ghost

Well-known member
Telling a feminine person to know their place, huh? I guess phallic misogyny is more prominent than I thought.
that you're kinda weird and like buffy the vampire slayer doesn't mean you're feminine in normal parlance, a statement you've repeated but provided no evidence for. you can say you're antiphallic if you want but that doesn't mean that bullying you is misogyny.
 

ghost

Well-known member
Thanks for asking, @WashYourHands! I've been digging this old track from a Japanese footwork label a friend of a friend runs, don't really know what i'm hearing but it really hits for me:

 
  • Wow
Reactions: sus

malelesbian

Femboyism IS feminism.
that you're kinda weird and like buffy the vampire slayer doesn't mean you're feminine in normal parlance, a statement you've repeated but provided no evidence for. you can say you're antiphallic if you want but that doesn't mean that bullying you is misogyny.
I don't need to prove my femininity to you. The fact that you don't accept my femininity only displays your phallic marginalization of feminine culture. And you honestly doubted that I was marginalized when you yourself have marginalized me in this thread? Can you imagine asking a bisexual person for evidence they're bisexual? Denying the authenticity of the other's identity is misgendering, which is bigotry. We just have to trust that people are the gender they say they are. If you don't have that trust, you might as well whine about how "gender ideology" is poisoning our culture. Pro-queer individuals respect the self-identifications of all people.


Your effort to justify your bullying as politically correct will never hide the fact that bullying is unjustifiable.
 

ghost

Well-known member
This one is also good. Not sure what people think of J Hus here, his name is too short to search… Among other topics, it's about eating pussy without asking.

 

ghost

Well-known member
let's review the history of the discourse!
I am a queer, non-binary cisheterosexual man.
cisheterosissies are cisgendered, not trans
If cisheterosexual men perform anti-phallic behavior, they are are queer and non-binary.

If I'm reading these correctly, malelesbian identifies both as a cisheterosexual man, who is not trans. He contends that he is, despite this, queer and non-binary. His citation for this is that performing anti-phallic behavior (how much? in what contexts?) makes a man queer and non-binary.

My retort is simple: no it doesn't.
 

ghost

Well-known member
I don't need to prove my race to you. The fact that you don't accept my race only displays your white supremacist marginalization of POC culture. And you honestly doubted that I was marginalized when you yourself have marginalized me in this thread? Can you imagine asking a hispanic person for evidence they're hispanic? Denying the authenticity of the other's identity is race hatred, which is bigotry. We just have to trust that people are the race they say they are. If you don't have that trust, you might as well whine about how "critical race theory" is poisoning our culture. Pro-POC individuals respect the self-identifications of all people.


Your effort to justify your bullying as politically correct will never hide the fact that bullying is unjustifiable.
 

ghost

Well-known member
have also been digging this track, I think it's interesting that the jersey club beat has made it to K-pop

 

malelesbian

Femboyism IS feminism.
First off, I've been acting feminine since I was born. Don't ever get it twisted.

Birth determines race, but behavior determines gender. So your false equivalence fails because anyone's gender can change depending on their behavior, whereas a person's behavior can never change their race. When it comes to Rachel Dolezal, there were empirical facts that disproved her claim to be black, namely, the fact that her parents were white. No facts can serve as evidence that prove someone's identification as a member of a particular gender identity group is true or false. The only facts that show us that a person is indeed feminine is their feminine behavior.

Now we know that femininity is marginalized by phallic culture. Phallic culture assumes essentialism, it only allows us the conceptual resources to recognize masculine men and feminine women. So you may say that you never saw me do anything feminine. But we already know that the heteronormative, mainstream community refuses to understand any man as feminine. Why would you avoid making the same mistake. You even said before, you like the phallus.


Furthermore, why would I lie about my gender identity? To avoid misgendering people, we need to trust that every person authentically identifies as a member of their gender, in other words that they are no lying when they tell us what gender they are. Now, maybe some bad faith actors out there do exist that lie about their identity. The only way we can know they lied about their identities is if their behavior changes and they identify as a different gender. So yes, I might stop being a feminine man if I stop acting feminine and identify as a masculine man. But I know best whether or not I do indeed act feminine, because no one knows better what a person's identity is than that person themselves. For the sake or respect and refraining from misgendering people we should never accuse someone of lying about their gender identification. I respect everyone because no matter what you identify as, I will acknowledge you as a member of that group. Just identifying as black and acting black doesn't make you black, you have to be born black. But identifying as feminine and acting feminine does make you feminine. You can claim all you want that you've never seen me act feminine but you don't know my life as well as I do. For the sake of respect you should trust everyone's self-identifications. Because to identify as a particular gender is to make a commitment to acting like that gender, and even if you don't see me acting feminine, my self-identification as feminine is a commitment I made, and you won't know that I've given up on that commitment until I say so.

Imagine telling a bisexual man that he's not bisexual because he hasn't had sex with enough men. The fact is, that bisexual man knows his desires, fantasies, and self-image better than you ever will. And he made the commitment to identify as bisexual. You should respect that commitment. To deny the other's self-expression is phallic disrespect and repression of the other.

Imagine telling a transwomen they're not a real woman because they don't act feminine enough. You're doing the same thing to me. The fact is, no matter how much a black person "acts white", they will still be black because our actions can't change our race.
 

ghost

Well-known member
You're conflating, as you have throughout this entire thread, gender identity and gender expression.

I have been believing you when you told me that you were a cisheterosexual man and not trans, which is your stated gender identity. I have been skeptical when you claim to be queer and non-binary, because on the face of it, that's a bold contradiction. At a minimum, it seems that you're using those words in a way that is highly unorthodox, and it seems more likely that you're simply queerbaiting.

Being feminine is a question of gender expression, which almost everyone else seems to agree is simply a different thing than gender identity.

For the sake of respect you should trust everyone's self-identifications. Because to identify as a particular gender is to make a commitment to acting like that gender

You start with a premise that is reasonable, and deeply embedded in shared trans belief. And then you follow it up with a statement that's wildly transphobic. I am begging you to, please, read another book.
 

malelesbian

Femboyism IS feminism.
You're conflating, as you have throughout this entire thread, gender identity and gender expression.

I have been believing you when you told me that you were a cisheterosexual man and not trans, which is your stated gender identity. I have been skeptical when you claim to be queer and non-binary, because on the face of it, that's a bold contradiction. At a minimum, it seems that you're using those words in a way that is highly unorthodox, and it seems more likely that you're simply queerbaiting.
You're too hung up on language. Fine. In the ordinary sense of the terms "non-binary" and "queer", I'm not non-binary or queer. It doesn't matter. What matters is that I act feminine and because I act feminine I fight the phallus and face cultural marginalization. You can't deny that I act feminine without disrespecting me.


Being feminine is a question of gender expression, which almost everyone else seems to agree is simply a different thing than gender identity.
Why does this distinction matter? Define gender expression and gender identity. Because the way I see it, my behavior defines my gender identity. So my behavior also expresses my gender. I don't see why I need to draw this distinction. It's true I have a self-image, but even that representation can change. And that self image just depicts my body performing specific behaviors.

We might say that a feminine man has a feminine gender expression and is a member of the gender identity group that is men. But what difference does this make to my argument? Either way we're talking about a man who performs feminine behavior. What matters is the behavior, because a gender is performative. My identity is my actions.

Again, even if I accept your distinction and accept that femininity is not a part of my identity, you still can't deny that I am feminine. Maybe my femininity is just a gender expression. But it doesn't change the fact that I act feminine. As far as I can tell, my argument remains the same if you rephrase it to include the terms "gender expression" and "gender identity".
You start with a premise that is reasonable, and deeply embedded in shared trans belief. And then you follow it up with a statement that's wildly transphobic. I am begging you to, please, read another book.
Explain. You think women aren't committed to acting like women? It's no reinforcement of gender roles to say that men commit to acting like men. It's just a statement of the fact all it means to be a woman is to act like a woman. Anyone who identifies as a traditional woman right now makes a commitment to act feminine. A non-traditional gender-non-conforming masculine woman makes a commitment to act masculine. It's true, just because you identify as a woman doesn't mean that you need to act feminine. But if a woman acts masculine, she can't be a traditional woman and she practices gender non-conformity. I consider "masculine woman" and "feminine man" as distinct identities because I want to differentiate them from traditional women and men. So I say that masculine behavior defines a woman's identity as a masculine woman. One's self-identifications can change, but until they do, you have to trust that that person commits to performing the behaviors that define their identity. There is nothing transphobic about this.

Notice how you can't recommend any actual books to read because you haven't done your homework. You haven't researched feminism or queer theory. I have. You can't even tell me the book that first drew the distinction between gender identity and gender expression.

By the way, did you know that on your favorite site, wikipedia, the entry on "Gender Expression" cites a review of two books by Butler? You really can't avoid Butler if you want to argue about gender.
 

ghost

Well-known member
Explain. You think women aren't committed to acting like women? It's no reinforcement of gender roles to say that men commit to acting like men. It's just a statement of the fact all it means to be a woman is to act like a woman. Anyone who identifies as a traditional woman right now makes a commitment to act feminine. A non-traditional gender-non-conforming masculine woman makes a commitment to act masculine. It's true, just because you identify as a woman doesn't mean that you need to act feminine. But if a woman acts masculine, she can't be a traditional woman and she practices gender non-conformity. I consider "masculine woman" and "feminine man" as distinct identities because I want to differentiate them from traditional women and men. So I say that masculine behavior defines a woman's identity as a masculine woman. One's self-identifications can change, but until they do, you have to trust that that person commits to performing the behaviors that define their identity. There is nothing transphobic about this.

Let's see what Judith Butler has to say on the topic:
I do know that some people believe that I see gender as a “choice” rather than as an essential and firmly fixed sense of self. My view is actually not that.
Some trans people thought that in claiming that gender is performative that I was saying that it is all a fiction, and that a person’s felt sense of gender was therefore “unreal.” That was never my intention. I sought to expand our sense of what gender realities could be. But I think I needed to pay more attention to what people feel, how the primary experience of the body is registered, and the quite urgent and legitimate demand to have those aspects of sex recognized and supported. I did not mean to argue that gender is fluid and changeable (mine certainly is not). I only meant to say that we should all have greater freedoms to define and pursue our lives without pathologization, de-realization, harassment, threats of violence, violence, and criminalization. I join in the struggle to realize such a world

It seems that you are alleging exactly what Butler is claiming is a misreading.

---

I'm a man. But I don't make any commitment to "acting like a man," whatever that means. I do what I want to do, which often, but not always, involves being interpellated as a man. But this isn't the case for everyone. Consider the cases of transwomen who consider themselves to be highly butch. Your framework reduces them to… a feminine man? a masculine woman? By eliding behavior with identity, you demolish the importance of people's sense of belief in self.

In combining "allowing oneself to be interpellated as a gender" with "being that gender", you embrace such quasi-mystical ideas as that a drag performer is temporarily transmutated into a different gender during their performance. It also implies that if someone is say, in the closet, that their gender is reduced to what they're safely able to express.

You can't deny that I act feminine without disrespecting me.
This is precisely inverted. If Andrew Dice Clay told me that his actions were feminine, nobody would begrudge me denying it. I don't see any reason why this is any different, other than perhaps that I'm going off a more limited quantity of evidence.

Notice how you can't recommend any actual books to read because you haven't done your homework. You haven't researched feminism or queer theory. I have.
Just because I haven't been whipping my metaphorical dick out about it doesn't mean this is true. I quite like Serano's Whipping Girl, maybe that's a good place to start.
 
Top