Obligatory Tumblr Account

From here on in, I'm referring to womyn who were CAMAB as simply womyn, and those who were CAFAB and 'identify' as female as ciswomen. I do this in the interests of cultural feminism, and so that ciswomen can know what it's like for a tenth of a second to have a womon say, "you are not my sister. You did not go through what I went through and never will understand." Girlhood is significant, and is forever tainted by cissexually-constructed wannabes.
In the scheme of things, this took five seconds:

RG: Some transexuals think they were a woman trapped in a man’s body. KP: But what next? “Doctor, I think I’m a gerbil?” “Well you’re not!”

https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/286533111804751873
You know, lgbtlaughs, it’s really not fucking hard to figure out where your loyalties lie and where you’re merely covering your ass.

In the scheme of things, this took five seconds:

RG: Some transexuals think they were a woman trapped in a man’s body. KP: But what next? “Doctor, I think I’m a gerbil?” “Well you’re not!”

https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/286533111804751873

You know, lgbtlaughs, it’s really not fucking hard to figure out where your loyalties lie and where you’re merely covering your ass.

(Source: imgfave, via lgbtlaughs)

Anonymous asked: Stoppity is a transphobic shitbag so it wouldnt be surprising if their friend was, too. None of those heterophobia posts are anything but responses to transphobia/queerphobia, the rest are jokes that don't affect your daily life because you're never going to get any harm from being cis or het ever.

eliminativism:

dumblr-feminist:

LOL Well I’m not heterosexual so you can just shut your whore mouth right now.

"Never going to get any harm from being cis or het ever"

Around 2% of hate crimes in the US are caused by anti-heterosexual bias.

Alright, fair enough, but let’s be economists and think at the margin… avowed trans prevalence is 1%, likely trans prevalence is somewhere near 5%. Avowed cisGLB prevalence is 8%. Let’s assume that despite the fact that there’s far fewer barriers to entry for cis aheterosexuality, that implicit prevalence is actually 20%. So that’s 25%, or 75% prevalence of cisheterosexuality.

So, 1.9% of the 19.2% of hate crimes based on sexual orientation, or about 10% of all orientation/sex-CASAB-relationship-motivated crimes had a cis heterosexual person as the target. That would mean 10% of the violence directed against 75% of people (though now we read that 75% as closer to 91-92%)… that would mean a cishet person carries a one 27th risk of being targeted for their orientation and sex-CASAB-relationship than does a queer person.

Now is there an orientation that reduces that risk to zero? No? Well then we can call that a net reduction of harm, and yes, that’s a lack of specific harm.

With cis men vis a vis cis women, we can say that cis men have some shitty things happen to them that cis women don’t, or that they have that shitty thing happen more often… can’t say that with cisheterosexuality, sorry.

  • Anarchist Mechanic: Your battery isn't working. This is just more proof that cars inevitably fail. I recommend you walk.

http://endracismandhomophobia.tumblr.com/post/82918414883/gcvsa-endracismandhomophobia-gcvsa-i

selenes-light:

endracismandhomophobia:

gcvsa:

endracismandhomophobia:

emilyrosefromthegrave:

gcvsa:

endracismandhomophobia:

gcvsa:

“I don’t care who you are. I don’t care how many LGBT friends you have. I don’t care how many years you’ve been hanging around with gay men and assorted other freaks. I don’t care if you think you’ve established a stake in “the scene”…

Yeah you’re the one being ignorant here. And for the most part I want to like your blog but this here is the attitude that keeps transwomen from being recognized as real people. So maybe you should take a step back from the situation and reevaluate your views.

Funny. Transwomen (I should say SOME trans women since it’s hardly all of them) seem to attack the very people who DO recognise them as real people, whilst conveniently ignoring the actual sources of oppression and erasure. GTFO

And other people can recognise the difference between a self-aggrandizing blowhard who can’t even be bothered to make sure there’s a space between “trans” and “women” and an actual trans woman who is telling you to cis the fuck down, cissie.

Boy howdy, if we didn’t have you jackasses to cissplain shit to us, we wouldn’t know our asses from a hole in the ground. Go fuck yourself.

OMG I DIDNT PUT A SPACE BETWEEN THE WORDS TRANS AND WOMAN? SURELY THIS IS THE PROOF YOU NEED THAT I AM PURE EVIL! Oh, and also: trans*yawn.

First, it’s important to note that trans women have had other groups speaking over them for longer than they spoke for themselves, and this has resulted in institutional problems against them.

Second, the word “trans” in that context is considered an adjective and not a gender, so “trans women” is the correct form. Prefixing it like in “transwomen” modifies the gendered part of the word and implies they’re a separate gender from “women”.

OP is getting their ass handed to them by some awesome ladies. Yeah, the space is really fucking important.

The CDC call for redefining "normal weight" upwards.

feelinranty:

tacticalsnake:

abwatt:

thisisthinprivilege:

The study, by Katherine M. Flegal and her associates at the C.D.C. and the National Institutes of Health, found that all adults categorized as overweight and most of those categorized as obese have a lower mortality risk than so-called normal-weight individuals. If the government were to redefine normal weight as one that doesn’t increase the risk of death, then about 130 million of the 165 million American adults currently categorized as overweight and obese would be re-categorized as normal weight instead.

To put some flesh on these statistical bones, the study found a 6 percent decrease in mortality risk among people classified as overweight and a 5 percent decrease in people classified as Grade 1 obese, the lowest level (most of the obese fall in this category). This means that average-height women — 5 feet 4 inches — who weigh between 108 and 145 pounds have a higher mortality risk than average-height women who weigh between 146 and 203 pounds. For average-height men — 5 feet 10 inches — those who weigh between 129 and 174 pounds have a higher mortality risk than those who weigh between 175 and 243 pounds.

Maybe we should perhaps acknowledge that your ‘normal weight’ is what you weigh.

I’m still not comfortable with only assessing things based on sex + height + weight since that leaves out a lot of important information (e.g. build, percentage muscle vs fat, etc) and anyway, wouldn’t what a person does with themselves matter more than how much they weigh compared to their height?

I mean, the last time I weighed 160 lbs, I was rather out of shape and unhealthy, but now I weigh 160 lbs but I am rather in the opposite condition. Yet my BMI would read identical each time and therefore no distinction would be made: both points would be treated as being in the same state of health, even though that obviously was not the case!

You need to have fat on your body, since it’s there to insulate and protect your innards as well as providing energy stores in the case of injury and illness. How much your body can handle or needs varies individually, mostly because how it’s stored varies individually. Sex-Hormones can determine this to a degree, but genetics play a part too (some men put on a lot around the hips, some women mostly gain on the stomach, which goes against assumption).

And, of course, don’t assume one is unhealthy if they’re very light, since again, it varies and some people are simply tiny. It’s a problem if they’re forcing themselves to be small, but not if that’s simply how they are given healthy enough habits.

There are plenty of outward signs of health, but general weight isn’t really one of them!

Exactly what I was thinking as I read this.

Unfortunately, this is a other one of those “statistics says!” Door pieces that will fuel some tired arguments about fat people and their health - but in the opposite direction of what we usually hear.

Kind of interesting, but I’d still rather trust someone’s word on whether or not their lifestyle makes them happy and take it with all the grain that their health isn’t my concern.

In this thread: A whole bunch of people who hate fat people, but don’t think they should be included as fat. For a handy parallel, go to your local low wage employer and see classism directed at the more lumpenized members of the precariat.

(via ananiujitha)

princessfurry:

imagine how much better yuri would be if only women interested in women wrote it

Almost as good as lesbian media would be if it weren’t dominated by people who think ciswomen are more female than trans womyn.

(via ananiujitha)

alivechihiro:

things about capitalism people take for granted:

if you don’t prove your worth (and not to society at large, but specifically to the people who already have the money), you’ll literally fucking die. this is considered totally normal and not at all evidence that the system is evil

While incredibly twisted, and something I’ve been getting intimate experience with more lately, it should be noted:

That’s not capitalism. The USSR had the same criteria. That’s any society that considers paid employment or social esteem necessary to life. In an anarchist society based on mutual aid that’ll happen too. What you need is some big unfeeling bureaucracy that goes, “Do you have a pulse? Well, the law says I need to cut you a cheque.”

And that can happen in a capitalist society, it can happen in a socialist society, as long as “liquidating the parasites” isn’t a key political priority… it can’t happen in an anarchist society though, since there’s no big, unfeeling bureaucracy. A basic income is something that you need people with taxation and spending power for… by definition, a government. (It should also be noted when they did the BI pilot programme in Namibia [I think… there are a lot of just-give-cash-to-people pilots running right now, so I might be mixing details from two different success stories], people got together and pooled half their money and voted on how it should be spent, so yes, people can spontaneously form governments, but that doesn’t make them not governments).

(via ananiujitha)

Ironic since a vanishingly small proportion of trans people are straight.

Ironic since a vanishingly small proportion of trans people are straight.

(Source: terrakion, via ananiujitha)