If you are truscum, whether trans or cis



You are participating in an abusive, inherently transphobic and transmisogynist ideology.

There are literally only three possibilities for a Truscum to fall into:

  • You are participating in the abuse
  • You are not participating, but you approve
  • You are completely unaware of the abuse

I find the third one the least plausible

Most of you are teenaged white men* (regardless of where you might be in your transition) and let me tell you…

Thanks for playing ENTIRELY on stereotypes and less on the definition, which is that we just believe being trans requires dysphoria.

I’m a brown middle eastern dude. I’m not even a little white. I despise the use of homophobic/misogynistic slurs and I don’t really like dudebro culture.

My aim was never to harass women of any sort and really all I’m doing is preventing a label for a medical minority from being appropriated by people who don’t suit it.

So please quit portraying me as an abuser.

Not stereotypes. Statistics. I am not saying that there are no truscum POC or that there are no nonbinary truscum, and I apologize for saying anything that read that way. Much of what I wrote was in fact directed at the majority trans white teenaged boys who seem to enjoy harassing my friends and followers.

And I believe you that you do not enact abuse, but again I am not working from stereotypes. I have interacted with maybe two or three truscum who have indicated a willingness to acknowledge other people’s boundaries, and one of them pretty much comes at other trans people until they ask him to go away.

The majority of interactions I have seen that involve truscum have involved aggressive misgendering, attempts to trigger self-harm, attempts to trigger suicide attempts, threats to dox, threats to repost pictures (esp. nsfw pictures) on 4chan and other sites, assertions that trans people are cis, assertions that trans people are not the gender they say they are, assertions that trans people have to stop describing themselves as trans or as their correct gender, gender prescriptivism, trans prescriptivism, gender and trans proscriptivism, outright harassment, outright sexual harassment, mockery, and bullying.

The movement as it exists promotes and enables bullying and abuse. I see it every day. The day I posted that I posted it because I had seen some egregious examples of such (but not the most egregious) and I was tired of seeing my friends and followers hounded, abused, belittled, and attacked by truscum.

Look around, pay attention. You’ll see it too. If there are more of you who are not aware or who actively oppose abuse than I have said there are, I am glad. I would be even more glad if y’all paid more attention to the abusers who use truscum ideology as their excuse to enact that abuse and shut them down more reliably. It’d be a damned sight better than seeing truscum aggressively misgender and abuse a trans woman for hours, and then when she reacts poorly uses that reaction as an excuse for more abuse. I could also do without seeing truscum rape apologists going at that again.

Halo effect or whatever, there’s a lot of dodgy shit going down under the label “truscum.” And I think that the truscum ideology practically demands that abuse because it asserts that “you need dysphoria to be trans” and the definition of dysphoria each person uses seems to be far more restrictive and far more prescriptive than anything that even appears in the DSM. So a trans woman who says she no longer experiences dysphoria because she transitioned gets ripped into by multiple truscum who claim she triggered them in some way, even though she was posting on her own blog and not interacting with truscum. Or a trans woman who gets harassed because she says she doesn’t want bottom surgery because there are truscum who believe all trans people must want bottom surgery.

In the 1890s, when Freud was in the dawn of his career, he was struck by how many of his female patients were revealing childhood [sexual] victimization to him. Freud concluded that child sexual abuse was one of the major causes of emotional disturbances in adult women and wrote a brilliant and humane paper called “The Aetiology of Hysteria.” However, rather than receiving acclaim from his colleagues for his ground-breaking insights, Freud met with scorn. He was ridiculed for believing that men of excellent reputation (most of his patients came from upstanding homes) could be perpetrators of incest.
Within a few years, Freud buckled under this heavy pressure and recanted his conclusions. In their place he proposed the “Oedipus complex,” which became the foundation of modern psychology… Freud used this construct to conclude that the episodes of abuse his clients had revealed to him had never taken place; they were simply fantasies of events the women had wished for… This construct started a hundred-year history in the mental health field of blaming victims for the abuse perpetrated on them and outright discrediting of women’s and children’s reports of mistreatment by men.
― Lundy Bancroft

(via proletarianprincess)

idonttakemycontactsout asked:

i appreciate your concern, but at my college we interact a great deal with autism speaks and support it. you shouldn't focus on what they're doing wrong, because none of it is terrible, but focus on what they are trying to do for people with all different levels of autism.

autisticfandomthings answered:

Things you apparently don’t consider terrible:

Posting a video of a mother talking about how she wanted to kill her child while that same child  was in the room listening. 

Supporting the eugenic abortion of autistic people.

Failing to condemn the murders of autistic children.

Supporting the Judge Rotenburg Center, which according the the UN, tortures autistic people.

It is terrible, only 3% of their budget goes towards services, there are no autistic people on their board, they literally support eugenics. They are doing absolutely nothing good. 

This is widely know withing the autistic community and they are pretty universally hated by autistic people. Because they are terrible. They only even bother pretending to care about little white boys.$

Read that link. Read it.

And here is the resignation letter of the sole autistic person they had in an important (but still non board) position

Here’s a flyer by a major autism advocacy organisation on them

OR, if you still don’t give a fuck about what autistic people think or want, (which seems kind of obvious from the content of this ask) here are some links written by non autistic people.

Here’s a post from the CEO of one of the oldest charities in the US for intellectually and developmentally disabled people.

Here’s a post from a major autism parenting magazine

And here are some other posts

If you continue to support them now you are in possession of this information, then it is clear that you are not an ally to autistic people, you don’t want to help us, and are probably just doing your charity work for “oh look at me, I’m a good person” points.

If you support autism speaks, you are not supporting autistic people, you are hurting us. And you are doing it knowingly and consciously.

Please spread this, not enough people know.






Friendly reminder that The Simpsons recently had an episode that portrayed trans women as men in dresses who are doing it solely to trick lesbians into fucking them. The Simpsons is a piece of shit and no better than Family Guy in my eyes.


when i was a kid i just went with it omfg they fed me so much shit ;A;

It’s pathetic as fuck. It aired back in 2005 I guess, I thought it was more recent but fuck it was horrible.

Simpsons transmisogyny goes way way back.


timballisto asked:

I'm writing a paper about the internalized racism in Shakespeare's Othello. Do you have any good sources about the Elizabethan interactions with people of color that can give me some context for this play? I asked my professor but he gave me the "there were no african peoples (Moors or otherwise) in England in this time period" spiel, but I'm sensing bullshit. Thank you!

medievalpoc answered:


Okay well your professor lied to you.

Actually there were so many Black British at that time that Elizabeth I tried to blame the realms ills on them and have them all deported. Twice. She failed, probably because you can’t deport your own citizens very well under most circumstances. It’s actually a pretty pivotal point in English history.

Here’s one of the letters from her own hand:



An open le[tt]re to the L[ord] Maiour of London and th’alermen his brethren, And to all other Maiours, Sheryfes, &c. Her Ma[jes]tieunderstanding that there are of late divers Blackmoores brought into the Realme, of which kinde of people there are all ready here to manie,consideringe howe God hath blessed this land w[i]th great increase of people of our owne Nation as anie Countrie in the world, wherof manie for want of Service and meanes to sett them on worck fall to Idlenesse and to great extremytie; Her Ma[jesty’]s pleasure therefore ys, that those kinde of people should be sent forthe of the lande. And for that purpose there ys direction given to this bearer Edwarde Banes to take of those Blackmoores that in this last voyage under Sir Thomas Baskervile, were brought into this Realme to the nomber of Tenn, to be Transported by him out of the Realme. Wherein wee Req[uire] you to be aydinge & Assysting unto him as he shall have occacion, and thereof not to faile.

You can read another one in its entirety here.

Elizabeth I tried to use Black British as scapegoats for some of the problems in English society during the Elizabethan Era, problems that led to the passing of the famous Poor Laws in 1597 and 1601.

From The British National Archives:

But while Elizabeth may have enjoyed being entertained by Black people, in the 1590s she also issued proclamations against them. In 1596 she wrote to the lord mayors of major cities noting that there were ‘of late divers blackmoores brought into this realm, of which kind of people there are already here to manie…’. She ordered that ‘those kinde of people should be sente forth of the land’.

Elizabeth made an arrangement for a merchant, Casper van Senden, to deport Black people from England in 1596. The aim seems to have been to exchange them for (or perhaps to sell them to obtain funds to buy) English prisoners held by England’s Catholic enemies Spain and Portugal.

No doubt van Senden intended to sell these people. But this was not to be, because masters* of Black workers - who had not been offered compensation - refused to let them go. In 1601, Elizabeth issued a further proclamation expressing her ‘discontentment by the numbers of blackamores which are crept into this realm…’ and again licensing van Senden to deport Black people. It is doubtful whether this second proclamation was any more successful than the first.

Why this sudden, urgent desire to expel members of England’s Black population? It was more than a commercial transaction pursued by the queen. In the 16th century, the ruling classes became increasingly concerned about poverty and vagrancy, as the feudal system- which, in theory, had kept everyone in their place - finally broke down. They feared disorder and social breakdown and, blaming the poor, brought in poor laws to try to deal with the problem

As you can see, Black people were a pretty important and pivotal part of English society at the time. Basically, the Queen tried to convince the people that they had to “give up” their cobbler’s apprentices and weavers and other various other workingpeople (the Black musicians in the court were of course exempt from the deportations) to the crown, on the basis that they were “vagrants” and “mostly infidels”. This was not only a wild exaggeration (most were Christian with working class jobs like ya do), but it’s not a very compelling reason to frigging report your next-door neighbor Bill the Mason to immigration. Because then who’s going to do your masonry?

So anyways, the Poor Laws had to be passed, because you can’t deport your citizens/workforce and no one would cooperate with something like that.

And it’s not like those people went anywhere. They’re still there. They were there before that! Some had been there since like, the 4th frigging century when that was part of the Roman Empire!

Also check the tag for England here. Plenty more on lots of different people of color in England throughout many eras.

* this generally refers to the “master” of a workshop or guildmaster, not necessarily the master of an enslaved person, FYI.




oh my god how is this something i never learned about in three separate elizabethan era-focused classes??? (no need to answer; i know how) 

Three? Three?

Like, I thought my capacity to be disappointed in history education was full, but I guess not.

Seriously, the next time someone sends a message about how this is stuff “everyone knows” remind me to link this.

Reblogging this for the last five people who asked me if there are enough people who don’t know that POC lived in Europe in the past to “justify” Medievalpoc’s existence….

Because sometimes those people are your professor. Or someone who took three Elizabethan Era focused classes. Because I think everyone should know these things, whether you’re a history fan or not.