What I'm not saying here, because I imagine anyone reading this is likely to already know it, is that there is a difference between having a sexuality and being sexualised.

Any actual feminist would know that. The transphobes, who insist on treating the former as evidence of the latter being self-inflicted, do not know that because they are not feminists; they are pretending.

Look at the LGB Alliance, who simultaneously complain about trans people not wanting to be gay and about trans people wanting to be recognised as gay. Spaghetti Briefcase and her ilk's big gotcha is that there is something suspicious about human beings having a sexuality.

And this has a knock-on effect. A lot of these anti-trans laws, policies and guidelines are an extension of treating trans people as a porn category.

If you think of trans people as people, then these restrictions are obviously, criminally, inhumane. But if you think of trans people as a porn category, then suddenly it makes sense that we should be hidden from children, that we should be covered up, that we are not appropriate for public discourse, that spaces are made unsafe by our presence, that equality doesn't quite apply.

But it is of course the patriarchy, not feminism, that treats us as a porn category.

When transphobes yell "stop sexualising kids" they are operating under a presumption that to be trans is to be sexualised. They are saying that sexualising trans adults is good and fine, and we are somehow 'making' them extend that to kids. A claim not only that it is natural to objectify us, but, because transphobes refuse to take responsibility for their own actions, that our objectification is for some reason self-inflicted.

And all of that is ridiculous, of course, but it is considerably less ridiculous if you only think of us as a porn category rather than as actual people. It's hypocritical, of course: They call us 'pornsick' while insisting that porn that was made for them, not us, is all they need to know about us.

Sex-positive and anti-porn feminists disagree on whether or not porn can be ethical, but I think they agree that a lot of it isn't. So it is wild to hear self-declared feminists trying to pretend that porn is an accurate representation of trans people.

Years ago I remember hearing about the subreddit r/actuallesbians. Some trans people were afraid that with a name like that it might be TERFy. It wasn't; it was inclusive (at least back then - I don't know about now). It was called "actual lesbians" because r/lesbians was not about lesbians as people, but about lesbians as a porn category.

Lesbians are the single group most likely to support trans people, with a massive 96% of lesbians under 25 in the UK being supportive, and it's not hard to see why.

The poll that found that figure suggested that lesbians are more likely to personally know a trans person, which may be part of the story, but more so I think it is a natural alliance because both lesbians and trans people are groups of real people that the patriarchy insists on reducing to porn categories.

Because as porn (or more specifically porn for the male gaze) is the only way both groups don't threaten patriarchy. It is how patriarchy contends with something Not For Them.

According to the ONS, trans children are over 80% more likely to experience abuse than cis kids. When anti-trans activists say "there's no such thing as trans kids" they are making a policy statement that that figure is irrelevant.

Likewise with sexual assault in adults. We know that cis men are around 80% less likely to be sexually assaulted than cis women, while trans women are around 50% more likely to be sexually assaulted than cis women. Anti-trans activists seem to think that yelling 'biology' loudly enough will erase that distinction. Despite our increased vulnerability to sexual assault, they demand that we be treated as people less vulnerable to sexual assault, or even further, through prejudice and scapegoating to be treated as perpetrators. It's inaccurate, though, to say they want to treat us as men, simply because they don't treat men the way they treat us.

Because anti-trans activism is a project of protecting and enabling abusers.

I'm so angry all the time and maybe that gives me an intimidating vibe or maybe it makes it harder for me to be emotionally open or maybe both.

And it's not like I'm angry about trivial things. I'm angry about the worst people in the world committing actual literal crimes against humanity. That's a thing I think I should be angry about. But once I have that anger I'm not really sure what to do with it. I used to write it out, but things have only got worse and the only thing I can really do is repeat myself because I was right the first time.

I'm good at it, too, and it's really all I'm good at, so I feel some responsibility to contribute how I can, but it just means living in the shit that is stressing me out.

I have been kind of excited about making music again recently, which is great. But I'm bad at it, so... well, it helps me a bit, but it's not good enough to be for other people, and there's the risk of frustration just adding to the stress.

idk

In the spirit of Halloween, a terrifying image (if you're Sam Altman)

It's one thing to say that TERFs aren't feminists, but I think the more important point is that TERFs have provided a brand of "feminism" that misogynists can enjoy. A kind of "feminism" that succeeds due to its patriarchal seal of approval.

Of course that's not feminism, and it's one thing to criticise that, but in a lot of media avenues that are still patriarchy-led it has replaced feminism, which is far more dangerous.

It's not just Trump. I do wonder what the overlap is between people who obnoxiously yell "innocent until proven guilty" to undermine women's accusations, and people who insist that cis women need to vaguely and generally "be protected" from trans women.

It's probably huge, given the exemplars I can think of.

When Trump can be concerned that the Cornell 7, who have been credibly accused of rape and sexual assault, "won't get a fair shake" from Letitia James.

But can also look at a trans woman who has not even been accused of anything and say "obviously a rapist."

It's clear that the motivations for the latter are not "reasonable concerns" and are in fact solely prejudice.

Wish I wasn't so weird and off-putting. I wish I were someone people would want to talk to instead of constantly feeling like I'm just annoying them.

Oh my god.

I just realised one day cunts who haven't even been born yet but already deserve to be punched in their stupid fascist faces will say "TERFs were feminists actually" in the same way their predecessors say "the Nazis were socialists actually" today.

Aside from anything else wrong with it, is Sam Altman really trying to argue that running an LLM over a problem instead of solving it with an engineered solution is, of all things, efficient?

Is that a real thing he is saying with his stupid fucking mouth?

When your sole value is that being rude is worse than being cruel, you will harangue the abused for being upset about being abused, while insisting that the abuser should be heard out and given a chance.

On the personal level, this is monstrous enough; at scale, it creates the conditions necessary for fascism to thrive.

And these people expect, nay, demand the moral high ground for fighting fascism "the right way" (which turns out to be enabling it).

Of course JK Rowling thinks it is good when rape happens to the undesirables, but that's not her only rape apologism. She also spoke out against cancel culture, which has occasionally misfired, but was mostly bringing consequences to sexual abusers.

JK Rowling is a rape Nazi.
JK Rowling is a rape Nazi.
JK Rowling is a rape Nazi.

Say it often. Say it everywhere. Make it inescapable.

I knew Kevin Strom, whose quote "to learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise" is often misattributed to Voltaire was a neo-Nazi.

I didn't know he is also a convicted paedophile. You all didn't tell me about that part.

"But what did she say that was transphobic?"

She literally, literally said that fear of trans people (which is to say: literally transphobia) should be considered a legitimate reason for denying trans women support after having been sexually assaulted.

Discord has Twitter disease.

It is making questionable privacy and security choices, sure, but also it is being developed by people who don't know how its users use it. That didn't end well for Twitter, and it won't end well for Discord.

The internet is a double-edged sword that gives the marginalised a voice but also does so for the extremely bigoted.

Oh, wait, no, my mistake, here comes Centrist Melt Man to tell us that's not a double-edged sword at all: in fact both of those things are bad!

I'm so sick of these self-appointed Sensible Moderates™ whose sole value is that rudeness is worse than cruelty, and consequently cannot tell the difference between oppressor and oppressed.

And then, unbelievably, they expect praise for just how abuser-enabley they're being, so fervently invested are they in the delusion that the 'real' way to fight fascism is to close your eyes, block your ears, and pretend it's not happening. Because, after all, if it's only happening to the transes and the immigrants, it might as well not be happening.

This is a real thing they genuinely think they are Good People for believing.

One thing Rowling says is true, though!

And that is that trans existence has more impact on working class women than middle-class women. That's because they share the same spaces, with trans people being more than two and a half times more likely to live in the most deprived areas of the country.

So yes, that's true, but that indicator of poverty is 'elitism', is it, JK? You can't have it both ways.

Much like she ignores trans people being more likely to be sexually assaulted, she also ignores trans people's poverty, because as previously mentioned, she doesn't want trans people to be treated as people.