the name's liz. i'm trans. about me / contact / rss / tags / archive

always reblog


always reblog


typoes aside, the fact that tucking is seen as weird and uncomfortable to talk about where binding is seen as revolutionary and the Epitome of Queer has a lot of interesting interlocking causes, including:

  • the violent stigma surrounding trans women’s genitals
  • the fetishization of masculinity within queer communities
  • masculinity as default, blank slate; feminity as inherently gendered - to willfully gender oneself rather than ungender oneself is generally unqueer
  • the shaming of women who attempt to take ownership of their bodies (see also: opposition to fat acceptance, contradictory patriarchal attitudes towards makeup)

And many more keystones of transmisogyny!

Decided to delete all my selfies off of this tumblog thing. I’m starting to do stuff that actually publicly associates my face and name with trans related things and like… this is a pretty sacred place for my thoughts.

Like, I’m happy to finally be getting my face out and doing advocacy work, but I also don’t want the intimate details of my sex life or my more radical political thoughts bared to the public. idk

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about cultural appropriation lately and like, limits of things

Like, cultural appropriation exists when a culture in a position of higher power takes something from a culture with lower power, even in instances of an exchange, because the power enables them to give and take at will. Where does this change and like…

So tattoos and piercings are totally linked to colonialism, and taken from other cultures as appropriation (and I’m not getting into issues here of white people having the ability to get tattoos in situations when POC aren’t and just that whole world of discussion) and so we have to think about that, but does the modern history of tattooing or piercing have any impact or is it actually besides the point because of an original appropriative action?

Like let’s take a guitar as an example. (Now, I’ve done cursory research and I know the guitar originated in Italy/Spain but I’m using it as a hypothetical example because I’m much more aware of the history of guitar as opposed to an actual example which I don’t have the knowledge to speak about).

So say the guitar was an instrument that was the result of cultural appropriation in the 12th/13th century. Since that time, however, you have European luthiers and artisans building an incredibly history of instrument crafting, spanning centuries, until the modern day where you have this huge collection of luthiers, both electric and acoustic, still innovating and making some of the best instruments the world has ever seen.

How would we address that issue? How do we tackle an instrument that would literally have centuries of history after a point of appropriation?

I guess I don’t feel knowledgeable enough on the issue to find an answer.

I mean what about jazz, or fingerstyle blues guitar? Both musical styles created by POC and appropriated in one way or another across the past century or so. For example with the blues guitar (again because it’s an area of interest), there is a truly expansive documented and recorded history of POC’s compositional work, but it too was mostly collected and recorded by white musicians who have since gone on to be the world’s leading musicians in the style.

Ugh I just don’t have answers or interpretations at the moment.

Of late I’ve been getting headaches and occasionally dizzy and I’m worried that it’s my eyesight.

My family has an obvious history of deteriorating eyesight, so I know I’ll need to wear glasses eventually, but I also spent my last few teen years wearing glasses as a way of coping with my face while coming out, and I still feel a bit disingenuous as a result, so I still deep down feel like even if I’m prescribed glasses I’ll still be someone who is ‘co-opting glasses’ which is the stupidest shit I know but c’mon seriously brain get your shit together.


We go forward.

I keep seeing this on my dash and on people’s pages, and totally for a reason, it’s stunning, but I’ve read it probably a dozen times and it just gets to me every single time.

We are every protagonist. We will leave others behind but eventually we will be left behind.

The world will always eventually continue without us.

Do you think ftm buck angel, pork star, trans activist, is right in justifying that he is all male, even though he didn't change his vagina into a penis? I watched his documentary on Netflix, which was really neat. I think that all orientations and identities sway into the grey zone. In your eyes do you think thAt you will need to have your functioning bits into something that doesn't necessarily work anatomically correct????? —by Anonymous


There is nothing wrong with trans women considering themselves female or trans men considering themselves male, regardless of any genital surgery. “Female” and “male” are not concrete definitions, they are concepts that are often applied inconsistently in the case of how trans people are viewed - usually in ways that seek to diminish our actual genders by acting like biology is the only relevant fact.

People will refer to a trans woman’s penis as “male genitals”, “male anatomy”, or they’ll call her “anatomically male” or “biologically male” or “physically male” or “male-bodied” or just “male”. Vice versa for trans men. But that’s a stunningly incomplete view of biology, anatomy, and physical reality.

Nearly everyone’s own DNA has the potential to produce physical feminization or masculinization when certain gene expressions are activated by the presence of different sex hormones. That’s already in our chromosomes - it is biological.

Sex hormones, too, are biological. HRT is identical to the hormones produced in our bodies, and it acts on receptors that are already there. Trans women on HRT generally achieve levels of estrogen and testosterone that are typical of cis women. Vice versa for trans men. If people are going to get on a kick of sorting biological features into “female” and “male”, then you’d think they would call estrogen “female hormones” and testosterone “male hormones”. But for some reason, they don’t take things like HRT into account, even though this is unquestionably biological and an aspect of biological sex. Instead, they maintain a narrow focus on genitals, as if this is the only aspect of biology that matters.

HRT induces physical changes. Trans women grow breasts that are anatomically identical to cis women’s breasts. Trans men grow facial hair and body hair and can experience male-pattern baldness. There are changes in facial structure and appearance. Each experiences patterns of muscle growth and fat distribution that are consistent with their sex. There is a very long list of changes that result from this. It is inconsistent that people will count a penis as “male” or a vagina as “female”, while ignoring all of these other plainly evident physical features.

But what about genitals? Those are still physically the same up until surgery, right? No. They are not physically the same. Any trans woman on HRT can tell you that this changes a lot. The testes atrophy, shrink, and we often become sterile. The penis can shrink or change shape in certain ways. Erections can be difficult to achieve, and less firm. Sexual sensitivity can change drastically. Orgasms can feel very different, and can be more difficult to reach, while often lasting longer. Stimulation of the breasts can cause direct genital arousal, something that’s also been reported by cis women. Trans men on testosterone experience changes in their original genitals as well.

These are physical, anatomical changes, due to biological sex hormones. There is no way to exclude any of this from “biology” or “anatomy” while including genitals.

This is important to recognize, because it’s not just wrong - it’s also used to dismiss our genders, and associate us with our assigned genders instead. Saying a trans man isn’t “fully” or “all” male is a way of claiming that he is partially if not wholly female. This encourages people to regard our bodies as being the final word on gender (inconsistently, as explained above), while seeing our stated genders as something ephemeral that’s purely in our heads (also inconsistent, as the brain is a physical organ). It treats assigned genders as concrete, unquestionable “scientific facts”, and reduces our actual genders to something we only “identify as”, like it’s just a mere state-of-mind. Such arguments are common among Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists and other transphobes - this is a widespread tactic for delegitimizing trans people. In doing so, they ignore the science, and they don’t make even a lick of sense.

Trans women can be female. Trans men can be male. There is no need for asterisks or exceptions or qualifiers or peeking in anybody’s pants.


A doctor who sees an M on a trans woman’s sheets is going to assume her body works exactly like a cis man’s body even if she’s been on estrogen for years, even if she’s modified her body, even if her body already operates differently (say due to intersex status)

That doctor will not give her good care.

Please don’t pretend that writing an M on your sheet as a trans woman will benefit us in the least bit. Sex dimorphic theory is trash to begin with, a Two Size Fits All bullshit approach in medical science and doctors follow it more unthinkingly than Dick Dorkins writes creepy evolution sex poetry to all the women who would never touch his wrinkly sad penis.

Writing M or F will not benefit us medically. Neither will. So I write F because Fuck Yourselves, Cis People

Saturday was my surgery anniversary.

Spent it, and indeed the whole weekend, with my beautiful girl.

We shared much food, most of it home made, many drinks, consisting of tequila and ginger beer, and a very many sexual engagements.

My anniversary night we spent talking about Thailand a year earlier and eating take out Thai while starting House Of Cards together, the show and soundtrack that I associate most with my month of recovery overseas.

I’ve been daydreaming a lot lately about those days and months, the long nights of thunderstorms and dilation, the strange air of the hotel in the lobby with cold drinks and raw, honest conversations of recovery and personal philosophy. The jingle of morning TV and the sound of the main road outside the recovery clinic. The smell of the rooftop above the skyline, of the hospital lobby, of the rain on bike-filled streets. I close my eyes and my senses are filled up with the air.

I cannot believe it has been a year.


those mutual follows where you’ve never spoken but you quietly reblog things from each other every now and then



If you look at the world and say “Yes, there are enough homes for people, yes, there is enough food for people, but if we give it away for free they won’t have earned it and the economy will collapse.” Then you have chosen money (a constructed medium of exchange) over living beings who only want to continue living in peace and safety.

And I have no qualms telling you, that is the wrong choice, and you have been brainwashed by this destructive, exploitative system.