Is War Machine, the mixed martial arts fighter accused of brutally beating his ex, a Men’s Rights Activist?
The “hero” the Men’s Rights movement deserves?
If the Men’s Rights movement is looking for a celebrity endorser, I think I’ve found just the guy for them: the mixed martial arts fighter, and erstwhile porn actor, War Machine, currently sitting in jail on charges of brutally beating and attempting to kill his ex-girlfriend, porn star Christy Mack.
Men’s Rights activists should be able to look past these criminal charges; after all, as they remind us all the time, women are forever falsely accusing innocent men of all sorts of terrible things.
And in so many ways War Machine is perfect for them. An MMA fighter, he’s already only one letter away from being an MRA. A misogynistic asshole with rage issues, he’ll have no trouble fitting in with the Men’s Rights crowd. And, especialy important for a movement that has a lot of trouble getting any good PR, he’s a bit more comfortable on camera than the Paul Elams and Dean Esmays of the world, with experience on television (on the reality show The Ultimate Fighter: Team Hughes vs. Team Serra), and in seven films (albeit pornographic ones).
Best of all: he’ll need no ideological education from what A Voice for Men likes to call Fuck Shit Up University. War Machine – real name Jonathan Koppenhaver – is already an outspoken proponent of many of the Men’s Rights Movement’s core beliefs.
Consider these selections from a little Men’s Rights manifesto War Machine wrote a few years ago during a previous stint behind bars, serving time for felony assault after two bloody bar fights. His rant, which a friend posted to the internet, would fit right in with the sort of stuff we’ve seen regularly posted on the Men’s Rights subreddit, or The Spearhead, or A Voice for Men. I’ve bolded some of the Men’s Rightsiest bits:
The oppression of MEN is worse than oppression of Jews in Nazi germany, worse than the slavery of Blacks in early America…
There has always been the oppressor and always the oppressed. Before, it was blatant … NOW the oppressor has learned to disguise his evil. You can see man, but you can not see MEN. How easy it is to oppress a minority that is invisible to the eye! How genius of the oppressor! And what a better target too! …
Men challenge injustice from Government, MEN fight for their Constitutional rights, that are slowly being taken away every year. …
And they don’t just oppress us by making more laws and taking away more freedom, they are far more clever than that! Ask yourself what your REAL dream was?? If you gave up on this dream, why? Because of the brainwashing of the Government, that’s why! They taught you to “play it safe.” They told us a responsible man has ONE wife, a house, good credit, good job, and kids. How are you supposed to chase your dreams while maintaining all of that!?
Men are supposed to take risks and be aggressive! What accomplishments have ever come of a man scared to risk it all!? None!? Where would the world be? Still ‘flat!’ Still ‘Earth at the center of the universe!’
If any of you have your Men’s Rights Bingo cards out, I’m guessing you might already be close to scoring a bingo. We’ve got a comparison to slavery that could have come straight from the pages of A Voice for Men, a marriage-is-death-to-male-dreams rant that could have been borrowed from any MGTOW forum, and an evo-psych-esque argument that men are the true risk-takers and the world’s real innovators.
And I don’t think War Machine would have much trouble with Paul Elam’s “Bash a Violent Bitch Month,” either.
[I]t’s Christmas day and I’m laying in my bunk wondering “Why in the hell do American men get married!?” … If your wife is being a bitch you can’t slap her, if your wife is yelling at you, God forbid you yell back … Next thing you know it will be illegal to fuck your wife! LMAO! Maybe then, MEN in this country will get the fucking hint and MOVE! This country forces you to be a bitch!
In another online posting, War Machine touched on another Men’s Rights hobbyhorse, the notion that the justice system is stacked against men:
[L]ook at the prisons, they are FULL of MEN, not women. Are men “evil” and women not? Or do the laws target and attempt to restrict NATURAL MEN’S BEHAVIOR? How many of the HEROES in American history would avoid prison if they lived today? Davey Crockett? Thomas Jefferson? David Bowie? General Grant & General Lee? Shit, George Washington. … Laws target MEN and men’s behavior. Women want to bitch and cry about their rights and equality… LMAO! MEN are the ones locked away like animals, while women run free!
Someone might have to explain to War Machine that David Bowie is not actually a famous American HERO but a famously androgynous British musician who once recorded an album called “Heroes.” (Mr. Machine may be thinking of James Bowie, a well-known 19th century American frontiersman and slave trader, and the guy the Bowie Knife is named after.)
But other than that, he seems ready to go.
There is, of course, that whole attempted murder charge to deal with.
It’s true the Men’s Rights Movement has had few problems in the past rallying behind men with histories of violence. But War Machine might be a harder sell as a Men’s Rights hero. His alleged attack on Mack left her with a cracked rib, a ruptured liver, numerous broken bones, missing teeth and her eyes swollen shut. (See here for photos of her injuries; obviously this link is NSFW and could be triggering.)
While Mr. Machine denies attacking Mack, he joked to a TV host last year that if she were to leave him “I would just kill her” and get a tattoo saying “Rest In Peace” above the tattoo of her name he has on his neck.
And several hours after allegedly trying to murder her, War Machine tweeted this lovely message about his ex:
War Machine does seem to be at a low point in his life. Even aside from the charges he faces, and the time he seems likely to serve, his career in porn is almost certainly over. The “Alpha Male” clothing line he helped start wants nothing to do with him. Nobody but the prison system seems to want this guy.
In other words: Men’s Rights activists, this is your chance! War Machine may not be the, er, hero you want. But he’s certainly the hero you deserve.
Posted on August 21, 2014, in a voice for men, alpha males, antifeminism, domestic violence, entitlement, excusing abuse, incoherent rage, men created civilization, men invented everything, men who should not ever be with women ever, MGTOW, misogyny, MRA, paul elam, post contains sarcasm, reactionary bullshit, red pill, violence and tagged anti-feminism, antifeminism, christy mack, domestic violence, men's rights, misogyny, MRA, red pill, violence against women, war machine. Bookmark the permalink. 1,454 Comments.
Won’t let me join because it’s private!
@Viscaria:
What user name are you using?
Viscaria. I wasn’t feeling terribly creative XD
Try joining now. I might have to add everyone manually if I keep the room private… Worthwhile, or should I make it public and make it easier to join?
I think the thing to do to keep it private is to private message me when you log in. My user name is “kirbywarp” obviously, you can find it in the English Game Room user list. I think if you right click on my name, you can send me a message. I’ll add you to the user list when you do.
I would join but I really suck at those sorts of games. I don’t think any training, short of hours and hours, would help me. :(
@pallygirl:
There’s a chatbox, so feel free to hang out and watch if you want.
Right now it’s just kirby trying to teach my dumb butt how to play. You could definitely join!
Have fun playing Go y’all!
Lindwormlady — was that meant as “ah, I see what you’re discussing” or “I know what the problem here is”? Cuz the former is totally fine, the latter, yeah, this is about way more than if a penis can be on a female body.
General — I’ll readily say and penis/vagina can be on a non-male/non-female body, but, respectively, they’re medically male and female anatomy. Now, is medicine cis centric? Oh fuck yes. But I don’t think the question is whether penis = male body so much as whether penis = male body part. Cuz, imho, it’d be denying biology to say that a penis isn’t considered a bit of male anatomy. But that doesn’t mean that a trans woman with a penis has a male body, just that she has a body part that’s male, or that she has male genitalia. The latter, I think, is the problem here — that lesbians, in general, are not interested in sexytimes that involve male anatomy. Whether we call a trans woman’s body male (not okay with that), or her penis a male part (meh), or say she has genitals that are traditionally considered male (my preferred phrasing), doesn’t matter as to whether any particular lesbian is interested in sexytimes that involve a penis. If she doesn’t want penis related sexytimes, prolly doesn’t matter who that penis is attached to (I mean, she might find someone who breaks that rule, seems to me plenty of exclusively gay people, and straight people, have the rare exception, but yeah, exception is the key word there)
Wow, slow typing was slow! I guess just go with “enjoy your game” and leave the rest for latter! I should be swearing at JS anyways.
Apparently my Java plugin is out of date. And my DSL is flaky. I’m working on it.
My security settings are blocking the applet.
Argenti, I agree with the way you’re characterizing it. But I definitely cannot and will not agree with misgendering people.
Oh, and good luck with the axolotl. I hope you’ll share pictures.
I’m having the security settings issue now too.
thumbs up to Argenti, thank you for that explanation.
Hum. Isn’t there a way to just hit “ok” on some java dialogue to let it run?
I’m on linux playing on a non-webstart version, so I can’t help too much.
Puddleglum, can I join you in the confused corner?
We are just talking about a body part, right? A part of the body does not make the whole body, so I’m not down with saying that a trans woman is male bodied or a trans man is female bodied.
No one’s body is solely defined by a tiny little bit of them, right?
They kind of just have (if they haven’t done specific surgeries that kind of make the whole genitalia discussion null) a part that is traditionally a male or female sexual characteristic.
This is so confusing.
Am I anywhere close to getting this right if I say:
“Men have male bodies, but some men can have female genitalia on their male body.”
or conversely
“Women have female bodies, but women can have male genitalia.”
Or, am I just being ridiculously, horribly insensitive?
I’m so confused right now.
Are sex and gender distinct, or are they the same thing?
… I’m not really finding any agreement anywhere on the web in my side-tab googling. So, that doesn’t really give me much hope of there being a consensus here. I’m not even sure there has to be or should be a concensus here.
Maybe this is one of the things where we just don’t argue with what people want to label themselves, and? Blargh.
Confusion.
This is probably coming from truly horrific amounts of privilege, but some days I really, really wish humans were both genderless and sexless and reproduced by budding.
… only, we’d still have some humans who would be firmly convinced that budding off your left stalk was morally inferior, or something.
Fudgesicles.
Should have refreshed. I think I’m kind of roughly going along with Argenti, maybe?
I am trying to play around with my security settings, but nothing’s working. I just keep getting this stubborn dialog box popping up that says my security settings have blocked an untrusted application from running. And doesn’t offer any suggestions as to what else I might want to do about it. Stupid Windows.
I’m agreeing with everything gillyrosebee and Argenti have said.
I definitely have thoughts and feelings to express on everything that has happened and I want to make sure that I take the time to write crystal clearly and not create any misunderstandings or misinterpretations, and I don’t have the time to do that right now. I just wanted to pop in say how glad I am that this conversation is happening because I think it’s pretty obvious that it needed to happen. I also hope that this community comes out of this conversation intact, but regardless of how it turns out, I’d rather that than to have members gritting their teeth and swallowing their feelings just to keep us together.
Grumpycatisgirl, does this page help at all?
http://www.java.com/en/download/help/jcp_security.xml
You might need to make kgs a trusted site.
Alright, I did have enough time during work to see brooked give a response to me that was not unlike cassandrakitty’s to Ally, so I had the nearly the whole work day to think about this. (I spilled so much shit on paper work today, and had like 10 coworkers ask what’s on my mind. “Ummmmmmmmmnothing”)
There’s a miscommunication here. I am not, have not ever, and will not ever, argue that anyone does not deserve their own sexual autonomy. Every person is the dictator for their own person-country (or something, that’s the best metaphor I can think of on short notice.) If you can tell me what language specifically contradicted that belief, it would help me understand where you’re coming from, and probably save my forehead from a few facepalm marks.
Regardless, I believe I’ve found the root of the problem.
Bear with me for a moment, this will take a few steps, and as I refine these thoughts further, perhaps I will find a way to condense them into a more succinct format:
Consider, for a moment, that in non-intimate contexts, any individual has their sexual desirability measured on their gender (i.e. the combination of biological features that are tickling your fancy plus fashion/attitude/etc.). It seems possible that an observer, based on a stranger’s gender, might internally express sexual interest in that stranger. If you were to learn later that said attractive individual was a pre-op trans person, it is entirely conceivable that you might retract said sexual interest–this is all within the realm of the “dictator of your person-country.”
So, consider this: lesbian is a simplification of “women attracted to women,” yes? In social aspects, trans-positive feminism would not deny transwomen their womanhood, and that they are thus “women.” It is absolutely acceptable to consider a person sexually incompatible for any reason you damn well like, but that either means that “lesbian” doesn’t mean what it should mean, or [i] that feminist discourse lacks the tools to discuss gender variant sexuality. [/i]
Which is true, actually, since terms for gender variant sexuality do exist, but are still framed from the perspective of the transfolk: gynephilic, androphilic, and ambiphilic. The meanings are self-evident for anyone with a basis in queer terminology. (For anyone not getting it, the “literal” translations are vagina-lover, penis-lover, and both/all-lover).
If we accept the separation of gender identity and sexual orientation, it seems only logical to me that a similar separation between attraction-of-gender and attraction-of-sex be acknowledged. And yet, if I recall correctly, you yourself identify as bisexual, so trying to apply the above terms to you still doesn’t yield the correct statement (you’re “ambiphilic” by that logic, yet consider trans women sexually incompatible), and rather highlights the issue of feminist discourse not being equipped with the terminology to describe gender variant sexuality. It is, dare I say it, a privilege, to have the language to describe oneself at all, never mind in neutral terms.
If such a system is ever conceived, it wouldn’t carry with it the unfortunate implications that trans women aren’t “real” lesbians because they exist beyond the scope of compatibility for many cis lesbians. It would seem to reflect a reality: That for those of us invested in this debate, genitals matter to us, and to our concepts of sexuality. The model also would not stigmatize any particular combination of outcomes, but would allow a way to communicate them as if they were plot points on a grid.
All of this is, however, contingent on being trans-positive in the first place. Though I think wholesale adherents to Brennan’s creed do not stay on this blog for long.
Until such a system exists, maintaining that “I am a lesbian, I consider trans women sexually incompatible” feels like “trans women aren’t real lesbians.” I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS ETHICALLY SOUND TO BELIEVE, I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID. I absolutely see how the other half of that thought reads as “so you should have sex with me to validate my identity.” I SEE THAT, AND I AGREE THAT IT IS WRONG. So for the love of dog, stop bringing up tumblr. Nobody on tumblr (except “maybe” Laci Green, and even she makes me cringe now and then) knows what the fuck they’re doing. And as an academic, being associated with the people on tumblr is just a little extra salt that I don’t need. The only thing that I share with them–with any trans person–is the dysphoria, but even that is variable.
The concession that I am practically begging for is that we don’t have the words to describe the interactions of my sexual agency with that of most people in a matter-of-factly tone that doesn’t compromise my identity politics. Either my theoretical lesbian card is being held, questioned, or revoked, because my participation is commonly refused on principle; or the meaning of lesbian has changed/needs to change; or we need a new way to communicate this scenario that doesn’t involve dropping our trousers and taking a massive shit on either of our self esteems.
I think this is my fourth attempt to frame this issue. I apologize to brooked for pissing her off, but my head will literally explode if the above somehow gets distorted into “don’t police my sexuality.” I’m not policing anyone’s sexuality, I’m asking for a word that provides inclusion with a sexual identity that carries 1) neither the implication that I’m not a part of it; 2) nor that I actually require sex with any of its members to be part of it.
@cassandrakitty, the transfolk exploiting Liberal Guilt (TM) to get sex out of women may very well have residual socialization. That, in itself, is not an unreasonable statement. But just as you accuse my previous attempts to communicate my thoughts as “teetering on the edge of Liberal Guilt rape,” bringing up the socialized-as-a-man thing teeters on the edge of “but you’re not a [i] real [/i] woman.” I won’t ever insist that any topic is off-limits for discussion, but that conversation is better saved for someone who doesn’t have something personal at stake–that is, both you and I. Your remark was bitter, and petty, and misdirected, because neither I nor Ally are responsible for the harm inflicted on your friends by a trans woman. It’s needlessly cruel to tell a person who already feels rejected, invisible, and unimportant that the one thing they hate in themselves so strongly is the same thing that justifies their exclusion. That we’re on this blog means we’re examining our male socialization. I’m constantly kicking my own ass over it, questioning everything about my personality, practically dismantling my own self-esteem piece by piece, grilling it and hating it and hating me because of it. That’s the best I can do for you. I don’t know what else I can give. I don’t *have* anything else to give. When I bring up the possibility of the role of socialization in this scenario, it’s because I’m not just at war with my body, it’s because [i] I’m at war with my own fucking mind, [/i] and it’s hard not to see everything that way.
I think this is my last attempt to frame my opinion on this. If anyone disagrees, I’d really appreciate specifics, because without those specifics, I’m never going to figure out where you’re coming from. Because that’s what this post is. I’m describing what feels like the metaphorical bouncer drawing that stringy-thingy across the post and saying “you’re not allowed in.” I feel like I’ve done an adequate job of stepping out of my shoes and into yours to explain it in a way that makes sense to you–if it didn’t work, I’m probably in the wrong shoes, and you can help me get into the right ones. But there’s also this understanding that you might put a foot or two in my shoes.
With socks on. Otherwise that would be unsanitary.
Whelp, turns out I don’t know how to format text on this blog, and now I look like a moron.
Also, I’m going back to just thinking about go.
40 minutes and counting.
Forgive me if I’m just ignorant here, but if we acknowledge that trans women are women, use female pronouns for them, advocate for their inclusion in women-only spaces, how are we misgendering them if we also acknowledge that they produce male gametes (which is, as far as I understand it, how science differentiates between male and female)? I thought biological sex =/= gender, so why is it now woman = female? And I mean, wasn’t that the point? That our biological sex doesn’t determine who we are as people, that we can identify as any gender we want or none at all, that we can all just be taken on our own merits as people, but still get necessary medical attention that suits our biological sex. Is it that biological sex is as much a construct as gender? I know Ally said exactly that a lot, but I hadn’t heard it from anyone else, and I’m not sure I agree with that.
I had the specific java unable to run anything flaw, where it flatly denied me access and everything.
My solution was to open the command prompt, type java
this gets you “configure java”
( or just search for “configure java”
then click that
click security
click “edit Site list”
add “http://files.gokgs.com”
click add
then go to http://www.gokgs.com/ and download the client
run that
works, since it’s running in the client and not in the blocked java interface access.
Google tells me it’s some sort of source thing with Java and KGS Go being Very Very Old.
http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=9213
Ugh, I really am ready to give up. But here, I think, is part of the issue.
Some people, when describing their sexual orientation, seem to be referring to attraction-to-gender, and some seem to be referring to attraction-to-sex. These people are almost guaranteed to be talking past each other. Many cis lesbians (especially the ones experiencing this conflict with trans lesbians), when calling themselves lesbians, are referring to attraction-to-sex, not attraction-to-gender. If sex and gender are different things, this does not mean that they are calling trans women men. But that is how it’s being perceived. From their perspective, they are being told that attraction-to-sex is no longer allowed, and must be replaced with attraction-to-gender, which is what they are pushing back against.
I, otoh, am tired of banging my damn head against wall, desk, and every other available flat surface, so I am out for now. Maybe for good.
Did the security thing fix it for people?
Fibinachi, as you know by now, the security thing did indeed fix it for me! I had to add two different URLs to the “allowed” list and it was annoying but it was worth it! I had fun playing Go with you. Have a good night.
@cassandrakittey Don’t leave now! We’ve found it! We’ve found the problem! That’s progress! THIS IS REALLY GOOD NEWS. We’re mending the divide.
Maybe let the idea simmer for a bit, see if anyone identifies other obstacles… but this is the “resolution” step, yeah? The notion that the separation of attraction be acknowledged–wouldn’t that solve the “talking past” issue?
I think maybe this is also part of the issue:
If I’m reading this right, the term “lesbian” simplies more to “woman attracted to a subset of women” just like “cishet woman” simplifies to “woman attracted to a subset of men”, and I could do more examples but I think two suffice.
I identify more towards the cishet end of the spectrum, but that doesn’t mean that I’m into having sex with any bloke that comes along because there are certain subsets of characteristics that mean I won’t be interested. Ever. Even if I was single. For example, if the bloke was an arsehole, he could be the most attractive man ever and I wouldn’t be interested at all. Chewing with their mouth open. For physical attributes, back hair really is a no go for me. Does that mean I have to hand in the cishet part of my woman card? No. In my refusal to be interested in any of these types of men, am I denying the men their menhood? No. Just because I’m mainly interested in men, I have not given every man everywhere the right to my body.
Why are people still pushing this idea that biology isn’t real? That’s what this is reading like and Cassandra’s not the only one who’s had it up to here with being told in effect that women – the ones in female bodies – don’t have actual physical sexual orientation and attraction.
Fucking well done, managing to drive her out twice in the space of one thread. I’m not going anywhere, I’m riled about this. So much for listening to our voices.
pallygirl, I must be a TERF too, if even suggesting that some women have a male body or male body parts is a terrible, transmisogynistic thing.
Soem thoughts, absent quotes because I don’t remember who said what.
LBT: he appears to have unfollowed me on Tumblr (as did Ally, but that I expected) and combined with his not responding to people backchannel, I’m afraid he has indeed bailed on us. There were a lot of people I would have missed had they left, but his departure is one of the saddest to me.
Re “male” bodies: I find the concept of “assigned male/female at birth” (AMAB/AFAB) to be really useful. That way you can discuss biological/physical things, like medical issues or being a lesbian based on sex rather than gender attraction, in a way that doesn’t misgender or mis-sex people.
Not fully caught up and have to get back to work. Sorry if I repeated anyone, and I hope you all had fun playing Go.
@pallygirl You’re rehashing the implication that cislesbians must have sex with trans lesbians. There are additional steps right after that quote. It’s a transitory step meant to highlight the inadequacy of the language that is leading to frustration and miscommunication.
There’s also this implication that those qualities are equivalent to a person’s sex. Intercourse is *about* their genitals. You’re not have sex with a bloke’s back hair, and if you are, that’s likely a specific fetish, which will ideally lead to some orgasmic action. The notion is that this theoretically passing trans lesbian is considered attractive until it is known that she doesn’t possess a vagina. And then we try to talk about this, and one party is employing the word “lesbian” to mean one thing, and the other party is employing “lesbian” to mean another, and everybody’s hurt and nobody’s saying what they mean.
That’s the problem.
@kitteh Who’s pushing that idea? I don’t understand. My thesis was about miscommunication.
No, coffee, we haven’t, because you identified the problem and then immediately went on to brush is aside, at which point…seriously, I can’t afford to buy a new desk right now, and this can’t be good for my blood pressure.
@cassandrakitty How have I brushed it aside?
I’m trying to understand. I’ve been mulling this over all day, and I thought I had nailed it. What is inadequate?
Like, seriously, here is what I have seen happen
Cis lesbian – I am not attracted to people with penises.
Trans lesbian – Then you’re a transmisogynist – why are you calling me a man?
Cis lesbian – I am not calling you a man, I am just telling you that I am only attracted to people who are female (sex), rather than to everyone who identifies as a woman (gender)
Trans lesbian – You are a TERF, and also stop calling me male
Like, if the words male and female are either forbidden or are to be used interchangeably with man and woman, how are we supposed to talk about this? The way the language is being framed makes the conversation impossible.
Except with a lot more swearing.
Okay, I’m not cassandrakitty, but I do have some thoughts, many of which boil down to the fact that I agree with you that the terminology at use here is unhelpful, problematic and messy. Of course, I don’t quite understand how you can acknowledge that but then try to construct your argument around trying to make those terms fit and do work they might be wholly unable to do.
I agree with pallygirl that a much more useful and accurate construction of the term ‘lesbian’ might indeed be better expressed as women attracted to a subset of women, a stance that is reinforced by my experience that for many lesbians the mere presence of a vagina (“gynephilia” in your construction) may or may not be necessary, but it is certainly not sufficient. I have inhabited a female body from birth and I have often found that, despite that fact, many lesbians who I might find attractive from the perspective of both gender and sex, might not find me sexually compatible because I am not a lesbian and therefore do not fall within the scope of desirable sexual partners for them.
It’s much the same as your first example, which I find myself in complete agreement with: someone might find me initially attractive, but then, upon understanding me better, may find that, not only am I not considered sexually compatible, they no longer even find me attractive. No amount of insisting that I am, in fact, a real woman and therefore I technically fit within the scope of lesbian attraction can do anything to shift this perspective, and it would be (pardon the somewhat fussy term but it’s really apt here) impertinent to even try to do so.
I think part of the issue is that I am being confused by your wording. By attractive, I think you mean “viewed as a prospective sexual partner”.
But doesn’t this also boil down to what I said earlier, about how being mainly cishet, I have not given my permission to all men to fuck me? If you were a cishet male, you wouldn’t know ahead of time whether I was interested sexually in you or not. I’m not seeing how this type of signifier defines precisely what people others are interested in having sex with.
Depending on the acts. but getting to the intercourse phase involves a lot of other tick boxes as well, not just bloody genitals. Or, being mainly cishet, have I given my permission to all men with penises to fuck me?
On the issue of exclusion – so, I’m bi. Do you know how many lesbians refuse to date women who’re bi? Lots and lots. Even when they think we’re pretty and charming and all that jazz. Is that unfair of them? Well, no, because they get to set their own boundaries and have their own preferences. It may hurt my feelings (and sometimes has), but hey, that’s my shit to deal with, not a sign that they need to change their preferences.
Also, on “attractive”, that’s not necessarily the same thing as “want to have sex with”?
coffee, this entire side of the conversation comes from the bullshit notion that lesbians have to be willing to consider women-with-penises as sexual partners. Not “It doesn’t bother me that X is trans, but she’s the exception” but as a goddamn general rule. That shit is out there, there are people who are violently angry that lesbians don’t want to fuck penises.
Pushing this is so fucking close to “who do you believe, me or your lying eyes?” for me. It’s never going to be my personal issue, because I’m not bi or lesbian, but I’ve had the “You should consider X, Y or Z sexually, even if it’s only theoretical” shit over the years, and it fucking sickens me. Regardless of whether it’s coming from men or trans women, it screams of entitlement. FFS, sexual access is not a human rights issue. It’s not any sort of right.
Totally missed the previous conversation on the other thread, and don’t have much to add other than what’s already been said about no-one’s sexual preferences should be up for debate, for any reason, ever. My trans women friends are straight so no insight there, other than no-one is pressuring straight cis guys to examine their preferences (as has been astutely pointed out by others), especially not trans women for obvious reasons.
And just because it seems ok to do so now, what kittehs said:
is why I was bothered, and what I thought the initial tiff was about… that ppl were just fed up with it.
I read and lurk far more than I participate so never wanted to say anything – but as much as I like Ally, lately this was more and more the case and it was really frustrating, to the point I’d skip most of her posts and/or decide not to contribute, just in case I set something off. I chalked it up to her being hyper-focused on her own issues right now (we’ve all been there)… but her responses in this thread, that disagreement with her implied subconscious transphobia, was IMO not ok.
Anyway, just wanted to let cassandra and others who felt ‘evil’ that they weren’t alone, and I’m sorry I didn’t back you up more. I was pissed off and felt like I didn’t have the right to since I’m not a regular, and also that (at the time) it was pretty pointless to even bother… it was a bit intimidating to me, which surprised me.
Also – glad you’re all staying, hope Ally decides to come back eventually, and am very sad if LBT doesn’t come back. This has really sucked. Glad that open discussion about the issue at hand is happening now though (and I’ll go back to lurking, since I have nothing useful to add to it that hasn’t already been said!)
[quote]I read and lurk far more than I participate so never wanted to say anything – but as much as I like Ally, lately this was more and more the case and it was really frustrating, to the point I’d skip most of her posts and/or decide not to contribute, just in case I set something off. I chalked it up to her being hyper-focused on her own issues right now (we’ve all been there)… but her responses in this thread, that disagreement with her implied subconscious transphobia, was IMO not ok.
Anyway, just wanted to let cassandra and others who felt ‘evil’ that they weren’t alone, and I’m sorry I didn’t back you up more. I was pissed off and felt like I didn’t have the right to since I’m not a regular, and also that (at the time) it was pretty pointless to even bother… it was a bit intimidating to me, which surprised me.[/quote]
QFT
the blockquote monster sabotaged Firefox formatting bar on purpose, *shakes fist at sky*
OK, so, calmer now and with some food in my belly – coffee, do you think that reframing things the way I pulled out of your comment and then added some commentary to would work, from the trans side of things? Does that de-escalate this mess and give people a way to talk to each other without everyone getting stressed and hurt and angry? Because what I’m seeing from lesbians on the other side of this conflict is that they don’t hate trans women, or think they’re men, it’s just that when they say they’re lesbians they’re describing an attraction to sex, not gender.
I think you are fundamentally correct here, but I don’t think you will find what seems like the perfectly logical response very satisfying.
Yes, sex is partially about genitals, but it is not solely about genitals, and for that reason, though I see what you were trying to do, I really reject your definition of me (a bisexual woman) as simply “ambiphilic” (attracted to both male and female genitals). I’m not. There are plenty of people I’m not attracted to, whole hoards of people, and quite often that distinction is based on secondary characteristics which you are correct are not *strictly* sexual but which still have bearing on sexuality.
I guess what I am saying is that I fundamentally reject the idea that I could, or should be expected to separate attraction of gender and attraction of sex. That is not and has never been my experience, which is why (if I weren’t on guard for just such a reaction on my part), as a bisexual woman (though not the particular one you were addressing) I would find the statement
really offensive, as not only does it carry an implicit judgement that my use of ‘bisexual’ as a self identity is incorrect (since you construct it to mean that I am attracted to both standard sets of genital equipment* and therefore should be equally sexually available to anyone, regardless of genitals) it also carries with it a sense that you are trying to catch me (well, not me specifically, but you know) out on something you see as hypocrisy. “You SAY you are bisexual, but you still make a distinction which I find unjustifiable and which is incompatible with my understanding of a bisexual person as being willing to engage in sex with either set of genitals” is how this reads to me, even when I am trying mightily to give you the benefit of scant doubt.
*I’m not comfortable with the binarism that I’m resorting to here, but I need it for shorthand in this case, otherwise these comments are going to get even longer
No. It is unreasonable for you to expect everyone else to walk on eggshells because you are doing enough self examination so is you act the misogynist thats just something for you to work on not for anyone else to mention.
The same argument is made regarding allowances being made for certain people speaking “from pain” while the rest of us are assumed to be speaking from, what was it, malice. No, bitter pettiness. Nope.
THIS. I’ve had it too, and I nor anyone else has to justify their sexual preferences to anyone.
*back to lurk mode*
And also, yeah, secondary sexual characteristics, overall body type, and a whole bunch of other stuff also has an impact on this, so bisexual also does not mean open to all comers (and in fact that’s a very nasty stereotype that most bi women in particular take exception to because it’s often part of the justification given for sexually assaulting us).
Nail, meet Head.
Data vampires ate my response again grumble grumble
Okay, I’m still confused. Why are TERF and “forbidding of male/female” getting thrown around again? When I was recounting my experiences of lesbian exclusion, it wasn’t from being considered incompatible, it was that lesbian was being used to refer to “attraction-to-sex”, which by definition, excludes trans lesbians, on account of being AMAB. How is that “you need to question your preferences”? To me it looks more like “you need to question the outcomes of your language.”
TERF and forbiddance of male/female have not been brought up by me once. I get that this has been your past experience with this issue, but that is not what I’m arguing, especially since the first step in that entire post was about the acknowledgement that ANYONE CAN REFUSE CONSENT FOR ANY REASON AT ANY TIME. It’s not about *sexual* rejection, it’s that the terms are causing unintentional harm by being erasive of trans lesbians, as long as the term “lesbian” is used to refer to “attraction-by-sex” without a gender variant equivalent to exist beside it.
Seriously. I have Never. Once. Said. that a person’s anatomy is an unacceptable reason to deem them incompatible. Where are you getting this from? How many times do I have to say this? I don’t give a fucking shit about what people on tumblr are arguing — that is not what I am saying, or if it looks like that’s what I’m saying, you’re going to have to show me *where* you’re reading that, or else I will never identify these implicit assumptions that are “evidently” intrinsic to an argument about language.
OK, so, what would you like the gender-variant term to be? If that’s the chosen solution than it’s not my place to choose that term, since it doesn’t apply to me.
The reason that male/female being forbidden came up is that earlier in this thread that was described as misgendering.
THIS.
And all the yesses to what cassandra said about lesbians not wanting to date us bi women. Rejection sucks, but there’s not a lot you can do about it.
@gillyrosebee Argh, no, I was pointing out that ambiphilic is inadequate word, but it’s the running development for descriptions of gender variant sexuality. The point is that they DON’T work. I’m not advocating for its use, and you’re right to be offended by it.
@thebewilderness So cassandra gets a free pass for weaponizing a nearly universal insecurity of transfolk, but she gets to use the exploitation of her friends’ insecurities about being trans-positive allies as an excuse to be angry about the initial discussion?
You’ll forgive me if I find that obtuse, coming from a community that exists to expose those kinds of tactics in antifeminists.
And is that probably partially socially constructed to? Yeah, probably, but in any given situation that doesn’t really matter, because if she doesn’t want to date us, then she doesn’t want to date us. End of story.
Ambiphilic makes it sound like we’re attracted to frogs, so yeah, let’s not use that term.
@coffee: I don’t really read Tumblr (apart from three things, one of which is Confused Cats Against Feminism) so I still don’t follow the Tumblr references which you make.
When you now say:
Isn’t this what you meant by:
I’m really confused about what you’re trying to argue. Is it:
A. it would be great if we could have some more specific terms so that trans women lesbians and cis women lesbians don’t have mixed message conversations that otherwise might have led to sex
or is it:
B. all lesbians should be attracted to lesbian trans women?
Because I can’t follow what you’re actually trying to argue.
If it is A, then I think there is still the issue that just because Person C is generally interested in a particular type, that doesn’t mean Person C will be interested in Person D who happens to fall into that particular type. Because I don’t think that sexual interest can be defined on generalities due to the volume of cases that are incorrectly classified.
Excuse me? Her friends insecurities–do you by any chance mean the friends who coerced into sex/raped?
@pallygirl In the second quote, I am stating a fact: “the sexual interest is withdrawn.” This was an extension of the long post I made earlier, in which I follow up that statement of fact, like three or four times, with “that’s their right.”
I have always been championing sexual autonomy, and I have been *trying* to argue that the issue of exclusion is coming from different implications when a word is used one way versus another, NOT that trans lesbians are entitled to sex from cis lesbians. I probably could’ve shaved a few inches off my post today if I didn’t keep repeating that.
I am arguing A.
Also, in terms of the the topic of male socialization, the reason that came up the way it did is that Ally has been very firmly instructing the people on this blog that trans women did not and could not have received any male socialization for quite some time. Actually a lot of the stuff where you’re going “wait, huh, I never said that” is probably a reaction to things that she said.
“… only, we’d still have some humans who would be firmly convinced that budding off your left stalk was morally inferior, or something.”
*dies* I am slain! But yeah, I think you’re saying the same thing with less words, gods know pithy and I are not cozy bedfellows!
Axolotl update! My tank held at 26°C without the fan or bubbler going, so hopefully with the extra evaporation it’ll go down a couple degrees and then it’s axolotl time! Plus, the CO2 for the plants isn’t hooked up yet, so that’ll cause more gas exchange, and thus, hopefully, cooler water!
Wow, total fail. That was in response to contrapangloss at 7:30~ blog time. No fucking clue wtf happened, time to catch up though clearly.
Damn, I’ve been in the US too long, I can’t mentally translate C to Farenheit any more at all.
Um, how did Cassandra weaponize anything, though? She pointed out something she found problematic, and when she wasn’t being understood, she finally revealed why she felt so strongly about the issue. Because I thought lived experience was important here? Seriously, this blog is the first place I’ve ever been where I was allowed to share my lived experience have it taken seriously rather than assuming it made me biased. That’s why I’ve come to love this place, and I’m really not okay with you accusing Cassandra of using her experience to weaponize anything.
@coffee, thanks, this conversation topic is not one I have encountered IRL so I have had to rely on people expressing themselves precisely for me to accurately draw meaning.
Thank you for your comment above, that has helped. I still have one question. When you say:
assuming that the use of a different term will not change people’s preferences, but merely signify the subset of lesbians sexually attracted to trans women, how will the issue of exclusion be resolved? Will it allow the formation of new social groups based more precisely on genital preferences and that in itself reduces exclusion?
It’s just that I view exclusion as wider than sex. For example, women being excluded from tech jobs due to ingrained sexism. And that is where I am getting really confused, because you seem to be using words that I use to have wider meaning, in narrow definitions.
Should’ve refreshed.
@Argenti,
Yay! Axolotls! :D