What does kindness get you? This.
I want to bring something up to my followers right quick before I log off for the night.
These are some messages that showed up in a dear friend of mine’s inbox. They are in reference to a post about cisphobia specifically.
When you talk about cisphobia, and heterophobia, and claim it doesn’t exist and that majority members aren’t burdened with problems, I want you to remember this post.
These are messages sent specifically for her, to try and trigger her. Now, this particular friend of mine has survived more abuse and hardship than I care to recount, but needless to say, is one of the strongest people I know.
And over one single post, that wasn’t even on her blog to begin with, triggered this nonsense.
Take a good hard look at these. All of them degrade her for being cisgendered. Two of them claim she couldn’t possibly know anything about “struggling.” One is a rather graphic death threat. All over an immutable trait she cannot possibly have helped.
If the situation were reversed and her inbox were filled with “tranny scum fucktard” do you think I would even be having to post this? No. It would have blown up, nobody would have thought twice about it.
But you claim that this is “venting.” That being oppressed somehow grants you the right to be a special breed of hateful. That your struggle grants you the right to tell a self-harm recoverer that she ought to slit her throat, that her struggle is irrelevant.
This is what your movement has become. Take a good, hard look at your brand of “equality.” You should be ashamed of yourselves.
As Cott put it, “Passionlessness was on the other side of the coin which paid, so to speak, for women’s admission to moral equality.””
“As John D’Emilio and Estelle Freedman point out, “The idea of innate female virtue, or of sexual passionlessness, applied primarily to native-born, middle class women; working-class, immigrant, and black women continued to be seen as sexually passionate, and thus sexually available.” (Think back to Windscheid’s claim that women, but especially affluent women, were naturally born without sex drives.)Yet if women could raise themselves up to the level of angels by being passionless, then they had so much further to fall if they did give in to their desires. As D’Emilio and Freedman explain, “In the past, as long as she repented, the woman who once sinned—like the male transgressor—could be reintegrated into the community. Now, however, because women allegedly occupied a higher moral plane than man, her fall was so great that it tainted her for life.” These “fallen women” were barred from their families and communities, and often had to work as prostitutes to support themselves.