Show
i know it does in fact suck for cis women with short hair! but they are not the target! maybe there's a category of people mentioned by name by the people making these bills! the worst part is this might actually be the best way to make cis people care about this because cis people mostly don't seem to give a shit about us. except sometimes they just put in the work to make sure the bills only hurt us and not them
You must log in or register to comment.
U.S. citizens are so apathetic and alienated from each other that the only way to get them to stop a train going to run over [insert group] is that there's a possibility that the train might derail and kill them too.
is that there’s a possibility that the train might derail and kill them too.
Since C19 I don’t even believe this anymore.
Likewise with issues other oppressed group deal with, like how you have to say "patriarchy is bad for men" to get some men on board with feminism
Just look at the clock, it's Down With Cis time again
uncritical support for the down with cis bus in its heroic struggle to liberate our transgender comrades from the genocidal american empire
I think feminists who want to convincingly talk to men need to be able to explain how patriarchy is hurting men, how it will not make you happy and ruin your relationships to emulate Andrew Tate etc. etc., and that convincing at least a sizeable chunk of men that the patriarchy needs to be dismantled is indispensible from effective feminist struggle.
But there's a problem in this approach as well, because the ways in which patriarchy hurts men are routinely and effectively weaponized by antifeminists to deny the reality of misogynist oppression and to center cishet men and only the issues affecting them in debates about gender and patriarchy. Strategically, it's important to have counters to this strategy, and that includes both outlining how it's patriarchy that does this damage to men and that this is part of maintaining a structure aimed towards opressing women and other marginalized genders, in which even these damaged men are still the group that gets to enact systemic violence against others. Patriarchy breaks boys to turn them into opressors. That is damaging to them, but it is simultaneously a deal that allows them to in turn inflict damage on other men as tools of systemic violence and to benefit off a structure that objectifies women and devalues our labor for the sake of male privilege.
Same energy as "All Lives Matter!" Like yes of course all lives matter but that's intentionally missing the point.
There is a distinct brand of liberal that can only relate to things they oppose through self-identity and victimization. They'll see the Palestinian genocide and start making islamophobic points centering their fear as a white woman, gay person, Jewish person etc in order to justify their siding with genocide.
Is there a term for this?
i know it does in fact suck for cis women with short hair! but they are not the target!
In the same way that "Anti-immigrant" legislation just ends up being used as a cudgel against anyone with an unseasonable tan, I see a lot of the TERF shit (particularly the really deep "Every celebrity is Trans!" conspiracy-tier discourse) as this method of excusing harassment of anyone who looks remotely queer.
Complete gender fascism is inevitable when you seriously want to go through with returning to a world were less than 1% of the population realizes they're trans, that genie's just out of the bottle and you need total, all-encompassing control of all media to ever again effectively stop trans people from realizing who we are. And that's just the knowledge and cracking part, keeping people from being trans in public requires equally overarching control over every single public space. So yeah, you could make a point that runaway transphobia will, if left unchecked, inevitably reach a point where it will drastically infringe on the rights of cis people. That's undoubtedly true.
But when you're discussing that, you've already ceded the point that having less trans people is, in itself, a political goal that's ok as a subject of public debate. That means you're letting transphobes control the debate you're having, because that debate is then about what level of transphobia will start affecting cissies, not about making transphobia in itself unacceptable.
So the "transphobia affects cis people, too" line of thought is undoubtedly true, but it is also a loser strategy that already throws me under the bus before the argument has even begun. It verifies that the only thing to worry about are the rights of butch cis women, while mine are at best an afterthought.
it's a little valid as a response to "this is to protect cis women!" but even then you can't make that argument without conceding the point
Why, just look at the time!
[Every number on the clock has been replaced with the phrase "death to cis" in block capitals]
![hate this shit [depressing, transphobia discussion]](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/d83c5ade-3a4e-4605-9471-5e25db54c00e.png){kind=link}