This is interesting. It’s dehumanizing and sexist, of course, but there’s a kernel of an interesting idea there. If I’m honest, I don’t think that most men can possibly grow up in our misogynistic society with an excellent grasp of how to relate to women as people 100% of the time. I have met one or two who really seemed to have it down, I guess. I don’t think that if I had been a man, I’d have it down; it’s simply too difficult. At the very least it requires years of practice and consistent rejection of dehumanizing ideas.

Because of all that, there’s almost always an unspoken difficulty for women who are trying to interact with men, made all the worse because many men don’t understand the difficulty exists. The difficulty is how to navigate an interaction in which, at any moment, I might encounter the perception that I am weaker and less worthy of respect than he is. I can pretend the difficulty doesn’t exist, which sometimes means swallowing indignities. Or I can confront the difficulty head-on and be branded as angry and uppity. Or I can non-confrontationally lament the difficulty, in which case I seem sad and self-defeating, and possibly confirm the preconception that I’m weaker.

It doesn’t always bother me because I’m not always paying attention to it – no one could; we’ve got jobs and lives – but it’s there. (Perhaps it is not there for all women. Perhaps, for example, it isn’t there for powerful women who by necessity spend most of their time interacting with people who are less powerful than they, like Hillary Clinton.)

I think…hmm. I don’t think this is untrue, but I also don’t think it’s unique to men. I don’t really think anyone has a solid grasp on how to relate to others as people 100% of the time, especially not others from groups you don’t belong to or don’t know very much about. Any take on the issue that handwaves the fact that *everyone* is capable of this behavior is missing something, I think. Ironically, the post you linked spends quite a lot of words bemoaning male dehumanization while itself talking about men in a very dehumanizing way – and it’s all the more dangerous because the author seems completely blind to her own capacity for dehumanization.

It’s true that different people are likelier to dehumanize in different ways, some more harmful than others, because of the particular messages they’ve received. But I think it’s important to spend as much time interrogating that tendency in oneself as in others. Being a subjective creature means putting real, continuous effort into understanding the full breadth and depth of other people.

I honestly feel like I’m rolling the dice interacting with anyone of any gender, to be honest.

I feel like socialization is still relevant in the context of childhood e.g. how little boys are allowed to have one and little girls are not. I think that still has an impact (although I agree it’s not even close to the sole determiner) on how you treat others, especially other women, later in life. And I feel like if you grew up being treated as part of the class that exists solely to oppress women, you need to think about how it impacts your relation to other women.


Loving this implication that I had a happy and carefree childhood lol. Sorry if this response is a bit long.

I am really at this point p tired of arguments around socialization. As I said before, there are a lot of theoretical issues with trying to talk abt this in an individualized way (not all women or men experience the same childhood and socialization, there are numerous other factors at play, general trends are not determinative of individual behavior or beliefs or even upbringings). After all, if trans women have broken probably the number one rule of male socialization (‘be/become a man’), I find it weird to act like they would exhibit all other forms of it.

But regardless of the actual completely untestable and faith based idea (unless they come up w a good measure of ‘male socialization units’) I just think there’s something misguided abt this sort of approach to determining people’s identities. It’s a strange double standard that you are somehow implicitly alright with women who treat other women (including their daughters) in incredibly misogynistic ways, or at the very least they shouldn’t have to be constantly ready to have their experience of misogyny denied for it.

Like, as opposed to using *former* social situations and identities as some sort of rough (and frequently incorrect) social justice heuristic for what you think is going on, wouldn’t it be more efficient to just like… pay attention to when women are mistreating other women? And to think that the directionality here is necessarily that trans women are going to more frequently be misogynistic towards cis women than the other direction is…. not really my experience. At the end of the day, this sort of approach is always imo framing trans women as an inherent threat to the safety of cis women (and some men!), and trying to act from there, which I dont think is going to actually be a helpful way of understanding what place trans women have in women’s spaces.

Because, let’s look at this from a less abstract, perhaps more pastoral perspective when thinking abt groups of people. You are basically saying that trans women have some sort of metaphysical taint of gendered socialization from our childhoods (which are, in this imaginary, always less traumatic or patriarchically harmed than literally every single cis woman). How long are we supposed to have that stain, that original sin? Indefinitely? Or is there some sort of “Actual Woman, Cis Feminist Approved” licensure process that we should have to go through? This way of treating cis women as the arbiters of our experience is… unsatisfactory to me.

And the danger here is that what gets set up in this scenario is basically an underclass of women who have a readily available way to be shut down, isolated, what have you. If the idea is that I should be tolerated within women’s spaces, provided that no one feels like I am exhibiting the sinful Male Socialization, pragmatically that basically comes down to the situation where I am welcome, as long as I don’t disagree with or anger any given cis woman, esp. one with a lot of social power within a group. The idea that I hold some sort of inner hatred or oppressive impulse towards women can be used at any time to dispose of this underclass of women with completely sanitized feminist conscience. I hope you can see how easily this sort of thing could be abused, how it *has* been abused, many times by people who have abused us.

After all, telling women that they are “acting like a man” has always been a method of social control over women when we have gotten too loud, too angry, too demanding or assertive. But with a “system” (because after all, there’s not really a system) you come to a situation where a specifically marginalized and victimized group of women are expected to live up to all of the contradictory demands placed on women as a whole or risk losing their social support. I think it’s just a bad idea to claim a feminist praxis of making sure there’s an underclass of women who are *really* examined to make sure they are submissive, quiet, deferential, agreeable – all because of a ‘participation’ in systems that we were coerced into (many times sexually and physically by both men and women) *as children*!

And really, this results in (imo) a sort of penalization for gender nonconformity away from manhood (and an encouragement of dissociation from womanhood, but that’s another question for another time). Setting trans women as on a sort of eternal probationary status while losing any sort of social supports they would have had as queer men makes it so *less* people can risk doing so. The irony is that the only people with the sort of social buffer who would be able to not just suffer in the closet are the sort of women that many cis women claim as examples of how trans women are privileged/socialized as men (your Jenny Pritzkers, Caitlyn Jenners, Martine Rothblatts). You end up in a world and feminist approach that encourages people to be men, whether thru giving little support and an avenue of exploitation to people disidentifying with manhood, or through treating certain men as inherently feminist and female-socialized. Considering your idea that men only exist to oppress women, I hope you could see the problems here.

But I mean, I know this is a long response, and mostly not an argument regarding the veracity of socialization-castes; I just hope you can see from my perspective why this approach is just so sorely lacking on a practical level when it comes to treating trans women as more than just something to be tolerated (but with cautious suspicion) within women’s communities. I just don’t think it makes sense to address these sorts of situations through the cipher of identity, especially identities that people are rejecting outright, through mechanisms that clearly didn’t work completely on them!



basically, i think the general rule of thumb is: if someone REALLY wants the blood that’s inside of your body, and they’re like… a vampire, or a dracula, or some sort of mansquito, then that’s probably okay. a dracula and a mansquito are made for removing things like blood and swords from inside your body.

that’s basically fine.

if something wants to get at your blood, and they’re, say, some kind of murdersaurus, or maybe a really big frog, that’s where the problems start to arise. a really frog is not made for removing blood, and your blood knows this, which is why it is so vehement about wanting to stay IN your body instead of coming out. 

unfortunately this will not deter a really big frog, because a really big frog is full of things like prizes, and value, and quite a lot of hatred, and it would REALLY rather like to replace any and all of those things with your blood, and basically by any means possible.

These words scan with a fantastic degree of confidence considering that together they make no sense at all


“Some D.C. leaders and Metro’s largest union are outraged at the transit agency for allowing its trains to be used to provide “special treatment” for white supremacists traveling to Foggy Bottom for Sunday’s Unite the Right rally in Washington. D.C. Council members Robert C. White Jr. (D-At Large) and Charles Allen (D-Ward 6) said they were concerned and angered that police escorted Unite the Right organizer Jason Kessler and a handful of other rally participants onto what they described as a “private” Metro car. The outrage follows extensive consternation last week when news surfaced that Metro was considering providing a private or “special” train to rallygoers. Metro Board Chairman Jack Evans, who also is a D.C. Council member, confirmed that the idea was under consideration, although Metro said definitively that it would not provide a special train to Kessler or anyone else planning to participate in the march. What transpired on Sunday was not a “private train” per se, although it wasn’t completely public, either.”

D.C. officials, union criticize decision to use Metro to transport Jason Kessler and white supremacists to Unite the Right rally – The Washington Post

Trump officials move to allow Medicaid work requirements







Y’all please reblog because this is fucking terrifying. It’s yet another attempt to sabotage any attempt at the poor receiving any kind of health care. God forbid you ever get fired and can’t declare yourself permanently disabled. 

Make no mistake: people WILL DIE from this. 

Contact your reps however you can. Use Resistbot and more importantly, just spread this shit around because I KNOW there’s a bunch of you on here that are directly affected by this.

Please share far and wide.

It’s murder. Murder by apathy. Murder by politics. Murder by making sick people choose between bankrupting their families or dying to save them from that fate.

There’s a reason why they’re doing this. Why they’re trying to bury the ADA. The ACA. Food stamps. Every social program.

They want to hoard even more money for the rich, for the military industrial complex, for themselves. And they’ll literally kill sick and poor people for that goal. Because we’re nothing to them. We’re not worth a damn thing. If we die? If we go bankrupt? Homeless? Starve? They don’t care. It’s a benefit for their desires to be richer if we’re dead.

This isn’t just politics. This isn’t policy differences. Calling it that santizes and disguises the truth: we, as a people, let other human beings die, starve, go bankrupt and homeless every single day. Those in power are just trying to expand that to more of us now.

If any of y’all think “this is murder” is an exaggeration… Let me paint you a picture. 

My clients are all disabled, in some way or another. They all have a serious physical disability, chronic illness, or psychiatric diagnosis that prevents them from working. They are also all homeless. And every single one is on Medicaid. 

And, I bet many of you didn’t know, but dictating who gets access to certain kinds of housing (specifically housing for people with serious mental illness- permanent housing) is in part determined by how high your Medicaid usage is. 

So, where does this shit leave us? Well, first off, it leaves my clients without any kind of insurance. All of them need medication, all of them go to the doctor and/or hospital frequently. All of them rely on Medicaid. So add a work requirement to Medicaid, and where does that leave people who are physically and mentally incapable of working? Yeah. In the fucking dust. 

Now, take away their Medicaid, and their chances of getting into permanent housing drop, too. So not only do they not have the means to get their medications and see their doctors and go to the hospital when they fucking NEED TO, now they no longer qualify for most of the housing that I am trying to get them into. So, they end up back on the street or in dangerous, overcrowded shelters with NO medication, NO doctors, NO hospitals, and almost no fucking chance of getting into housing because they have no Medicaid because they apparently need to work to have Medicaid and they CANNOT. FUCKING. WORK. 

SO this is murder. This is murder of people like my clients, who rely on Medicaid and related services. This will be the death of hundreds if not thousands of Americans. 

I don’t really have the energy for it, but I looked into things a little.

Kentucky, South Dakota, Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, Mississippi, Kansas, Indiana, and Arkansas are the 9 states I could find named as seeking the work requirement. [x]

Kentucky passed their requirement the day after the article link at the top of this post, on Jan 12th. [x]
Indiana passed their’s on Feb 2nd. [x]
Kansas seems to have possibly enacted this sometime late Jan, but could still be in the proposal stage. [x]
Virginia is the most recent, in the past few days of late Feb. [x]

This IS happening. It’s not a posturing thing, or a goal they have. They are acting on it NOW.

Unless I get approved for disability this year, I won’t have health insurance next year. Like, I just won’t. Because Indiana doesn’t care about people who can’t work.

Trump officials move to allow Medicaid work requirements