yodelling into the abyss


Apr. 23

Anonym fragte: Do you have an opinion about Janet Mock?


If I had to describe her recent media presence in one word, it would be “disappointing.”

Her coming out in 2011 meant a great deal to me. At the time, I had been transitioning for three years and I was in something of a period of limbo in my life, having graduated from high school less than a year earlier. I saw so much of myself in Janet’s story - she and I were both harshly sanctioned for our femininity as young boys, we both doggedly pursued transition while in high school, unshakably certain that it was the right path for us, and we both had little trouble assimilating into society as women. The parallels I drew between her life and mine were significant because she was everything I wanted to be. Janet was a beautiful, accomplished woman with a great job and a boyfriend who was proud to be with her. She helped me to have genuine optimism for the future, and she was the first transsexual public figure that I related to in any meaningful way.

Janet has said that she chose to come out publicly in order to provide hope to struggling young people. In the beginning, she clearly succeeded in that - her honesty about her life, both before and after she pursued medical treatment for her dysphoria, showed that one truly can come out on the other side of transition a successful and happy person. However, the reality is that picking fights on Twitter over acknowledgements of the facts of her past and touting prostitution as an “empowering choice” for desperate teenagers is of no service to transsexual youth. At best, Janet distracts from real issues by making her primary concern forcing people to follow the convoluted language guidelines of transgender activism. At worst, she glorifies institutions that do tremendous damage to young girls and gender nonconforming boys alike. 

Either way, her behavior is a serious letdown. 


here are some really good cute pronouns (✿ ♥‿♥)

  • He/Him/His
  • She/Her/Hers
  • They/Them/Theirs

(via demisnowflake)

Apr. 19





‘Vegans are annoying so I’m going to continue contributing to the torture, rape, murder, confinement and enslavement of billions of animals just to prove my point’
- Every carnist ever.

wow it’s almost like it’s the animal industry’s fault or something

Wow it’s almost like carnists support the animal industry and don’t do a damn thing about it even though other options are available for most people.

Recovering vegan checking in. Have you read “The vegetarian myth” by Lierre Keith? It’s really amazing and will probably change your perspective, if you’re ready for that.

I became vegetarian when I was 13 after hearing the statistic that it takes 16 pounds of grain to make one pound of meat. So the only way (I thought) to sustainably feed everyone was if we all went veg.

The problem with that thinking is that ruminants can turn grass into protein and fat - no other creatures can live on cellulose. And grass is really good for the planet because it’s perennial, it stops erosion, and it builds top soil. And animal proteins and fat are ideal food for both carnivores and omnivores - with humans squarely and unequivocally in the latter category.

In contrast, the “ethical” farming of corn, rice, wheat etc mean irrigation. Irrigation eventually renders the land useless (due to salinization), it kills every animal that lived in the river before it got dammed, and it kills the wetlands and swamps at the end of the river. Moreover, growing annual grains destroys the topsoil, which causes erosion, which after a few thousand years turns the land into a desert. Remember in middle school when you learned about early agriculture in the “fertile crescent”? That’s in Iraq, and now it’s a desert.

I have a lot of ethical problems with the meat industry - factory farming is horrific, and has unintentionally invented new diseases (eg mad cow, or the degenerative neurological disease the workers on the brain harvesting machine got at the Spam factory). But I think about eating meat this way: does it make my dog “evil” that she wants to chase and kill rabbits? Obviously not, the species of predators and prey depend on each other to continue existing. Without predators the prey overproduce, destroy their environment, and then die off in mass starvation.

Moreover, looking at human domestication of animals solely as “exploitation” is short-sighted in the utmost. The ancestors of cows were being killed by predators. That’s just part of their life style. They “realized” that if they were amenable to human contact, the humans would provide them with food, water, shelter, grooming, and protection from predators. They got to live longer lives, getting fatter and reproducing more. We work for them, and they work for us. It’s the same with dogs. Now there are 50 million dogs in North America, but there are only 10,000 wolves left. Which species is the more successful?

As far as nutritional arguments in favor of vegetarianism, the fossil record doesn’t support this. The rise of agricultural civilization coincided with the rise of human skeletons with severe bone disorders. Humans are omnivorous, but we’re unable to process cellulose (perennial grasses). We’re very limited in the range of plants which we can eat. There are a lot of trace elements and vitamins that we absolutely depend on, which are found abundantly in meat, but barely (or not at all) in plant-based foods. (B12 anyone?)

In my personal life, I was vegetarian for about 13 years, and vegan for 4. I did my best to be a “serious vegan” - I cooked a lot, and ate a lot of unprocessed foods. (If you think you’re being “healthy” by eating an industrial product like a soy burger, you’re just kidding yourself.) The result of my veganism was that I was malnourished, skinny, always hungry, a heavy smoker, depressed, and an alcoholic. I fought with other people constantly.

I had a room mate who suggested I try eating meat. I was really resistant, but once I started my entire life changed. I wasn’t hungry all the time any more. I didn’t have “food cravings” any more. I was a lot more psychologically balanced, I cut out the fighting, I cut way back on drinking.

One of my bff’s recently underwent a conversion from “organic quasi-vegan” (though she ate hella corn chips - realistically I’ve never met a vegan who wasn’t a habitual junk food binger) to quasi-paleo. Now she eats (organic, grass-fed) meat every day, and she uses animal fats (tallow, lard) for cooking. She’s never been healthier or happier in her life. Her body had been ravaged by endometriosis, and she was paralyzed by depression. Now her skin glows and she’s actually the person she always had the potential to be.

We all get to make our own choices, and I don’t plan on ever discussing veganism again on tumblr (unless someone has a specific, personal question for me). So I’ll just leave this with a Lierre Keith quote that really summed it up for me:

The grass and grazers need each other as much as predators and prey. These are not one-way relationships, not arrangements of domination and subordination. We aren’t exploiting each other by eating. We are only taking turns.

If you died in the woods, animals and insects would immediately start to eat your dead body. After a few years, the plants would get in on the act - they need the nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorous stored in your bones. That’s the circle of life. It’s not always “pretty” but the belief that you can “think your way outside of it” is the ultimate in childish fantasy.

Apr. 17

On growing up as a female-assigned man and being masculine.


I think there’s basically no room in a lot of trans spaces to be a trans man who happens to be quite gender-role-typical for his gender any more. 

This varies between the space, don’t get me wrong. There’s still a hell of a lot of spaces where trans men who are anything other than suuuuper-hypermasculine are called fakers and trenders and the like, regardless of levels of dysphoria, commitment to transition, extent of existing transition, etc. And there’s more spaces where there’s rampant homophobia, as well (plenty of phalloplasty groups are pretty awful if you want to talk about how anal sex with men post-phallo works, which is a valid question because of levels of rigidity required). And when you get to the medical system in many countries, you’re flat-out not going to be able to transition if you’re not a hypermasculine straight man, or able to convincingly play the part for the duration of a doctor’s appointment. Plus there’s no consideration of how trans status works in wider spaces for men who like men, or feminine men, or both. So it’s not like this is always a problem, and I think homophobia and suspicion of non-masculine trans man is also a huge problem. And for the avoidance of doubt, I’m speaking as an effeminate bisexual man who has had to hide these things in trans spaces and in medical situations.

But at the same time, look at how we cast masculine female-assigned people in places like tumblr, and to a wider extent in ‘queer’-IDd spaces in real life as well (typically in liberal places - bits of London are a prime example, and I’d imagine plenty of liberal arts college sort of environments on the East Coast of the US are too). Instead of acknowledging the reality of lesbophobia (against actual or presumed lesbians - and it’s perfectly possible to be a female-assigned person living as a girl who solely likes and dates men, but still be assumed to be a lesbian, and treated accordingly, because you’re masculine) and the way hatred of gender-role-non-conforming women (and people perceived as women) is influenced by them not being masculine when they’re expected to be feminine, we act like that’s somehow a ‘privilege’. We extend the fact that cis men are rewarded for acting in a masculine-coded fashion to assuming that everyone is rewarded for acting in a masculine-coded fashion, and we rewrite ‘misogyny’ as ‘hatred of the feminine’. This does a massive disservice to people who experience that double layer of misogyny - first for being women (or being assumed to be women), secondly being people who do not do ‘woman’ correctly. We take trans men, who may have been forced into ‘feminine woman who likes men’ for all of their lives, and act like they’re automatically oppressive if they aren’t able to act as feminine men who like men with any degree of comfort.

And that ignores a lot of things outside of the history of gendered socialisation that trans men most likely have. ‘Masculine’ markers are also tied to class in many areas; where I’m from at least, if I reject being a masculine man then I also reject being a working-class man and a Northern man, and those are both key parts of the rest of my identity. I would imagine that the construction of ‘masculine’ also differs hugely across different cultural backgrounds. 

I’m sick of seeing an assumption that trans men magically exist in a social space devoid of any history of past socialisation. Of course these things change with transition; as I’ve got further into mine, I’ve been more and more able to act in whatever way I want without feeling like I’m conforming to the messages I received for all of my childhood and adolescence, and now I think the fact that I navigate the world as a feminine man who likes men is more relevant to my everyday social experience than my socialisation as a masculine woman who liked women. But there was a long period before transition where that wasn’t the case; where I was desperate to reject all the enforced femininity and attraction to men I grew up expected to perform; where the most important part of my social experience was the fact that I was clearly not doing ‘woman’ properly, and that made me off-limits to men as a sexual object and that made them angry. That was something I needed to navigate as I grew to be read as a man, and it’s not as simple as saying ‘well, masculine men are privileged in society, so stop whining about it and act as feminine as you can’.


WHAT THE FUCK EVEN IS BIHET? I’m seeing it everywhere, bisexual heterosexual? What ridiculous, bullshit, bi-erasing, bigoted fresh hell is this? 

"Bihet" mean "Bisexual and heterosexual", basically: e.g, saying "bihet women" refers to both bisexual and heterosexual women. While this is often used in problematic ways, I don’t think it’s necessarily erasing.

Heterosexuality and Feminism


Het women tend to do a lot to justify their attraction to men. I know, mainly because I am one of these women. The problem is that it’s hard to understand that fucking or dating men is not now, and never will be, a feminist action. Society expects/demands that we form relationships with men and devote ourselves to them; it’s not revolutionary to do as we’ve been told for centuries - in fact, it’s fairly reactionary. Men (particularly het men) are thoroughly devoid of empathy for women, and generally treat us as nothing more than objects. Men may be “good” on rare occasions, they may not be overtly misogynistic or racist or hateful, and we grasp at anything we can to make ourselves feel better about this attraction - this is a good dude, he thinks women are people, he doesn’t rape women, he doesn’t hit them, but without fail, he will fuck up. It’s not  that he’s necessarily a bad person, it’s that males have been trained since birth to not view women as human or equal, and it’s impossible to shed socialisation. I personally believe that my sexuality has been innate, but I understand that I will never know, as compulsory heterosexuality runs very deep. I have tried to block this attraction and seek political celibacy but it’s been quite difficult for me as I personally have many self esteem issues linked to my eating disorder and not having validation is a mental roadblock that is very harmful to me - I know this sounds like a cop out but it’s something I’ve been dealing with and is a big issue to me. Women need to have some cognitive dissonance to be able to be feminist and heterosexual, there’s no denying this, it’s almost impossible to find a man who is a true feminist ally and we will always bend over backwards to justify their actions. no matter how fucked up they are. I think it is possible to be heterosexual and to be a feminist, but it is in no way ideal. To be a feminist, one must always prioritise women and it is extremely difficult to do so when you’re going home to a man every night. 

However, it’s not always easy to cut ourselves off from men, only in a fantasy world can one decide one minute to have nothing to do with men. Women have many attachments to men that are often very difficult to sever - some women are financially, emotionally, physically dependent on their boyfriends/husbands and a lot of het women face domestic violence at alarming rates. It is thorough victim blaming to suggest that they brought this upon themselves by dating men and I refuse to turn my back on them. They are doing what’s been told to them since they were little girls - acquiescing to men. Some women will realise that political celibacy or lesbianism is the answer. Some women will remain with men. I think it’s very difficult to be a het feminist, but in all practicality we cannot expect women to rapidly estrange themselves from all the men in their lives, we must face the reality of the situation. Sometimes it is just not that easy. I think it’s necessary for het feminists to realise how often we are lesbophobic and how often we prioritise men. Being a radical feminist means that we must always centre our activism on women, especially marginalised women. Speaking over lesbians is something that we all have done (incl myself) and we must recognise when we are out of line and need to back off from talking about areas in which we have privilege. I think it is possible to sleep with men and still do work for women (incl but not limited to activism and working in shelters, helping women we personally know who have faced abuse/DV/rape) and I think it is a folly to suggest that we are “burning bridges” by being het. It is certainly ideal to cut off from men - women face more danger from being with men than swimming in a tank full of sharks and it’s important that we advise them of their options, as no one’s ever said it’s okay to not be with a man and to be with women instead. We cannot force them to do so, however, and it’s cruel to cut them off from our feminism as I believe our goal is to fight for all biological women and ensure they are safe. Marrying men goes against all of our ideals, fucking men is not revolutionary. Staying with men is not revolutionary. Dating men is not revolutionary, but sometimes our personal choices are important to us too. 

These are just my thoughts and I’d like to hear what everyone else thinks.

Apr. 9

Anonym fragte: hey aquila have you signed the nonbinary petition?



not all nonbinary trans folks have the same feelings on it. i don’t think nonbinary folks who are for this petition are bad, oppressive people. i’m speaking from the perspective of a cafab nonbinary, intersex black person who is a descendant of enslaved africans who were forced to assimilate to the colonial gender binary enforced on us via white supremacist conquest in the usa. this is the context i’m speaking from. the hierarchy of gender and sex binarism i have engaged with because of my history is coercive. i am not speaking as a “person of color,” i am speaking specifically from how descendants of enslaved peoples interact with colonialism in the usa.

now lemme tell ya why that’s relevant

Read More


Personally I’m real fuckin annoyed that the homestuck fandom saw Dirk, one of our TWO characters that are undoubtedly into guys, no question they are queer queer (with the humans. Horrus/Rufioh was a thing yes but many people miss/forget it. I even forgot it in the first draft of this post)

and decided to have dirkroxie and dirkjane become massive flush ships.

Here’s an idea

Leave the queer dude in the queer ship.

You know, I agree with this, except…

Except why do you say “queer”? Why not “gay”? There’s nothing wrong with the word gay. A queer person could be bisexual! But Dirk is gay—and that’s okay.

Apr. 7





The petition to legally recognize non-binary genders expired because it did not reach 100,000 signatures in time.


if we get ~4,200 tomorrow

and keep a pace of 25,000 a week

we’ll make it

as of april 7th, we have obtained 85k signatures.

We need 14k signatures by april 20th. Please sign.

(via wolfstarforever)


I guess I am an odd one because I believe in biphobia, but i dont believe in monosexual privilege for gay/lesbian people. I believe there is monosexism, but not like a privilege behind it for gay/lesbians. Biphobia is a result of monosexism so.

I just can’t see how gay/lesbians have any privilege. That said, I don’t believe bisexuals have any privilege either. Stats and research just don’t support bisexuals having privilege.

Apr. 6


some people are so queernormative they end up being heteronormative

(via hardscum)

Apr. 5


now for the boring retread: not every act is a radical act. applying lipstick is not very radical. i’m not going to make a skateboarding joke except through allusion. burning down a government office? i have no idea how you define radical, but this is a bad idea.

Apr. 4


Like, bloomersuit was saying the other day, I am also not a big fan of very specific labels for specific intersecting oppression for few reasons.  Or specifically, I don’t like to use the word “lesbophobia” instead of saying “homophobia”  or “homophobia towards gay women” or something like that. (obviously I think “sapphophobia” and “monosexism” are toilet terms used by people who live and work at the toilet store)

I mean, the biggest thing is I don’t like to use words that random people who aren’t hip to the latest anti oppression lingo don’t know.  I mean, obviously language evolves and there is often a need for specific terms, but I still feel like it’s important to be clear when you can be and I also think that you lose a lot of unconscious emotional connections when you use a more obscure term.   I mean, just, in my head saying an action is “lesbophobic”  just feels less like a condemnation than saying “that was homophobic” because we live in a culture where we at least pay lip service to the idea that “homophobic”  is a bad descriptor. 

And really, importantly in the context of dumb tumblr fights when you narrow down descriptors you lose the ability to talk about internalized homophobia or misogyny.   When bisexual women are hostile to lesbians or talk about “monosexism”  or perpetuate this idea that lesbians are retrograde or less politically down,  they are perpetuating internalized homophobia in trying to distance themselves from homophobic stereotypes.  That is important!!  They may have that complicated kind of straight privilege that bisexual women sometimes can benefit from that allows them to be more rewarded for this internalized homophobia.  But the idea that bisexual women can institutionally oppress lesbian women is absurd.  

And at the end of the day all this sniping focuses people’s energies on the shitty behavior of other lesbigay women, and then sometimes on straight women and *crickets crickets*  at straight men, who, at the end of the day,  have the greatest institutional power in terms of gender and sexuality and do the most to perpetuate misogyny and homophobia.

gay monosexuals”

what does this even mean 

März 30

this is basically what a good chunk of tumblr has turned into and it’s sad. 


this is basically what a good chunk of tumblr has turned into and it’s sad. 

(via demisnowflake)

Seite 1 von 118