type of heroic arc a John Green protagonist would yearn for. Yet Augustus doesn’t look to them. He doesn’t share a kiss with his girlfriend at Auschwitz. He shared a kiss with her in the Anne Frank House.

Anne Frank is not a prop. She is not a symbol, she is not a teenager who happened to die of an illness, and she is not one of the canonical Jewish male survivors. She is one of many millions of Jewish women and girls who were industrially murdered like livestock, incinerated, and left in an unmarked grave. That is the story of the Holocaust of European Jewry, and that is the story of the persecution and murder of all Europeans (the disabled, Romani, Irish Travelers, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Communists) who failed to fit into Nazi racial and ideological constructs.

And we would all do well to remember that.

If you choose to reblog, please reblog as text (link leads to visual guide of how to do so). Thank you!

frequently asked questions
ask historicity-was-already-taken a question

Language Police

racismschool:

This is a systematically encouraged way to stop engaging in a conversation when you know you are going to lose the argument. Once you have started your policing, you can then blame the other person for being “Angry” or “Not nice.” If your entire point of contention is that of a kind word, you should never engage with anyone, anywhere, at any time. 

Language policing is a trick used by the weak minded. Nothing more. Nothing less.

This is easily provable. Keep an eye on discussions that cross your dash. Note the next time someone does some form of Language Policing. Did they do it near the beginning of the conversation and make their rules of engagement clear? No, it’s far more likely that they were in the belief that they were correct in whatever their view point. Once it was challenged and on it’s way to being proven false, the policing appeared. 

I see several problems with Language Policing:

  • Who sets these rules?
  • If the rules are not mutually agreed upon by all parties, the rules are null and void.
  • Language policing implies that a person’s point is somehow less valid if said in a tone or in a phrase that someone else deems unacceptable. 
  • Anger does not stop truth from being true. Nor do angry words, loud voices or the Caps Lock key. 

Language Policing implies that one person is on a higher level than another based solely on wording. You can not claim to want to engage in discourse while announcing that you are better than those that oppose you. You can not have a conversation, one that you deem “Civil” or otherwise, while also believing that you somehow have the intellectual high ground based on nothing more than a turn of phrase.

As a matter of fact, I tend to believe the opposite true.  Language policing seems to encompass one of two justifications. One, that a person will somehow be more willing to accept what you are saying if you say it with a smile. Two, that anger is a sign of a lessor being and because of this, that person no longer deserves your “Time.”

An actual intellectual can make their point. Period. No matter your word usage, no matter your kindness or anger. A person that has an actual point, can make it no matter their opposition or the tone their opposition uses. Facts, opinions and even judgments are no more or less valid or invalid if said with a “Fuck you” attached. 

If you were to smile and kindly tell me that I am pretty while also hitting me in the face with a wooden bat, my nose wouldn’t be any less broken. Any pain caused, wouldn’t be lessened and my anger wouldn’t be any less valid because you were “Nice” while you did it. 

Kindness does not eliminate truth. Anger does not eliminate truth.

If you find that you need a person to speak to you in a specific way in order to converse with them at all, you should make that known before you get into any discourse. That way, when the person reminds you that you do not get to dictate actions or emotions, you will know that this person is not someone you can control and you can move on to someone who will fall for your act.

That is what it’s about after all. Control. Your need to “Police” language is an effort to make your opposition seem “Less than” while setting yourself up as the “All knowing” director of the conversation. You are trying to force your way into having the upper hand. If your point is a valid one, you won’t need to police anyone, ever.

No one person get’s this power over another. If you feel you deserve this, you should remove yourself from all verbal/written human contact. 

Black Women and Twerking: Why Its Creators Face Bigotry That Miley Cyrus Never Will

gradientlair:

Twerking, just like everything else that is specifically known to Black women is the latest thing for Whites to try to appropriate while simultaneously trying to police and shame its originators for doing it at all. Whites (and some Blacks as well) are approaching it with the typical White supremacist approach of overly applauding and worshiping whomever is the latest popular spoiled irritant of a White human being to try to do it, which in this case would be Miley Cyrus. Unlike when something Black men, or both Black men and Black women created/do is appropriated, where some Black men are bothered by the appropriation (i.e. The Harlem Shake), once it’s specific to Black women, some Black men no longer care and applaud and worship any and all non-Black (and especially White) women engaged in the appropriation. The latter is also a facet of White supremacy (and male privilege).

While the sheer act of someone who isn’t Black woman twerking doesn’t bother me theoretically, I don’t like its practical manifestation in a White supremacist society. The typical worship (by EVERYONE, even including some Black women) of anyone who isn’t a Black woman doing it, the mocking of Black women’s distress about it and indulging in entitlement and arrogance about the appropriation is the problem. It’s never just people “having fun.” Their “fun” always comes at a huge price for Black women (and Black culture)—reinforcing race and gender hierarchies.

Cultural appropriation itself is a cycle and also a tool of psychological warfare and erasure in a White supremacist society. As Paulo Freire writes:

The oppressor consciousness tends to transform everything surrounding it into an object of its domination. The earth, property, production, the creations of people, people themselves, time—everything is reduced to the status of objects at its disposal.

Once the conversation is about Black women and twerking, the bigotry comes out in full force. I do not accept this bigotry.

No, I do not accept the sexism—the belief that something of interest to women irrespective of male attention or valuation/devaluation is automatically stupid and not worth doing or discussing.

No, I do not accept the misogyny—the notion that twerking can only be self-degrading since it cannot exist for any purpose outside of the dehumanizing gaze of men who choose to only see women as sexual objects, not full human beings engaging in a creative dance with a long Black history.

No, I do not accept the misogynoir—the notion that Black women twerking is “lewd” and “degrading” but White women doing (or trying to do) the exact same dance is “cute” and “classy” and that they should cash in, in attention, praise or actual money (i.e. teaching classes) on twerking while pretending that they do not know the racial double standard here. White privilege is why they can both appropriate and feign ignorance over the magnitude of what this appropriation is. White privilege is why they can continue to dehumanize Black women (while some simultaneously demand loyalty to a White supremacist feminist agenda, versus the intersectional feminism/womanism that we know) by pretending that we are solely objects to emulate—costumes to put on out of interest and then take off if situations get too sticky or portraying a certain form of Whiteness becomes more important or profitable. (See: Justin Timberlake, the male version of this).

No, I do not accept the misogynoir and predictable hypocrisy by Black men—the same ones who were angry about Whites appropriating The Harlem Shake (since Black men do this dance too) but write Black women off as “jealous” for commenting on the double standard regarding twerking (since Black men view this as a dance for women). Male privilege. The same ones who only have an issue with Whites when it is perceived to specifically impact Black men or all Black people, versus solely Black women, are the type of Black men that I’m speaking of. The same ones who endlessly excuse racism from famous White women (but never from a White man of any status) simply because they chase and sleep with non-famous White women are the type of Black men that I’m speaking of. 

No, I do not accept the racist sexist classism—the idea that only “poor” and “ghetto” Black women dance this way, thus making it a “shameful” dance unless absolutely anyone of a different social status does it.

No, I do not accept the ageist sexism—the idea that only women of a certain age should dance this way and anyone arbitrarily too young is being a “whore” and anyone arbitrarily too old is being “immature.”

No, I do not accept the framing through the politics of respectability—the idea that this “shames” Black women in front of White people, and nothing matters more than the White gaze (which is racist because of WHO we are, not WHAT we do or do not do, anyway) and the pathway to White approval, which never comes nor should be a goal in the first place.

No, I do not accept the Christian theist idea, shaped by patriarchy, sexism and misogynoir—that somehow twerking—a dance with African roots no less—is somehow “evil” and thus wrong, when it is in fact White supremacist religious views, originally force-fed, now willingly embraced, that shapes Black intraracial opinions on dancing and writes off anything with Black roots, especially precolonial roots as “evil.”

No, I do not accept the White supremacist feminist rhetoric—that autonomy over one’s person, expression and sexuality as a woman, should only apply to White women, and in the case of Black women, doing the same thing is “unfeminist” (not a real concept in the first place as it implies feminist absolutism as a destination, not the journey and praxis that it is) or anti-feminist (which would only be true if feminism is solely gendered White supremacy). I reject the idea that Black women should exist solely as objects for White women to emulate or disdain while simultaneously shaming, to mask their White supremacist thought and endless White privilege, especially considering the history of Black bodies as objects of White power, profit and pleasure.

A part of Alice Walker’s definition of womanism includes “loves dance” because of the very freedom that comes with creative and cultural expression with meaning and history, that’s also fun and includes the confidence that comes with physical, sexual and emotional autonomy.

How rare is it for twerking to be discussed…or actually anything involving what Black women do, think, say, write, create, believe or are…without bigotry, and sloppy, one-dimensional bigoted ideas as the basis of the discussion or the “critique?”

For Miley, appropriation is “fun” and games; Black women are costumes or “big booty hos” to her, not human beings. For Whites and Blacks/other people of colour, it can be viewed this way too, without context and disregarding the truth because of White supremacy; it allows such ignorance. I don’t have the luxury of disregarding the truth since I, as a Black woman, am the target of such bigotry. And, it will never be acceptable.

Related Posts: White Responses To Black Creativity, Regarding The White “Harlem Shake”, White Women and White Privilege: Telling Them NO

I keep seeing people use the term “TRAP” to describe a transgender female… And it is SO INFURIATING!

lethal-lovesick:

Even a few trans-friendly blogs are using it to tag photos of trans individuals.

Several trans people on the net have this to say about the term (an amalgam of various comments I have found):

Transsexuals try to pass for their real genders to be themselves and camouflage themselves from transphobes who may want to kill them for being transsexual, not to trap straight people attracted to non-trans members of their gender.


"The entire trap thing is a stinking pile of transmisogyny. It undermines our identity and attempts to invalidate the gender we live as. It is the root of the trans-panic defense and generally offensive to every trans person I know. The whole thing is so that straight dudes don’t have to deal with the fact that they are actually attracted to a transperson.

"TL;DR we fucking hate it."


"I hate that one. I am not a ‘trap.’ This is mostly done by men who are terrified of finding out that a pretty girl might have a penis, which in turn threatens masculinity, etc., etc.

"It makes it seem like my entire identity is wrapped up in ‘fooling’ straight men. Which, no."


"…I’m a trans woman and I find it pretty offensive. I date men, and I’m constantly struggling against the idea that I’m somehow out to trick them into sleeping with a guy.

"The whole trap meme pretty much boils down to the exact same attitude, treating trans women like they’re really men, and anyone who was attracted to the woman in the picture has been tricked or trapped.

"I don’t think it’s funny, and that attitude is not only horribly demeaning, but downright dangerous in that it encourages people who find out I’m trans to feel that they’re right in feeling trapped or tricked."

and

"…The idea that trans women are fooling men into sleeping with a man is what leads to so many trans women being beaten or killed when people find out their status."

It is so sickening to see people okay with this term, especially transgender individuals, who are directly harmed by this stereotype.

People are claiming it is a term brought about by anime/manga to describe cross-dressers (VERY different from transgender individuals, aduh) who trick men into sleeping with them under the pretense that they are females. THAT right there is proof enough that the term comes with a negative connotation!

Why continue using it?! Bring an end to it!

JESUS.

My response (written hastily and out of anger. If any of it is wrong, let me know. Please to not reblog and insult me, I was doing my best to have conherent thoughts in the face of such an insult @ 3am. Everyone makes mistakes - allow my to correct it.):

All of you dumb fuckers need to get one thing straight: TRANSGENDER individuals and CROSS-DRESSERS are not the same. nor are TRANSVESTITES synonymous.

Let’s go to school:

I am a transgender female. I know of which I speak. Here goes::

TRANSGENDER: an individual born one SEX who mentally identifies with the OTHER. Their GENDER is, say, female, while their biological SEX is male. GENDER does NOT equal SEX. One is mental, one is biological. Get that straight NOW. (ant. CISGENDER).

TRANSVESTITE: an individual who gets sexual gratification from wearing the clothing of the opposite sex. Most often men wearing female clothing. Can be gay, straight, bisexual, cisgender, transgender etcetcetc. But the term ONLY applies to one who GETS OFF wearing articles of clothing of the other SEX.

CROSS-DRESSERS can be transvestites but are nore commonly viewed as entertainers: DRAG QUEENS, etcetc. Heightened, exaggerated femininity in most cases, but some just like to dress up for the hell of it, be it sexual or not.

USE these terms CORRECTLY.

A cross-dresser not offended by TRAP is perfectly normal, because they essentially ARE traps, if you;re going out of your way to have sex with straight men. You are cisgender (in most cases) and idenfity as male! You are not identifying as a female, stuck in a male’s body (in some cases) trying to be with a man. You could never understand the level of rejection, fear, and isolation a transgirl feels at this!

TRANSGENDER individuals are the ONLY ONES who have the RIGHT to claim if a term is offensive to them or not. I see people saying “Oh, I’m a crossdresser, trap doesn’t offend me.”

NO SHIT DUMB ASS, because you are not directly hurt by it does not mean a thing. It is widely used IN ENGLISH to refer to transgirls. SO They are the ones allowed to be offended by what is OBVIOUSLY a very derogatory word, said with derision and used as transphobic hate defenses.

That’s like a white person saying “Nigger doesn’t offend me” or even if it does, WHO CARES. You could NEVER comprehend the fear, dysphoria, etc that one person has when they are enduring the struggles attributed to them by that one powerful word.

It is just a word, but it has SO MUCH power to wound.

I do not give a fuck if it is a term in Japanese cartoons that STILL fetishize and OBJECTIFY this minority group: Listen to how people say it in ENGLISH, the way it is said, and THEN tell me it is innocuous. You will be WRONG.

Pull your nerdy ass face out of a goddamn manga and do some real research before you even make a single comment about a term and what it refers to/who is offends. Stop reading these books that humiliate, objectify, fetishize and victim-blame trans individuals. It promotes harmful stereotypes and facilitates trans-misogyny. END IT. 

LINK.