Julia Serano
LightNews LightNews
banner
juliaserano.bsky.social
Julia Serano
@juliaserano.bsky.social
27K followers 440 following 2K posts
author of Whipping Girl, Sexed Up, Excluded & 99 Erics. also a musician & biologist. more at juliaserano.com. @juliaserano most other platforms. she/her
Posts Replies Media Videos
juliaserano.bsky.social
...if you're not familiar, negativity bias is an unconscious tendency we have where, if we view an outcome as negative (eg, a Covid pandemic, children who are trans or autistic), we compulsively seek out imagined "external agents" that must have "caused" them:
juliaserano.medium.com/what-covid-l...
screenshot from linked to essay that reads: Normally, I would run through all these parallels before providing my conclusions. But in this case, I think it will make much more sense if I provide my explanation for what is driving these similarities from the outset: There is a well-studied human cognitive bias, often called negativity bias, that refers to our tendency to dwell more on negative outcomes than positive or neutral ones, and to attribute negative (but not positive or neutral) outcomes to some external agent (reviewed in Rozin & Royzman, 2001; Morewedge, 2009). Or to put it another way, we often presume that positive or neutral events occur naturally or inexplicably, whereas negative events must have been caused by something or someone. screenshot from linked to essay that reads: Here is a mundane example: If you were to drive home from work without incident, nobody would care or give it a second thought. It would be considered a taken-for-granted outcome and nobody would expect you to provide an account of how or why it happened. But if you got into an accident on your way home, well, then we would all want to know why and how it happened. You couldn’t say “I don’t know, I just got into an accident” — nobody would take that answer seriously, because something must have caused the accident! And if you do not provide an explanation that is satisfactory in our eyes, people will likely attribute causes or motives for you: Perhaps another driver cut you off? Or maybe you were speeding? Or drinking? Or fell asleep at the wheel? Here is a pertinent example: Most people turn out to be heterosexual and cisgender — this is widely viewed as a positive or neutral outcome that requires no explanation. If you happen to have turned out this way, I’ll bet nobody has ever asked you “How do you know that you’re really straight?” or “What caused you to be straight?” LGBTQ+ people, on the other hand, are routinely asked these questions: We must either be “confused” (read: not really what we say we are) or else something “bad” must have “caused” us to turn out this way.
November 21, 2025 at 8:37 PM
juliaserano.bsky.social
...since today's TDoR, I'm not gonna do my usual thread of excerpts just yet. but this passage from the intro provides a taste. pls share to raise awareness of all the studies debunking "social contagion/ROGD" as well as how inane Colin Wright's WSJ op-ed was:
juliaserano.medium.com/lies-damned-...
screenshot from linked to essay that reads: For those interested, I have chronicled debates about the Kaufmann report in the October 10, 2025 entry of my recently updated Origins of “Social Contagion” & “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” timeline, but I will not be discussing them further here. From my perspective, the most pertinent issue is not whether the number of young people who identify as trans or LGBTQ+ happens to be rising (as the Williams Institute and Gallup, respectively, recently reported) or falling (as Kaufmann claims), but rather that anti-trans activists will inevitably shoehorn any statistics (both increases or decreases!) into their “social contagion” narrative. The rest of this essay will be organized into three sections. First, I will discuss the history of the “transgender social contagion” narrative: who invented it, what purpose it serves, and why it’s nothing more than wild speculation. Second, with that necessary context in tow, I will highlight the numerous flaws in Colin Wright’s WSJ op-ed and revisit the popular “left-handedness” analogy, which he misrepresents in his piece. Third, I will end with a list of over a dozen studies that contradict the “social contagion”/“rapid onset gender dysphoria” hypothesis.
November 20, 2025 at 7:21 PM
juliaserano.bsky.social
was very confused by this abstract I stumbled upon in a search b/c it clearly uses GC/TERF language & framings, but describes itself in the title as "A Challenge for Gender Critical Feminism". then I realized it's in a Catholic journal & they're likely encouraging GC/TERFs to "drop the GLB" too...
screenshot of the abstract to a paper entitled "The Connection Between the Normalization of Homosexuality and Erroneous Theories on Sex and Gender: A Challenge for Gender Critical Feminism" that reads: Among the strongest critics of gender identity theory (GIT) and queer theory (QT) are gender critical feminists (GCF) because of the potentially negative impact of these theories on women and the feminist movement. Yet, GCF are fully supportive of the notion of homosexuality as a normal and authentic expression of human sexuality. In this essay, I explore the logical connections that exist between the normalization of homosexuality and both GIT and QT, arguing that the acceptance of homosexuality as normal necessarily entails commitments that are at the very heart of these erroneous theories of sex and gender. In this way, there is fundamental incoherence in the opposition of GCF to GIT and QT. At the very heart of these theories is the denial of the significance of the way in which an individual is configured for human generation when it comes to personal identity. Homosexuality, likewise, fosters the notion that the generative configuration of an individual is insignificant because it is accorded no importance in guiding the truthful expression of sexuality precisely in that realm where generative configuration is the foundational reality. Developing this point, the essay shows how: (a) the acceptance of homosexuality as normal undermines the insistence by GCF of the primacy of sex over gender as the category on which the distinction of woman from man is founded; (b) the acceptance of homosexual inclination as normal undermines the possibility of claiming that transgenderism and those with gender identity disorder misperceive reality; and (c) how acceptance of homosexuality as an authentic alternative to heterosexuality involves logical commitments that validate the claim that a “transwoman” is equally a woman as any other.
November 15, 2025 at 12:35 AM
juliaserano.bsky.social
swear to god as soon as U.S. Eastern Time folks are confronted with the existence of people in other time zones, their brains completely stop working: "so remind me, are you 3 hours ahead of me? or behind me?" wow, that's a tough one – does the sun rise in the west & set in the east? or vice versa?
screenshot that reads: "New episodes of Pluribus are released on Fridays on Apple TV. The third episode in Season 1 drops Friday, Nov. 14 at 9 p.m. ET/midnight PT."
November 14, 2025 at 3:20 AM
juliaserano.bsky.social
the only thing more batshit than calling your newsletter "Reality’s Last Stand" is changing the button to opt out of subscribing (which typically says "No thanks" by default) to read: "I don't care about the truth" haha
screen shot from Colin Wright's "Reality’s Last Stand" newsletter that reads: "Reality’s Last Stand Holding the line on free speech, science, and reality. Over 53,000 subscribers" below that, there is a box where you can type your email in to Subscribe below that, there is the opt-out button that reads: "I don't care about the truth"
November 8, 2025 at 7:13 PM
juliaserano.bsky.social
...here is that passage, the TL;DR being: whenever someone describes someone or something as "divisive", they are telling you about the imagined "one-ness" they favor (which inevitably excludes others). more about Excluded can be found here: juliaserano.com/excluded.html
screenshot of quote from Excluded that reads: The word “divisive” is a red flag for me. I can’t begin to tell you how many times I have heard trans women, or allies of trans women, called “divisive” when we call out people on their transphobia or trans-misogyny. In contrast, I have never once heard anyone use the word “divisive” to describe cis queer women who make trans-misogynistic comments, or who organize or attend queer women’s spaces that exclude trans women. The fact that acts that marginalize trans women are not typically described as being “divisive” implies that there is a presumed and unspoken “one-ness” that exists in queer women’s communities that implicitly precludes trans women.
October 25, 2025 at 12:17 AM
juliaserano.bsky.social
Google search has reached the level of enshittification where, if you conduct searches while not signed into Google (as I've historically done) they bombard you with Captchas. I'm not about to identify traffic lights or motorcycles every time I want to check the weather or get directions, so bye bye
screenshot of message I now get wen I google search that reads: I'm not a robot About this page Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network. This page checks to see if it's really you sending the requests, and not a robot. Why did this happen?
October 20, 2025 at 8:08 PM
juliaserano.bsky.social
for the record, while I am a geneticist, I am not at University of Cambridge, nor do I study extinct genetic sequences...
a Google Alert for "julia serano" dated October 14, 2025 that reads: "From Fossil to Fashion: World's First Handbags Made From T. Rex Leather Are Coming Soon The Daily Galaxy Researchers such as Dr. Julia Serano at the University of Cambridge caution that “reviving extinct genetic sequences for profit challenges ..."
October 14, 2025 at 11:35 PM
juliaserano.bsky.social
just learning now that "waffles" is about Jəsse Singəl, so I will re-up this piece that chronicles his long history of harassing primarily trans women (+ other trans ppl & allies) online... juliaserano.blogspot.com/2017/12/my-j...
screenshot from linked to article that reads (in part): Jun 18, 2018 – Katherine Cross on Singal sending her an email “swearing a storm at me because I tweeted something he disliked that he felt was untrue.” Jun 18, 2018 – Cat Fitzpatrick mentions Singal threatened to sue her for politely disagreeing with him. Jan 15, 2019 – Singal levies legal threats against two writers who mention that they personally know trans women who’ve had bad interactions with him. Jul 7, 2020 – the day the Harper’s Letter (which Singal was a signatory) was released, Singal instigated pile-ons of multiple people. I captured him initiating the pile-on of Jennifer Finney Boylan as it was occurring in this thread (both up & down from linked-to tweet). Emily VanDerWerff reacts to Singal’s pile-on of her here and, two days later, discusses the aftermath of that pile-on (which included “Death threats, rape threats, invitations to commit suicide, constant misgendering, etc”). Ari Drennen took screenshots of Singal targeting Aja Romano. Because Singal’s attack on Emily VanDerWerff was premised on his false presumption that she was trying to get one of her employers fired (which she has denied), lots of other writers began coming forward with stories of Singal contacting their employers and editors because he disliked what they wrote. Here are some of those instances: Jul 7, 2020 – Katelyn Burns on Singal “repeatedly emailing my employer until they fired me” is found here. A week later a co-worker corroborated that story. Jul 7, 2020 – Noah Berlatsky shares: “also Jesse emailed me to demand I save DMs from Katelyn and others and investigate them for him, implying he would sue me otherwise.” Jul 7, 2020 – Katerine Cross shares: “Back when I wrote for Feministing, he repeatedly badgered the editors trying to get a critical post that mentioned him briefly changed or taken down.” Jul 9, 2020 – Harron Walker shares how Singal “emailed my editor many times after this was published seeking correction....o…
October 2, 2025 at 8:24 PM
juliaserano.bsky.social
...the essay ends with how some pundits & journalists have failed us. if they've decided to draw their line in the sand where explicit sexism, racism, transphobia, etc. are tolerable, then I have every right to admonish those positions!
juliaserano.medium.com/how-to-write...
screenshot from linked-to article that reads: But if instead of engaging in such smart and necessary conversations, you’d rather just write the flip-side of the “Internet outrage machine” article — where instead of stoking outrage about people who have allegedly committed acts of sexism, or racism, or transphobia, and so on, you instead stoke outrage about the people who are protesting these potential acts of sexism, or racism, or transphobia, and so on — and/or if you want to dismiss or condemn these activists’ and minority groups’ protests without addressing any of the Pandora’s Boxes that I have described along the way in this article, then fuck you. Seriously. Fuck you. You are a hack who does not want to have a serious conversation about these super-important and super-complex issues. You just want to be in the right. And I think you are wrong. That is where I draw my line-in-the-sand.
September 29, 2025 at 5:51 AM
juliaserano.bsky.social
...this passage pulls points 1 & 2 together: we (anti-MAGA ppl) can't all be in lockstep with one another on messaging b/c we are all drawing the line in the sand in very different places! with many Dem pundits/politicians refusing to draw any lines whatsoever!
juliaserano.medium.com/how-to-write...
screenshot from linked-to article that reads: You have every right to draw the line wherever you want. Just as I have every right to try to push the line in my preferred direction (which may, or may not, include protesting people who express vitriol and disinformation about trans people, and/or people who tacitly condone that vitriol and disinformation). But don’t obfuscate this particular matter by pretending that this is about free speech, or tolerating dissenting views, or activists going too far. This is about the line-in-the-sand. You can’t have a society where women are fully respected, but where expressions of rampant sexism are also condoned. It is simply not possible — as a feminist, surely you can see this. By the same token, it is simply not possible to fully respect trans people while at the same time condoning people who express rampant transphobia — these things are mutually exclusive. So go ahead and draw your line, the one that determines whether you deem trans people to be beyond the pale (as historically has been the case), or whether you deem transphobia (sans scare-quotes) beyond the pale. But you can’t have it both ways. And once you draw that line, own it. Because this is all about the line.
September 29, 2025 at 5:29 AM
juliaserano.bsky.social
...here are a few excerpts from that essay about how all of this (past, present, & future) is all about WHERE WE DRAW THE LINE (rather than about "PC/woke" or "civility" or other ancillary pundit obsessions)... juliaserano.medium.com/how-to-write...
screenshot from linked-to article that reads: So as I’ve been saying all along, this story is not really about free speech. It’s about where we — as individuals, as a society — draw that unspoken line-in-the-sand with regards to what we deem to be permissible, and what (and often whom) we deem beyond the pale. And if you can’t see that the real issue at stake here is the unspoken line-in-the-sand, then that’s most likely a sign that who you are and what you believe is already deemed permissible in our society. But as a trans person who has lived most of my life being deemed by 95-ish percent of society as being beyond the pale — who stayed closeted the first twenty-seven years of my life because I knew most people wouldn’t accept me, who attended secretly-held trans community meetings because it was not safe for us to congregate in a public space during that time and place, who still to this day faces regular discrimination and harassment that large swaths of our society condones — to me, that unspoken line-in-the-sand is blatantly obvious. It basically determines whether or not I am allowed to exist, whether or not my perspective and concerns are taken seriously. That unspoken line-in-the-sand is right there, doing real work, directly impacting many people’s lives, even if you choose not to see it, or refuse to acknowledge its existence.
September 29, 2025 at 5:22 AM
juliaserano.bsky.social
...knowing Jəsse's the author (& that gender-affirming care practitioners are well aware of his biases & tactics) utterly changes the meaning of the last paragraph. without attribution, it makes it sound like the authors are suspiciously dodging the question. in actuality they know he's a bad actor!
screenshot from the last paragraph of the aforementioned Economist article that reads: 'What do Dr Olson and her co-authors make of all this? In an email, one of the researchers, Benjamin deMayo, “politely” declined to discuss the matter. “Not interested, thanks,” said Dr Olson.'
September 22, 2025 at 11:22 PM
juliaserano.bsky.social
...apparently he tweeted about it several days ago. it seems weird that The Economist purposely hid his name from readers. unless of course they knew that readers might already be aware of Jəsse's long history of bias on this issue...
screenshot of tweet from Jesse Singal dated September 18, 2025, where he links to said Economist piece & says: "Wrote up an important new study on childhood gender transition for The Economist. Almost 20% of fully transitioned kids changed their mind about their gender identity at least once in the next seven years. Expert opinion on what this means differs!"
September 22, 2025 at 11:13 PM
juliaserano.bsky.social
...in a separate essay, I discuss the endless litany of supposed "causes" of transness, and how they lack evidence & are often incompatible with one another. they *only* make sense if you recognize that they are all enabled by negativity bias! juliaserano.medium.com/anti-trans-g...
screenshot from linked-to essay that reads: There is a virtually endless list of things that supposedly cause people to become transgender. During the mid-to-late twentieth century, perhaps the most common proposed cause was faulty parent-child dynamics, especially “dominant” or “smothering” mothers (because of course it must be the mother’s fault!). Others argued that we likely transition in order to obtain gender-related privileges, or to assimilate into straight society, and/or because we uncritically buy into gender stereotypes. Still others insisted that we must be trying to “trick” straight people into sleeping with us, or striving to satisfy some sexual perversion. Janice Raymond even wrote an entire (and unfortunately influential) book contending that trans people are the products of a devious medico-patriarchal scheme to replace “biological women” with “man-made women” — I kid you not! (I debunk all these hypotheses in my 2007 book Whipping Girl.) Some of these ideas persist to this day, but they’ve been joined by a slew of recent newcomers, including the notion that people (and especially kids) who come out as trans must be succumbing to peer pressure, or brainwashed by “gender ideology,” or sissy-hypno porn, or anime, or feminizing chemicals in the environment, or satanic possession, and/or are being manipulated by Jewish billionaires working together with big pharma to create a transhumanist future (reminiscent of Raymond’s premise but with the antisemitism cranked up to eleven).
September 22, 2025 at 9:56 PM
juliaserano.bsky.social
so Tylenol supposedly causes autism, but so does MMR, despite autism predating either of them – how could this be? negativity bias! this is why when ppl consider something to be "bad" they can invent hundreds of causes w/little evidence & ppl will believe it...
juliaserano.medium.com/what-covid-l...
screenshot from linked to essay that reads: There is a well-studied human cognitive bias, often called negativity bias, that refers to our tendency to dwell more on negative outcomes than positive or neutral ones, and to attribute negative (but not positive or neutral) outcomes to some external agent (reviewed in Rozin & Royzman, 2001; Morewedge, 2009). Or to put it another way, we often presume that positive or neutral events occur naturally or inexplicably, whereas negative events must have been caused by something or someone. Here is a mundane example: If you were to drive home from work without incident, nobody would care or give it a second thought. It would be considered a taken-for-granted outcome and nobody would expect you to provide an account of how or why it happened. But if you got into an accident on your way home, well, then we would all want to know why and how it happened. You couldn’t say “I don’t know, I just got into an accident” — nobody would take that answer seriously, because something must have caused the accident! And if you do not provide an explanation that is satisfactory in our eyes, people will likely attribute causes or motives for you: Perhaps another driver cut you off? Or maybe you were speeding? Or drinking? Or fell asleep at the wheel?
September 22, 2025 at 9:49 PM
juliaserano.bsky.social
many ppl highlighting flaws in this article. but having fought in the "80% desistance" wars of the mid-2010s, I remember asking anti-trans activists if they'd be ok if 80% of youth were helped by gender-affirming care (flipping their argument). & they *never* answered. b/c they want *zero* trans ppl
screenshot of a The Economist post that reads: "A recent study found that children who transitioned young retained stable gender identities over time. But the fact that nearly a fifth of those in the group did not ought to give advocates of irreversible medical interventions pause". the byline of the linked to article says "a study finds that one in five who switch gender change their mind"
September 21, 2025 at 11:02 PM
juliaserano.bsky.social
so according to our AI overlords tomorrow is *not* Sunday September 14th. so mark your calendars!
Google AI overview (searched at 4:30pm on Saturday September 13th) that reads: "There isn't an Eagles vs. Chiefs game tomorrow, Sunday, September 14th, 2025, because the game is on Sunday, September 14th, not tomorrow, and is a scheduled matchup in the NFL season. You can watch the game on FOX at 4:25 p.m. ET."
September 13, 2025 at 11:42 PM
juliaserano.bsky.social
...not only b/c he was extremely centrist, but he was a rich guy who owned a winery & would pose for photo-shoots like this with his then wife Kimberly Guilfoyle (yes, her!). then there's the scandal/affair with a 19 year old. anyway, nobody has ever been excited to vote for Newsom – he was just...
the infamous photo of Newsom lounging on a fancy carpet with his then wife Kimberly Guilfoyle
August 31, 2025 at 5:09 PM
juliaserano.bsky.social
unrelated to current events, I've spent much of the last week reading & writing about the social cognition phenomenon of "illusory correlation" – this is the abstract from one of the first studies to describe it (many subsequent studies support it). sharing it now for reasons....
abstract from the article "Illusory correlation in interpersonal perception: A cognitive basis of stereotypic judgments" by Hamilton & Gifford, which reads: Illusory correlation refers to an erroneous inference about the relationship be- tween two categories of events. One postulated basis for illusory correlation is the co-occurrence of events which are statistically infrequent; i.e., observers overestimate the frequency of co-occurrence of distinctive events. If one group of persons "occurs" less frequently than another and one type of behavior occurs infrequently, then the above hypothesis predicts that observers would over- estimate the frequency that that type of behavior was performed by members of that group. This suggested that the differential perception of majority and minority groups could result solely from the cognitive mechanisms involved in processing information about stimulus events that differ in their frequencies of co-occurrence. Results of two experiments testing this line of reasoning provided strong support for the hypothesis. Implications of the experiments for the acquisition of stereotypes are discussed.
August 27, 2025 at 8:04 PM
juliaserano.bsky.social
...and even if there were such a thing as an "AGP gene" he would find it in cis women & cis men too haha... juliaserano.medium.com/the-white-lo...
screenshot from the linked-to essay that reads: Now in reality, these sorts of “cross-sex” fantasies (sexual fantasies that involve imagining oneself as a member of the other sex) are fairly common. In his 2018 study of 4,175 Americans’ sexual fantasies, Justin Lehmiller found that “about one-quarter of men and women had fantasized about cross-dressing, and nearly a third had fantasized about trading bodies with someone of the other sex” (p. 66). Lehmiller points out that this isn’t just men fantasizing about being women: “11 percent of the women I surveyed reported sexual fantasies about becoming men and that 20 percent had fantasized about dressing up as men” (pp. 97–98). As Lehmiller puts it, “We often become different people in our sexual fantasies. Most of my participants reported that, when they appear in their own fantasies, they change themselves in some way, whether it’s having a different body, genital appearance, or personality” (p. xviii). I should point out that trans people only comprise about 0.6% of the U.S. population. So when Lehmiller reports that roughly 33% of people experience these cross-sex fantasies, he is primarily talking about cisgender people here. These are, by and large, cisgender fantasies. screenshot from the linked-to essay that reads: Outside of cross-sex fantasies, some people have used the term “autogynephilia” to refer to sexual fantasies that women often have centered on their own female body and/or feminine gender expression (e.g., dressing up in lingerie). Veale et al. (2008) found that 52% of their cisgender female subjects experienced “autogynephilia” (see Moser, 2010 for further elaboration). In a separate study of cisgender women, Moser (2009) found that 93% of his subjects experienced “autogynephilia” to some extent, with 28% experiencing it at high levels. Other researchers (e.g., Leitenberg & Henning, 1995; Dubberley, 2013) have also described these sorts of sexual fantasies in women, albeit without framing such fantasies in terms of “autogynephilia.”
August 25, 2025 at 3:23 PM
juliaserano.bsky.social
...plus #99Erics was selected as one of Kirkus Reviews Best Indie Books of 2021! this is from their review (www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews...): "Knocks down literary conventions, sexual stereotypes, the fourth wall, and more in enthusiastic defense of the weird"...
screenshot from the linked-to 99 Erics book review that reads in part: Serano satirically tackles gender norms, linguistics, hipsters, and more as her fictional character writes a book about dating 99 different people—all named Eric. Kat Cataclysm is an absurdist short story writer and self-identified “weirdo”—an out bisexual, nonmonogamous “ethical slut” with an interest in baseball, linguistics, and delicious India pale ales. She’s also fictional, a not quite nom de guerre (but still a warrior!) of author Serano, and has a long-held desire to be a novelist despite her self-confessed title of “queen of conflict avoidance,” an unfortunate trait when most novels thrive on conflict. So instead, she commits to a “faux novel” about her “her supposed experiences dating 99 different people named Eric” as she seeks to subvert other conventions of fiction as well, vowing to never overcome adversity or grow as a person along the way. Kat uses these Erics as opportunities to draw out poignant points about gentrification, internalized homophobia, bisexual stereotypes, and the disposability of the gig economy while also obsessing over penis-chewing banana slugs or deal- ing with the fallout of an internet listicle on the common cold she authored literally going viral. When she sics a roomful of zombified children on a tiresome screenwriter, it’s clear she’s aware of her role as omniscient narrator. Serano has written about gender identity and feminism in her nonfiction books Whipping Girl (2007) and Excluded (2013); she explores many of the same ideas in her debut work of fiction. The writing is conversational in style, and though Kat claims to be uninterested in banal descriptions, the scene-setting in various California locales works well. Kat recalls the Manic Pixie Dream Girls so often used in male-oriented stories, but she’s decidedly more warts and all in her presentation, almost too quirky to function, ... screenshot from the linked-to book review that reads: ...and enthusiastic about her role as ruler of all the Erics. The result is a lovable composite of Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (1966) and a less murder-y version of Marvel’s Deadpool, using absurdism and humor to break down the fourth wall and the very idea of “normal,” with all its silly little boxes and prejudices. If that makes the book sound serious, it isn’t—and that might be the most effective way it makes its readers think about identity. Knocks down literary conventions, sexual stereotypes, the fourth wall, and more in enthusiastic defense of the weird.
August 12, 2025 at 6:51 PM
juliaserano.bsky.social
...& since the latest Discourse™ began with young men's views toward sex, I have a whole chapter about this in my book Sexed Up, specifically Chapter 5 "Confused Sluts" – the name is explained in the screenshot. you can read an excerpt from the opening of the chapter here: lithub.com/julia-serano...
screenshot from the linked-to book that reads: '...embodies all of the sex-negative attitudes that the Predator/ Prey mindset tends to instill in boys and men. Over the course of the chapter, despite expressing interest in having sex with Kat, this Eric also uses the word “pussy” as a slur (indicating that he harbors negative views toward women’s bodies), insults someone as a “cocksucker” (suggesting that he disrespects people who have sex with men), and calls women who are open about their sexual- ity “sluts” (showing he believes that women should be shamed for their sexual experiences and desires). In response to these senti- ments, Kat calls Eric a “confused slut”: someone who on the one hand supposedly wants to have lots of sex, yet on the other hand promotes highly negative attitudes toward sex. I have since found the phrase “confused slut” to be a useful intervention to get people thinking about how confounding...'
August 2, 2025 at 6:19 PM
juliaserano.bsky.social
not sure what started it (as it's early morning where I am), but lots of ppl on my TL are discussing porn bans. I more generally call this the "hiding sex" strategy & it is very bad for marginalized groups! this essay discusses several reasons why, here's one:
juliaserano.medium.com/sexual-dysto...
screenshot of the linked-to article that reads: There is yet another problem with the “hiding sex” strategy; namely, it fails to account for double standards in our perception and interpretations of sex and sexuality. I have already provided countless examples of how certain subpopulations are “marked by sex” and viewed as “excessively sexual” in many people’s eyes. A man who walks down the street topless is not considered “sexual,” whereas a woman who does the same is. A heterosexual couple who engages in public hand-holding or kissing is not considered “sexual,” but a same-sex couple doing the same is. If a billboard ad featured a white, cisgender, thin, able-bodied woman wearing a sexy outfit, many passersby wouldn’t even notice it, but if the model were Black, or transgender, or fat, or disabled, or some combination thereof, it might strike them as “sexually inappropriate.” In other words, the “hiding sex” strategy will inevitably police some people’s bodies and behaviors far more than others, thereby perpetuating pre-existing social and sexual inequities.
July 24, 2025 at 2:47 PM
juliaserano.bsky.social
...I figured I'd end this thread with the last few paragraphs from the essay which sums up why this is so important. ppl tend to view this topic as weird or esoteric, but how we (cis & trans ppl alike) see gender has far-reaching ramifications on our lives.
juliaserano.medium.com/how-do-we-se...
screenshot from linked-to essay that reads: In addition to being intellectually interesting, I believe this issue is one of the most underappreciated obstacles that trans people face. The fact that most cis people naively presume that they see the world “normally” or “correctly” directly leads to them imagining us as “outliers” at best and “abominations” at worse. We can explain gender and sexual diversity to them until we’re blue in the face, but the real problem is they cannot see that diversity even though it’s all around them! Encouraging the cis majority to dismantle their Two Filing Cabinets mindset in a “good way” (as I put it in the video) has the potential to help them see that there is no such thing as a “normal” or “correct” gender — we are all simply collections of sex characteristics that vary in all sorts of ways. Dismantling the Two Filing Cabinets mindset can also help trans people, especially those still in the “questioning” phase. I spent years believing that I’d never be able to transition because there appeared to be an immense chasm separating male from female that seemed nearly impossible to transverse. But it turned out that chasm was entirely in my mind. As I explain in the video, as my gender perception shifted — as I began seeing gender and sexual diversity in all its varied forms — I gradually realized that it was possible for me. I had been stuck on the false notion that I could never be a “real” or “normal” girl, until I was finally able to see that there is no such thing as a “normal girl.”
July 18, 2025 at 6:05 PM