all 18 comments

[–][deleted] 22 insightful - 4 fun22 insightful - 3 fun23 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

One of my friends is a white girl and one of her friends is a TIM that is CONSTANTLY touching her inappropriately. When I ask her why she doesn't speak up, she says it's because they're both women and women touching women is okay. TIMs know that their perceived femininity and also victim status has provided more gains than losses and that's why they do what they do. Even the ugliest scummiest man can get access to hot girls just because he wears dresses. If women asks why he appears to have a boner... it's just "gender euphoria".

[–]Ossidiana 20 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 0 fun21 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Further demonstration that these TIMs are doing the age-old animal kingdom strategy of: if you're an omega male, disguise yourself as a woman and try to sexually assault them before the alpha or even beta males show up. It's just an old animal mating strategy, and it's the reason why it's always creepy, unattractive outcast losers who suddenly "identify as lesbian women".

[–]our_team_is_winning 18 insightful - 2 fun18 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

a TIM that is CONSTANTLY touching her inappropriately. When I ask her why she doesn't speak up, she says it's because they're both women and women touching women is okay.

Ok, a lot of us women are comfortable with another woman brushing our hair, or squeezing our hand, accidentally brushing against our chest to get past us, etc. but I am sure none of us reaches over and touches a female friend (friend, not lover) on her breast or puts our hands inside her thighs or something. It sounds like this friend of yours knows this is not about women touching women --- this is about her letting a TIM take advantage of her because she's afraid of insulting a TIM. She's putting her own fear of "being a transphobe" ahead of her personal safety.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah it's probably that too and she's afraid to admit it. Thankfully, she's been spending less time with him since quarantine. Hopefully, that'll wake her up to how messed the friendship is.

[–]Delia 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It does not matter who its doing it, if it is inappropriate touching it is just that.

[–]nothingtosee 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This was actually the cause of my "peak trans" moment. I started hanging out more with a TIM and they were allll up in my space. And seriously, it would've been weird to have a female friend this up in my space. But this felt 100% like what it was... a male-bodied person with five inches and sixty pounds+ on me, who was obviously attracted to me, using what excuse they could to be snuggly with me. It took forever to get the courage to tell them to stop in any fashion and literally I just told them I was in trauma therapy and needed more body space. This person is part of my husband's main friend group so if it were just me, sure, let people think I'm transphobic. But I felt very aware that calling out this person in a not-perfectly-delicate way could have lost my husband his whole friend group. My trans-movement support broke with that.

[–]tuesday 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

One of my friends is a white girl and one of her friends is a TIM that is CONSTANTLY touching her inappropriately.

That's a thing that a lot of gay men do, when they are in their woman-only friendship circle. It's a way of establishing dominance. Who is allowed to touch who inappropriately, and who is not allowed to object.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The reasons I believe females are accepting TWAW and the TiMs in our bathrooms and spaces, those who do, have the combination of those things going on, and their internal workings show that a wig means safe. Long hair means safe. Is not a male.

Sorry, OP, I get your overall points, but the idea that long hair=safe and not male is just plain silly.

In a vast number of cultures around the world at various times in history, tons of men customarily wore their hair very long - and no one thought this signified "safe - is not a male."

Men from the Indian subcontinent who are Sikhs don't cut their hair. That famous Jewish guy from Palestine named Jesus and all his male disciples known as the 12 apostles had long hair. So did a Biblical character called Samson; his long hair was what gave him his male strength, in fact, which is why his male power was diminished when Delilah cut it.

Men in all sorts of tribes native to the Americas traditionally had long hair. So did many of the men of European origin who colonized and settled the Americas. The Native American character played by Daniel Day Louis in "Last of the Mohicans" defo did not come off as safe and not male. Ditto the character played by Mel Gibson - and most of the other males of various ethnicities fighting on all sides in the American Revolution - in "Patriot." Not to mention the macho Scot that Gibson played in "Braveheart," a movie in which all the very macho men have long hair. And none come off as either safe or not male.

All the sexy, hunky pirates in "Black Sails" have long hair - and none seem either safe nor not male for it. Same goes for Johnny Depp in his pirate roles. Same goes for all the Scottish guys and the British troops in the 18th century parts of "Outlander."

IIRC, the Sikh soldier played by Naveen Andrews in the WW2 film "The English Patient" had hair down to his ass - and the length of his hair and his haircare routines were seen as part of what made him incredibly strong and sexually alluring in a 100% male way.

In the 2005 movie of "Pride & Prejudice," Rupert Friend as George Wickham has very long hair - which added to his male sex appeal and heightened that he was a disreputable, untrustworthy cad - definitely not safe to the young woman he led astray and absconded with.

In the West in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s, many men wore their hair to or well beyond their shoulders. Check out some classic rock and glam videos. The long hair sported by The Doors, Led Zeppelin, KISS and a TON of other male rockers did not signal that these men were not male or safe. On the contrary, for many it went hand in hand with their very out-there macho male sexuality and heightened their dangerous, bad boy image. Many of these men were widely known to be sexually abusive of girls and women and quite violent; they frequently trashed their hotel suites and their guitars on stage. So they came off as the opposite of safe.

Similarly, many women in Western countries in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s etc - as well as in other very different decades like the 1920s - wore their hair quite short. Some of us in the punk and new wave eras had buzz cuts and shaved our heads.

And at different points in history, both men and women have routinely worn wigs. Cuz of fashion, custom, baldness, lice and all sorts of unsightly scalp conditions. The term "powder room" originally did not mean toilet or loo as we think today - it meant a room where servants took wigs to powder them. Many of the wigs Louis XIV of France wore had long full locks that went down near to his elbows, others went to his shoulders but were teased up high off his skull - but no one ever regarded him as "not male" or as safe, docile and posing no threat.

[–]slushpilot 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Hair and fashion is based on cultural norms, so it's possible those internal maps are somewhat local and generational.

When the hippie movement started the long hair trend among western men, it was a counter-cultural signifier that they refused to wear the military crew-cut and look of a "real tough man". Same with the wearing of flowery clothes, flared shirts and pants, etc.

This continued into the glam rock era, and into hair metal. These men all played with gender signifiers to various degrees, including eyeliner, tight jeans, lycra pants, jewelry, etc. Today it's hard to say that any of these things are specifically feminine because we're used to them, but they were pretty outrageous for the time. "You look like a girl" was a pretty common insult from the dads.

Now considering other cultures, why do you think K-pop stars have the effect they do on teenage girls in Korea for example?

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I am saying that women are programmed in mapping to be more comfortable. Why would all of these women allow a man to hit them in BDSM when wearing women's clothing otherwise?

You are not talking about the US. I am talking about Western Cultures, UK etc.

I mentioned more than long hair. Now you are just being an asshole.

I know why I did not stick around reddit groups the first time.

I used other categories.

[–]MarkTwainiac 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What's with the name-calling? You said in your post

Please correct me, argue back, and provide additional info! I am game.

So I took you at your word, and corrected one of your points - and you in turn say I'm an asshole.

Right at the outset, I apologized for the disagreement I was going to voice, and said I got your gist:

Sorry, OP, I get your overall points, but the idea that long hair=safe and not male is just plain silly.

Then I backed up my position on the one point I chose to take issue with with by providing a number of different examples. Never did I call you names.

You are not talking about the US. I am talking about Western Cultures, UK etc.

Huh? That makes no sense. Also, I gave examples from many locales/countries at many points in time - including the US AND other "Western Cultures, UK etc." Specifically, from Scotland, England and the British colonies in North America and the West Indies in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries - and from the UK during the 1970s era of glam and punk rock.

I am saying that women are programmed in mapping to be more comfortable. Why would all of these women allow a man to hit them in BDSM when wearing women's clothing otherwise?

I don't know why "all of these women" you speak of who are into BDSM would "allow a man to hit them... when wearing women's clothing," but I think it's a big leap - and unfair to women on the whole - to suggest that women into BDSM are somehow emblematic of all women in general.

Your post title said it was about "why trans identified males are not seen as a threat by many..." not why women in the BDSM scene in particular don't see TIMs as a threat. In the body of your post, you made many statements which made it sound like you were speaking of female people in general, not just women who accept abuse from males cuz they're into kink. If I misunderstood, I apologize for my error.

Also, for the record, your contention that due to socialization, life experience and biological factors, "Long hair means safe. Is not a male" in the minds of many/most women is not the only part of your post I looked askance at and could've taken issue with. You made many sweeping generalizations about all females that IMO you did not back up with convincing evidence and which struck me as pretty sexist. Such as:

Females have different internal working maps than men. We process trauma differently. We have differences in the way we do that, not just due to estrogen in the blood...

And:

Females are also more compassionate. We are by biology and by grooming of society, and we are also made to feel more, feel the pain of others, do the emotional labor, and accept things no male would accept—ever.

After all that, your immediate response to me for disagreeing with you on one point is to call me an asshole! Which seems to undercut your claim that all females are more compassionate, have greater depth of feeling, and are more likely to feel the pain of others.

To top it off, you gripe as though you've been grievously wronged:

I know why I did not stick around reddit groups the first time.

Okay then.

[–]tuesday 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You seem to be badgering her and I'm not impressed. For women, feminism isn't just an intellectual exercise. It's a way of analyzing and picking apart all the bad things which happen to us simply because we are female.

Sometimes, the bad things are perpetrated by a gay man. A lot of gay dudes are indeed misogynists, but what's worse than the overt stuff is the way some of them pretend to be "just like us" or "similar to us" and the way they demand that we never ever notice their misogyny lest they withdraw their very conditional support.

I suppose it's hurtful for a gay man to hear, particularly if they themselves wouldn't ever be like that. But there's no reason to get defensive and start badgering a woman who's in the process of trying to understand the dynamics at work.

[–]our_team_is_winning 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why would all of these women allow a man to hit them in BDSM when wearing women's clothing otherwise?

My question: Why would a woman allow a man to hit her in BDSM under ANY circumstances? I'm sure the BDSM fans will tell me off, but getting turned on by being hit seems like a sign of emotional DAMAGE to me. These women need emotional support and therapy IMHO.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sounds like the kind of strategy a child predator would use: appearing child-like and interested in kid things in order to put children at ease.

[–]tuesday 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

exactly, that's why it makes so much sense to me. I think it was Jeffry Dahmer, the serial killer, who used to wear a fake cast and use crutches, in an effort to appear weak and in need of help.

[–]jet199 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As someone who likes short and skinny guys as well as men dressed feminine this hits home.

Something to think about.

[–]tuesday 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Back in the 1980's there was this same sort of dynamic frequently occurring between some young heterosexual women and gays. The women who did this would tell you when asked that they thought these young gay men were "safe" or at least safer than a regular man.

But of course the question which next arises, for me anyway, is... IF they have a desire to seek "safer" relationships with males where there is no chance of the relationship getting sexual then what is driving them to have a platonic relationship with males? They can have a platonic relationship with other women, so what specifically is it about males which makes them seek out males? And it's not just a desire to have any guy around, it's a desire to have a specific type of guy around -- one who acts as if he respects their life choices and exhibits the same interests in fashion and other frilly inane activities while also not being a sexual threat.

From the advantage point of time, I see now in retrospect they were seeking male validation. Their interests skewed towards what I can only describe as "bimbo ish", and yes I know that's not considered a good word for feminists to use. If there's a better word which conveys a sexualized version of juvenile frippery, please let me know. Even men who want women to be "feminine" thought they were complete idiots so it's no wonder they were willing to accept validation from whatever disingenuous authoritarian who appeared.

Btw. Another interesting dynamic about all those young women who seek out/encourage/allow a gay male into their "woman only friendship circle"... There is only ONE gay male per friendship circle. You rarely see two gay males in a flock of women. If you do, the second gay guy is not in attendance as often and as soon as he finds his own flock of women then he drops the first group.

It's some sort of weird domination by gaslighting thing. He pretends he's not dominating the group, and they pretend they're not needing a man to validate their interest in vapid and juvenile pursuits.

Anyway, that was back in the 1980's and I don't see much difference between that and how the handmaidens of today are interacting with transwomen.