spaceoutthere

Anonymous asked:

Just because socialization is used against trans women doesn't mean that it's untrue that trans people are socialized in the opposite gender. And that this does matter. I wouldn't ever deny that I have male privilege by being at trans man, but I also have challenges that come from being raised to act how women are expected to and then suddenly being judged by how poorly I measure up to how men are expected to act. (assertiveness, confidence, etc)

shitrichcollegekidssay answered:

what is this “opposite gender” business you speak of?

try “other binary gender” instead

socialization is individual enough that you can’t apply blanket statements, and as such doing so is functionally useless. don’t tell anyone else what their socialization was like. i was “female socialized” and I’m confident and assertive. In fact, even within cis people you are going to get significant differences (for example, a white cis woman is going to have different socialization from a latinx cis woman, this varies even more with race/ethnicity/class).

lisaquestions:

There’s also an element to this in which trans men and nonbinary cafab trans people use the concept of “socialized as $gender to benefit themselves, gain access to spaces that they might not otherwise have access to (women only spaces, for example) and use cissexism to their benefit via strategically degendering themselves by referring back to “female socialization.”

And the flip side of this is that the socialization argument is used to promote this idea that trans women and nonbinary camab trans people are “really men” and thus need to be controlled/managed/denied access to spaces and resources that we also need (such as DV and rape shelters, women’s clinics, etc.).

The entire “socialized as $gender” thing benefits cafab trans people at the expense of camab trans people, and is frequently (I would also say “primarily”) used to promote transmisogyny.

It is also not entirely accurate because race, economic standing, disability, education, and other factors play significant roles as well. Like according to the whole socialized as $gender thing I was supposedly raised to be assertive and confident and entitled, while my sister is supposed to be meek and passive. The reality is, however, that my sister is hugely entitled, to the point that she literally thinks everyone owes her whatever they have because she doesn’t like having to pay bills. Her father basically taught her that she could scapegoat myself or my mother for any reason, and she could get away with it because he would back her up. 

On the other hand, due to my upbringing, I developed complex PTSD and that in combination with other mental illnesses, neurodevelopmental issues, being a trans woman and how I get treated for being a trans woman leaves me feeling like I am supposed to apologize for existing at all times. And this is how I was as a child and a teenager before I transitioned. It took me a couple of decades to get out of this pattern and assert myself.

Like I don’t see a problem with trans men or anyone else locating issues with self confidence or assertiveness etc. wherever seems right for them, but when they start using this to create a totalizing narrative to the point that I have literally had trans men violate my boundaries and mansplain to me what they think my life was like and expect me to accept their narratives over my real life experiences because of these fictitious monolithic “male socialization” and “female socialization” ideas - like being talked down to, being talked over, being silenced… I am not sure how anyone does this without perceiving the irony of their own actions.

I have also seen abusive trans men use this specific tactic to silence trans women (whom they abused) who talked about having a girlhood or were trying to claim self-determination in describing their own lives.

And I mean I am not saying all trans men are abusers. What I am saying is this particular socialization narrative is frequently used to abuse, silence, objectify, degender, and dehumanize trans women, while it also seems that trans men are able to deploy it for their own benefit.

shitrichcollegekidssay

khoroshocrossing:

shitrichcollegekidssay:

Wow sucks that there are no trigger warnings in real life.

oh my god thank you for this.

i was one of the student writers that was sourced in the New York Times about trigger warnings, since I did an op-ed about using them at Rutgers. and I was interviewed about it for BBC/HuffPost/Chronicle of Higher Ed/etc. My interviewers always ask the same ignorant question, “why trigger warnings now?? why start this thing?? they’ve never existed before, so why start this precedent?”

look the fuck around you, they’re LITERALLY everywhere. they’re on imdb. they’re on video games (and very effective too, ESRB and PEGI are extremely informative). they’re at the top left of every TV show with things like “mature language” or “violence” abbreviated below the recommended age.

even before ESRB, video games like Wolfenstein 3D had them for graphic violence. and even before tumblr, listservs and usernet forums use to use them all the time from every subject under the sun (sports listservs used them just as much as feminist listservs, if not more-so). even today, you can find things like “NSFW” and “NSFL” on reddit.

people have been embracing trigger warnings for years, they just don’t call them trigger warnings. stop acting like trigger warnings are an abomination that don’t work in real life. not just do they work very well, but chances are you’ve used them since you were a kid, and still use them today to look at what content is in the shows you wanna watch and the video games you wanna play.

spaceoutthere

sixpenceee:

sixpenceee:

problemedic:

plightofthevalkyries:

sixpenceee:

deucelooselyproductions:

sixpenceee:

The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that psychiatrists cannot reliably tell the difference between people who are mentally stable and those who are mentally unstable.

In 1970, 8 mentally stable people were granted admission into 12 different hospitals. They all told the same story of how they would hear a voice inside their head, it was unclear but often said “empty”, “hollow” and “thud”. 

Right after they were admitted, the patients stopped showing any signs of abnormality. They took part in activities and talked to faculty and other patients as they would normally. 

None of the psychiatrists ever stopped to say “I think they are getting better” or “they seem absolutely fine now” In fact, nurses and psychiatrists took normal activity such as walking or writing and attempted to represent it as a form of pathological behavior. 

For example, staff would point to patients waiting outside the lunchroom as a form of oral-acquisitive syndrome, when really they were just bored and were anticipating their meal. 

It’s interesting to note that even though staff didn’t recognize that these people were completely fine, patients recognized that they didn’t seem to have any problems.

This study highlights how powerful labels can be.

SOURCE & MORE INFORMATION

EVIL EXPERIMENT

Wow…this also potentially bespeaks how the people who are charged with making these patients better are only trying to create terminology and atmosphere that keep them institutionalized.
That’s pretty disturbing.

To anyone saying “well they said they heard voices obviously the doctors are going to look at them with a weary eye”

You missed the point.

They were supposed to detect the patients getting better and instead of being able to tell that, they took any action that the patients performed and totally distorted it and blew it to epic proportions to make them seem completely and utterly abnormal to a point where the patients were institutionalized for months. 

Also, sixpenceee, you missed the second part to this experiment - equally chilling, in my opinion. One hospital’s administration was angered by Rosenhan’s experiment, and challenged him to send impostor patients - mentally stable people masquerading as mentally unstable people - to their facilities. Their staff would then turn those pseudopatients away. Long story short, Rosenhan OK’d this part of the experiment. 193 people went to that hospital in that experiment period looking for help. They flagged 41 people as impostors and had doubts about another 42.

Rosenhan sent no one.

The staff of this hospital flagged impostor patients where none had existed.

That’s really worrying…

This is terrifying 

This was conducted in 1970, so I wonder how much has changed since then