According to the packing slip, this is a “boy” pacifier clip. FFS. #gender #baby #sociology #socialization #colors

According to the packing slip, this is a “boy” pacifier clip. FFS. #gender #baby #sociology #socialization #colors


"If biology were the principle factor in human behavior, all around the world we would find women behaving in one way and men in another. Men and women would be just like male spiders and female spiders, whose genes tell them what to do. In fact, however, ideas of gender vary greatly from one culture to another-and as a result, so do male-female behaviors."

-James M. Henslin from Essentials of Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach

(via kiriamaya)

Several very good methodological critiques, but I just want to add one that applies to virtually all academic research on Facebook right now: the experimental condition of zero acquaintance is almost never met in actual use. It’s true that profile photos are one of the few pieces of profile info that are almost always kept public, but generally if you see someone’s profile pic, even if you don’t know them, you share some interest or acquaintance that put them in your view in the first place.

Basically, people virtually always approach Facebook profiles with some degree of prior knowledge and accompanying biases. I’m sure there’s still a lot of negative judgment of profile photos for being “too sexy” or “too sloppy,” but there are a lot of ways that prior acquaintance could affect results in studies like these. For one thing, I suspect the specific context of prior acquaintance (eg coworker, classmate, chatted with at a party, etc.) might exert a heavy influence on the impression made. Studies like this can’t measure that, and they need to explicitly acknowledge that.

(Source: se-smith)

If there’s one place you can always count on for #sociology of #gender material, it’s jewelry stores. Blech.

If there’s one place you can always count on for #sociology of #gender material, it’s jewelry stores. Blech.


Japanese Artist Arrested for 3-D Printing Her Vagina Selfie

Japanese Artist Arrested for 3-D Printing Her Vagina Selfie

Japanese artist Rokudenashiko was arrested after turning her vagina selfie into a 3-D printed “pussy boat” and sending the scans to her supporters from a crowdfunding campaign. Police said that sending the scans (which could be used to 3-D print more vagina selfies) breaks Japan’s obscenity laws.

The Guardian reports that the artist, whose real name is Megumi Igarashi, could face up to two years in jail or a fine of about $24,500 if convicted. Rokudenashiko has denied the allegations and questioned why the scans are being called obscene. She explains her vagina-themed art this way: “I wanted to make pussy more casual and pop.”

In her crowdfunding campaign pitch, Rokudenashiko offered mock-ups of the boat and this explanation of why she needed a 3-D printer:

I wanted to make pussy more casual and pop. That’s how I came to make a pussy lampshade, a remote-controlled pussy car, a pussy accessary, a pussy smartphone case, and so on. … However, mold by hand has the limitation. … [It’s] not suitable for making large art pieces such as a pussy door, a pussy car, or a pussy boat. I was wondering how I can make it possible, and then I finally found that 3D scanner can make it happen easily!

Japanese Artist Arrested for 3-D Printing Her Vagina SelfieEXPAND

Rokudenashiko did make the boat, and she’s committed to continuing her art. “Pussy has been such a taboo in the Japanese society,” she writes. “Penis, on the other hand, has been used in illustrations and signed as a part of pop culture. But pussy has never been so cute.”

[Images via The Guardian, Rokudenashiko



I found this at the LGBTQA resource at my school and I think it’s so cool!

Especially excited about column 2 which includes “zim”!

(via blackmagicalgirlmisandry)

mathbalnase said: With regards to the Australian/UK story, the poll asked if the woman should be able to change her birth certificate to match reality. It did not ask if only she and those in situations most immediately comparable to hers should be allowed to do so. Nor did it ask the means by which that change should be available. Such a change being available to anyone who meets minimum criteria would clearly then suffice to make the change available to her. Is there some reason beyond spite, then to deny her?






No, the survey’s question is not inclusive of “should everyone be allowed to?” That’s pure semantic waffle that requires us to remove the question from the context of the article, that is about this horrible bureaucratic nightmare, can you even imagine the ridiculousness of a womb-bearing motherly female woman with babies not being recognized as female despite her uterus. 

Is there reason beyond spite to deny anyone else?

And if we have a situation where thousands of people are being denied something out of spite, what is so special about her that she should be freed from this? Rescuing one person out of thousands from the vagaries of spite doesn’t make the situation less spiteful and more fair, but less so.

I don’t know which of my posts on the subject you saw, but in the first one where I mentioned this stance, I also made it clear that I have nothing against her being allowed to change it and if the question was put to me as “world magistrate of gender” (in other words, I actually had the power to do something about people who needed their birth assignment records changed) it would be different, but for the purposes of a newspaper survey with no power to affect anyone’s actual situation, she can go to the back of the line because the only circumstance in which she should be able to change her recorded birth assignment is when everyone can.

The actual reason for saying things like “No special rights for cis people!” in situations like this is to get people to stop and thinkabout the implications of these things, something you clearly haven’t done if you can rattle off a phrase like “meets minimum criteria”, as if there is some natural, obvious, and easy-agreed upon meaning for what that criteria would be.

To a lot of the cis people who read the Mirror, I’m sure the minimum requirements would result in a situation where only she and people in a similar situation could have their assignment record changed. 

To a few more, certain intersex people could probably have it changed, under certain conditions.

You probably think it’s obvious that “minimum criteria” would cover some trans people, but the fact that you’re talking about minimum criteria suggests that there would still be limiting factors. This would be true for many people, although they wouldn’t agree. For some, it would be “The Surgery”. For others, it would be some combination of “undergoing hormone treatment”, or “lived as ____ for ____ years”., or  ”has a diagnosis”.


I’d agree that there should be minimum requirements for having your birth assignment record changed, yeah. You should have to fill out a form or direct someone to fill out a form on your behalf, certifying your identity and your desire to correct the record. If we didn’t have some kind of gatekeeping to make sure the person who is changing the recordis the person the record belongs to, hooligans would just go down to the hall of records and change everybody’s birth assignment, and then where would be?

But my idea of a minimum criterion is probably exactly what you were trying to imply there shouldn’t be when you said “meets minimum criteria”, which just goes to show you how meaningless and empty a phrase it is. Phrases like that assume that all people—or all reasonable people, all people who meet the “minimum criteria” for having a valid opinion. You’re laying out an assumption that anyone who converses with you is going to have a baseline level of agreement with you on the very premises on which the question is founded.

I cannot imagine it.  It is much too far beyond my experience with ridiculous horribleness, extensive as I might sometimes consider it.  And it is precisely that fact that causes me to question the motive behind anyone who would (even in an online news poll) deny someone a simple remedy to that experience.

I’m not aware of any good reasons to deny anyone a similar correction to official records.  A spiteful ‘we can’t, so you can’t’ does not seem any better than the misinformation, malinformation, and resultant misplaced fear and hatred that prevent the trans community from accessing such minimal acceptance.

Rescuing one person from spite, out of thousands experiencing similar illogical, ridiculous treatment does nothing to make the situation less spiteful for those other thousands.  But it makes one hell of a difference in the spite experienced by that one individual.

My intention with the use of the term ‘minimum requirements’ was that those requirements should be minimal.  A signed personal attestation (accompanied by a verification of identity of the signatory, etc) would fit that description quite well.  I probably could have phrased that more clearly, but I was running afoul of a character limit in that ask, and that was the succinct version that first came to me.

I’m not particularly familiar with the system the UK has in place for correcting official records with respect to gender, but from what I have read of it in the last hour or so, they do seem to have one.  Though, I also get the feeling from what I have read that those in the trans community in the UK find the system unsatisfactory.  Perhaps the appropriate response to this woman’s problem would be to direct her to that system (I find it difficult to believe that she would be denied that avenue, should she pursue it, though again, I lack previous exposure to it) while attempting to enlist her in addressing it’s shortcomings.  Though, the calculating bastard portion of myself points out, if she were to pursue that avenue, and were subsequently denied, that could potentially prove even more useful to attempts to restructure the system than her active support.

Ultimately, I think, my confusion stems from not understanding a sentiment of ‘so long as I suffer, so must you’.  Any reduction in suffering is good.  The less suffering there is in the world, the better the world is.  That doesn’t make the remaining suffering acceptable, or forgive those who maintain it, but there is no ethical reasoning I can imagine either to add to it or to resist its reduction, regardless of any ‘fairness’ of who is affected.  Maybe I missed a path by which extending this woman’s suffering can be compellingly shown to result in a net decrease of suffering in the world at large?

Wow, you are a hideously spiteful human being, to reduce my cogent explanation to “so long as I suffer, so must you”. I cannot fathom a human being so choked with barely repressed hatred as you.

Hey, histrionically reducing your opponents to monsters is fun! I can see why you do it. But I don’t see how it advances the conversation. So, I’ll take back what I just said, you can take back what you said, and then if you have a cogent objection to my stance, I will be happy to entertain it.

You ask what is so special about this woman that she should be ‘rescued’ from her suffering.

I posit that there exists no such need, and that all are deserving of precisely as much.

What would you suggest is so special about this woman that she should not be ‘rescued’?

To be clear, though, I had no intent to ‘reduce you to a monster’.  That is why I began by asking what reason you had for your position that was not mere spite.  Because, while I did not want to believe that you held it solely out of such a monstrous trait, I could not see any other motivator that would create that position.  The closing question of my most recent response attempts a similar inquiry more directly.

If I failed to convey these things adequately, I apologize.

"All are deserving of precisely as much."

I agree.

But one woman has asked for—and before all is said and done, will very likely receive—a special exemption that basically circumvents the rule of law to receive it.

(After admittedly having her life fall apart, having her family scattered, and spending a small fortune, mind you. Hey, this story sounds more and more familiar.)

In the case, when we say “why should or shouldn’t she get this different treatment?”

What we really kind of mean is, “Why will she get this treatment, when other people who need their gender markers changed won’t?”

See, you’re putting this as basically “Isn’t it better to rescue one person than leave everyone to rot?” But it’s not one person, it’s this person in this specific situation, and that is not a thing that is just neutral at worst for the rest of us. 

If you asked me to push a button that only works once but would allow one random person anywhere in the world who needs to change their gender assignment to do so, I would push that button without thinking. I wouldn’t even be hoping that it would be me, because the odds are so far against it as to be worth thinking about. Whoever received it would likely be some trans or intersex person, and with a simple push of a button one of their problems would be solved while.

"Fixing one person’s problem" is a good thing. It’s not as good as fixing everyone’s problem, but it’s better than fixing no one’s. But singling out one person for special treatment on the basis of something that excludes everyone else is not a good thing. It’s not neutral with regards to those left behind.

And you can say your desire to see her helped is not because of anything particular to her, but that’s the situation that even opens the possibility that she will receive this help.

Let me give you a parallel example that might help clear it up.

New York has decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana, though it’s still prosecuted to openly display it in public. Cops take advantage of this to arrest people of color (primarily young Black men) by stopping them, directing them to turn out their pockets, and then arresting them if this results in the public display of pot.

This is a problem, right?

If a cop sees a white preppie looking kid walking by who smells like pot and stops him, but decides after talking to him for a few seconds not to make him turn out his pockets because he’s probably a good kid and he doesn’t need the hassle in his life, that doesn’t actually improve the problem.

The underlying cause of the problem is racism, and the racist assumptions that underlie it have been reinforced by this one person being spared the hassle.

The best solution would be to remove the terrible law and its terrible enforcement practices, but there’s less incentive to do that when it can be applied selectively in a way that doesn’t unduly inconvenience “the right sort of people”.

When a law exists to control or keep in place a certain population of people, “rescuing” someone it was never meant to inconvenience from that law is a patch to protect the law’s true purpose, not a crack in its structure.

Similarly, the reason that this one person will probably ultimately be given her exception is because she’s cis, because there is a baseline presumption that when doctors recorded her assignment as male they were making a mistake, but when they recorded mine as male they were making a correct assessment.

If she ended up being allowed to change her records because coincidentally at the same time a new law allowed everyone to do that, that new law would be a huge step forward for trans rights… but her being allowed to do it because of the presumption that it is clearly obvious that a person born with her organ configuration and raised while perceived as a girl should not be a woman just reinforces the notion that our gender assignments are correct and it should require a strong case as to why we should be allowed to change them in defiance of the clear and obvious evidence.

I’m not saying that when she inevitably does get her special treatment, it will set trans rights back a decade, just that it will maintain the status quo.

But at the end of the day, that’s got very little to do with why I voted no.

You’re espousing the view that whatever increases human happiness the most while doing the least harm is the best thing to do, yes? Her nightmare situation being fixed doesn’t measurably impact anyone else’s nightmare situation, but still makes her life better, so it’s better for the world that she gets her rescue. That’s your thinking, right?


Well, clicking no made me feel better about the fact that I will likely never be able to correct my own records for 0.3 seconds, and it did nothing to worsen her situation.

By the utilitarian logic that the highest good is the thing which does the most to improve the most people’s lives, I did the proper thing in the situation and made the world a better place.

You’re welcome. Don’t call me a hero, though. I just did what needed doing.



Yes, being in a female dominated field, I do know what it means to be marginalized. “





oh my fucking god

The really ugly part is they’ve actually done multiple sociological studies on this, and guess what the result is? Men in female-dominated fields aren’t marginalized at all; they get special treatment and are fast-tracked to the top, getting more credit for their work, faster promotions, and greater pay and benefits than their female colleagues.

Here’s one study. Here’s another. And another.

Yup.  The classic example that comes immediately to mind is male elementary school teachers, who are generally fast-tracked into administrator positions like principal.

(via bidyke)


The most important reason why we need the word “cis” in our lexicon is because it tells the thousands of young trans people out there right now who are struggling with their sense of identity, some of whom do not even realise yet that that is what they are doing, that there is something that you can be that is not what you were told you could be.

I did not know the word “cis” when I was 8 years old, imitating the handwriting of the girls in my class. I did not possess this language when I was 15, and attempting to put on makeup in secret without the guidance of my mother or my aunts, and copying the clothing styles of the girls in my high school. I did not have this language when I was 24, with hair down to my waist, wearing my girlfriend’s clothes to work. I did not have this language at 33 years old, before I proposed to my wife, or at 37, when we decided to have a child before we got any older.

I didn’t even know this language at 40, when I finally understood that the days of my life were not going to be many more in number if I did not attempt to find out if the feelings I had been feeling all my life would lead me to a better life.

But I certainly knew the word “transsexual”. I knew the words, “Renée Richards” and “Wendy Carlos”. I knew the word “freak”. I knew the word “mutilation”. I knew the words “liver damage”. I knew the words “shorter life span”. I knew the words “no children”. I knew the word “faggot”.

We need the word “cis”, because those children need to know that their choices aren’t limited, not anymore. Those children need to know that the alternative to “man” isn’t “freak” and the alternative to “woman” isn’t “abomination”. Those children need to know that “abnormal” means “statisically fewer in number”, not “unnatural”.

We need the word “cis”, because all the children of this Earth need to know that “cis” is just one thing you can be, and not what you necessarily are.


— Gemma Seymour, 6 March 2013 (via gcvsa)

(via evelark)


9 Black butch lesbians share their stories in The Butch Mystique (2003)

The last one!!

(Source: exgynocraticgrrl, via thestoutorialist)

Anonymous said: FYI on the Facebook pronouns. I selected "them" and I now show up on my family's pages as their son/brother. I had my gender censored from them in a custom privacy setting but FB kinda inadvertently outed me. Just in case anyone is in the same boat, passing that along.



Oh wow. That’s kinda shitty—

PSA though.

Ahh, so not only are neutral pronouns getting masculine defaults for relation terms (really, it should be sibling, child, spouse, etc), relation terms aren’t ACLed.

This raises the question: how would you ACL those relationship terms? I mean, you have to put something there; otherwise that would flag as suspicious. I suppose showing gender-neutral terms as described above for anyone who doesn’t have the ACL is the obvious solution, but even that could be strange. I can just see: “My profile says you’re my ‘child’, now. What’s up with that?”

Really the ideal seems to be that, for safety, some people shouldn’t know you’ve set a custom gender.

So the real solution here is to allow a user to set multiple custom genders, each with a separate ACL list. So you can have a public / family view gender, and then a ‘for friends I’m out to’ gender, at a minimum.

In the meantime, signal boost, because this is going to be non-obvious to a whole lot of people and doesn’t seem to be documented anywhere.

"Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and fibromyalgia: Those with the disorders are viewed suspiciously, and claims of malingering are common, thus promoting further distress … It is suggested that because the veracity of ambiguous illnesses is often questioned, this might represent a potent stressor in women with such illnesses…"

-From the study by McInnis et al.

Researchers are finally starting to get it…

(via cfsfmmcschirps)

(via dangercupcakemurdericing)


In another episode of White Men Gone Bad, Nature editor Henry Gee outs blogger Dr. Isis for the crime of saying she wouldn’t buy his magazine until it had a better male-to-female ratio of contributors among other matters around the treatment of women that concerned her. The outing was made to much applause from some of his followers as noted in the image that seems to have auto-attached to the link.

Now she can receive all the violent, perverse hate mail directed at her blogging persona at her professional email accounts, and worse. There is no way in which this wasn’t calculated to crash her career and cause her personal pain, especially since she also blogs about her family. This is timed to match Dr. Isis’ recent announcement that she has undertaken the search for a new job. 

Henry Gee’s actions were meant to intimidate me into silence. He took this approach likely with the thought that it was the most powerful way he could hurt me. Nothing more. Although I am ok, there are some recent victims of outing behavior that are not. That’s frightening. To think that the editor of a journal would respond to criticism of his professional conduct regarding the fair treatment of women by attempting to personally injure and damage…


And, what about people that might submit to Nature? He’s clearly willing to use his knowledge of people’s identities to injure them personally. If you’ve ever criticized him, or the journal, in the past, can you really be confident in fair peer review?

Misogyny, bullshit, and more. The old guard of the white men’s brigade is full of trolls. I can’t wait until they fade into history. 

(via knitmeapony)


misgendering a cis person is still transphobic

you’re still perpetuating the idea that if you don’t fit certain criteria, you can’t be a certain gender

guess who gets hurt by that

(hint the answer starts with “everyone” and ends with “but mostly dmab trans people”)

(via shoorkmachine)

"It grew out of trying to conceptualize the way the law responded to issues where both race and gender discrimination were involved. What happened was like an accident, a collision. Intersectionality simply came from the idea that if you’re standing in the path of multiple forms of exclusion, you are likely to get hit by both. These women are injured, but when the race ambulance and the gender ambulance arrive at the scene, they see these women of color lying in the intersection and they say, ‘Well, we can’t figure out if this was just race or just sex discrimination. And unless they can show us which one it was, we can’t help them.’"

— Kimberlé Crenshaw, “Intersectionality: The Double Bind of Race and Gender” (via ethiopienne)

(Source: ethiopienne, via so-treu)