To the anon wanting to know how to ask about pronouns, a good way to do it is to normalize it by introducing yourself as "Name, pronouns," like I'd introduce myself by saying, "I'm Diva, and my pronouns are xe and xir." Kinda takes the pressure off the other party while also setting up an expectation.
This is excellent input on the matter. Thank you for sharing. (If I may add to this, I find this is a good method too - so long as you feel comfortable and safe doing so. Also, it is good to let folks hear how to pronounce gender-neutral pronouns that are not as commonly used. Personally, doing so has led to interesting and educational conversations.)
One of our most common questions is pronunciation, so I will put a guide in the works.
My identity answers to no one but myself. Don’t question my politics, my sexuality, my race, my femininity, my hair, my nothing. Got it?
Another pervasive issue I find with mainstream American liberal feminist crowds is the emphasis on prioritizing and advocating against societal ills they find to be solely female burdens, which hardly speaks to the realities of women in the third world.
My friend Khadijah (she’s Somali and has practically identical politics as I) and I were catching up a few days ago and came to this conclusion together after agonizing on ways to vocalize our displeasement with the bourgeois implications that if it isn’t primarily a woman’s problem, it won’t be alloted valuable discourse. This is why issues like gender inequality when discussing sex accrues more relevance than sweatshop labor in many mainstream feminist circles and activity.
A very prevalent example in which this approach fails is with the current case of Malala Yousufzai and Nabila Rehman, two Pakistani girls who’ve recently caught the attention of American audiences.
Malala’s case, sadly- though to no fault of her own or other women and girls who’ve been victimized by the Taliban is one that’s incredibly easily digestible, not only to neoliberal imperialists who now have a popular face they can attach their justifications of warmongering enabling to, but also liberal feminists who can dissect and compartmentalize Malala’s narrative into a consumable and self congratulatory we-are-saving-these-helpless-brown-women-from-their-brutal-male-counterparts tale. Her tragedy has been reduced to a simple one, women being hurt by men and doesn’t complicate the oppressive man vs. oppressed women dichotomy that so many binarist feminist movements operate on. Its the same wildly absurd reasoning that dubs politicians like Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice heroes and feminist icons of their generation of women, though the foreign initiatives they prop up and support are no less brutal than their male counterparts, but by the virtue of their womanhood, they are to be lauded as role models and given uncritical praise.
Nabila Rehman, the nine year old girl who traveled thousands of miles to tell her harrowing account of losing her grandmother only to be met with five of 430 senators is a different story. Her loss, as well as thousands of other Pakistani women and girls (and Yemeni, Afghan and Somali women and girls, in fact) is one that diffuses the male/female binary; it complicates many foundational aspects of liberal feminism.
Drone warfare, as well as state enforced sanctions, resource extrapolation in poorer nations, etc are not explicitly and exclusively feminist issues (since men and boys are hurt/killed as well), so by virtue, it doesn’t take space on the bulletin board. That’s what insufficient, negligent and narcissistic feminism looks like. That Iraqi women can be economically disenfranchised after American invasion, or Somali women are afraid to leave their homes due to fear of being hit by aerial strikes, or that Iranian and Eritrean women have to worry about providing basic necessities for their children and these hardships are not solely experienced by women and its not taken as seriously as other feminist endeavors. This alienates much of the suffering women face globally.
I’ll be frank- my feminism doesn’t necessarily exclude men, due to being a agglomeration of different elements and recognizing that factors such as capitalistic exploitation, foreign policy and political repression are indiscriminate of gender, despite women encountering them as disproportionate rates. And I never quite understood the need for it to either. This is where American, especially white American livelihoods taking credence and providing the blueprint to which feminism as a global movement is formed around can get dangerous. It excludes, if not directly contributing to the oppression of women in the third world and imperialized nations. It matters that Black and Latino men make less, on average than white women. It matters that non combatant Iraqi, Afghan, Pakistani, Somali and Malian civilian males have died in the name of imperial feminism.
When trans women are told that they need to stop being assertive and strong because it is a sign of male privilege - invariably by “feminists” who, of course, encourage cis women to be assertive and strong - that’s transmisogyny.
When trans women are pressured into being silent, rarely offering their opinion, and refusing leadership roles for fear of being seen as male or accused of having male privilege, that’s transmisogyny.
When trans women are afraid to analyze or discuss the role of male privilege in their life because of the way accusations of male privilege have been used as weapons to silence, shame, and misgender trans women, that’s transmisogyny.
When trans women do analyze and discuss the role of male privilege in their lives and come to different conclusions than the dominant cis feminist perspective and are told it is because they simply don’t understand privilege or are ignorant of feminism, that’s transmisogyny.