He's Listening And Learning

no h8 but thats an absurdly high number for this type of question. there's not an album on earth that I wouldn't listen to in one sitting for 20k. and if you need my qualifications on this I have adhd and Im kind of an art snob

I don't think gender is something which is joyful, any more than I consider capitalism to be something which is joyful. I think, like with capitalism, there is joy to be found and had within these class systems -- joy in resistance, in autonomy, joy and beauty in the finding of love and community, and joy and pride in courage and conviction. I think these things certainly are true. but at the end of the day, to me, what gender is, at its core, is a class system of violence, an immense structure of centuries of brutal and vicious subjugation and cruelty, a machine which punishes resistance-in-the-form-of-deviance with systematic and merciless force. I am the person I am because I am true to myself and I take joy in that -- this is distinct from my "gender," or rather my "gendering," which is a process of violence, an act which is done to me, without my consent, and against my will. That which renders me woman is nothing intrinsic to myself or about my choices -- it is the violence of society which renders me woman, renders me faggot, constructs my place in gender-class, places me within a system of subjugation. I find joy in being a woman not because of gender, but in spite of gender. my pride as a transgender woman, as a faggot, is in opposition to the forces of gender which seek to brutalize me for the way that I am. gender is not something I would ever, ever seek to preserve, or sustain, something which I consider not to be a sacred institution worthy of respect, any more than capital or empire. I consider gender to be my enemy, my opponent, the iron fist within the velvet glove, the barrel of the gun pressed to the back of my skull. gender and I exist in opposition to each other, with gender hell-bent on forcing me to submit to its will, and myself hell-bent on bringing about its total and absolute obliteration. by my analysis, it is critical that any feminist, any act of resistance against gender, correctly understand who the enemy is. the enemy is gender, and it has always been gender. we as transgender women are in a unique position to understand this, by way of the profound violence we experience under the orders of gender, by the consciousness imparted to us by the unique and peculiar acts of punitive cruelty struck against us under the commands of gender. but, for us to be able to do this, for us to be able to liberate ourselves from the wretched shackles of gender, so must we understand that we cannot trap ourselves in a prison of our own making, that we cannot mistake the prison for a home, that we cannot allow ourselves to be tricked into defending that force which exists only to do us harm.

while I'm generally pretty wary of narratives that assume transmascs have a more developed feminist consciousness than cis men, I do think it's fair to say they do at least have more opportunities to gain that consciousness. I don't even think this necessarily due to their personal experience with misogyny, as while that can certainly be a factor, "suffering doesn't make you a better person, it just makes you suffer" etc. and being oppressed does not automatically result in a correct analysis or understanding of the structure of that oppression. An equally important factor is that transmascs are much more likely than cis men to be exposed to trans/feminist theory due to their proximity to queer, trans, and feminist spaces, and are therefore more likely to at least be familiar with the idea that masculinity, as it is currently constructed, is inextricably tied to oppression. this is also why I find it very misguided to interpret the pattern of transmascs distancing themselves from cis men as a sign that they are secretly not trans or whatever. instead I see this stemming from a very real internal struggle with the concept of masculinity and what it means to belong to broader social class of men. this is partially because transness is inherently antithetical to cispatriarchy and exposes a lot of its internal contradictions, but it also applies to anyone masculine aligned who also wants to support the feminist project. what masculinity is, and what it could be potentially transformed into, are very good questions that need to be grappled with, and is a discussion where transmasculinity can offer important insight. anyway tldr, I think transmascs are often uniquely positioned to both gain a greater understanding of misogyny and leverage their privilege in discussions with other men/mascs, but none of that is guaranteed by virtue of you being trans. you still have to put in the work, stop squandering your potential by whining about trans women who you think are too mean to men

gender to me is like a car i dont really want one and society would be much better if it was not structured around it. but i got one because it helps me get around and sometimes its fun to make it go fast

i couldn't make myself choose so

day one out the alembic already hustling. homunculus net worth = 1coin

i need feminism because when jesus does a magic trick it’s a goddamn miracle but when a woman does a magic trick she gets burned at the stake

Straight culture’s orientation toward heteroromantic sacrifice is also influenced by socioeconomic class. Respect for sacrifice—or sucking it up and surviving life’s miseries—is one of the hallmarks of white working-class culture, for instance, wherein striving for personal happiness carries less value than does adherence to familial norms and traditions. Maturity and respectability are measured by what one has given up in order to keep the family system going, an ethos that is challenged by the presence of a queer child, for instance, who insists on “being who they are.” Queerness—to the extent that it emphasizes authenticity in one’s sexual relationships and fulfillment of personal desires—is an affront to the celebration of heteroromantic hardship. As Robin Podolsky has noted, “What links homophobia and heterosexism to the reification of sacrifice . . . is the specter of regret. Queers are hated and envied because we are suspected of having gotten away with something, of not anteing up to our share of the misery that every other decent adult has surrendered to.”

For many lesbian daughters of working-class straight women, opting out of heterosexuality exposes the possibility of another life path, begging the question for mothers, “If my daughter didn’t have to do this, did I?” Heterosexuality is compulsory for middle-class women, too, but more likely to be represented as a gift, a promise of happiness, to be contrasted with the ostensibly “miserable” life of the lesbian. The lesbian feminist theorist Sara Ahmed has offered a sustained critique of the role of queer abjection in the production of heteroromantic fantasies. In Living a Feminist Life, she notes that “it is as if queers, by doing what they want, expose the unhappiness of having to sacrifice personal desires . . . for the happiness of others.” In The Promise of Happiness, Ahmed argues, “Heterosexual love becomes about the possibility of a happy ending; about what life is aimed toward, as being what gives life direction or purpose, or as what drives a story.” Marked by sacrifice, misery, and failure along the way, the journey toward heterosexual happiness (to be found with the elusive “good man”) remains the journey.

Jane Ward, The Tragedy of Heterosexuality

Imagine being this fucking dumb.