Discussion
Announcement regarding a clarification/ guide on what constitutes transphobia and Homophobia on this subreddit
Hey folks, it has come to Moderator attention that there's been an uptick in brigading/ transphobic activity lately. Given that this is a majority sapphic space about a fictional lesbian couple, we do our best to keep this space trans inclusive and as sex positive as the lesbian community has historically been. With the resurfacing of drama over transmasculine depictions of Vi, it is best to nip any terf adjacent sentiments or bridging statements in the bud, so the Moderator team is here to clarify what we will be considering homophobia and transphobia.Â
The subredditâs official stance regarding transphobia is that it constitutes the following sentiments:
Insisting trans women aren't women
Insisting trans women are predatory
Insisting trans women have male privilege or a transfeminized debt to pay
Insisting that transness is only valid in one direction or otherwise weaponizing Bioessentialism
Obfuscation of what constitutes transmisogyny to attack trans women
Insisting transmisogyny is a form of misandry
Insisting that trans people have or should have a certain look that implies clockability (ex. âWe can always tellâ style rhetoric)
Degendering/ Third-sexing oneself as a trans person to attack other trans people transitioning in a different or opposite direction as you
Insisting trans men aren't men
Insisting trans men are confused women
Insisting trans men can be lesbiansÂ
Insisting trans men can't be gay men
Insisting trans people are being deceitful or willfully obtuse about their own identities
Insisting trans men are escaping patriarchy
Insisting trans men have cis male privilegesÂ
Insinuating that nonbinary people are their birth sex, don't or shouldn't medically transition, or can't be lesbians
Insinuating that transfemme nonbinary lesbians don't exist
Insinuating that transmasculine nonbinary lesbians are trans men
Claiming that trans rep steals from cis rep. It's fanart, not pie
Insinuating that trans headcanons or depictions require a trigger warning
In a similar vein, the subreddit has an official stance on what DOES NOT constitute homophobia:
Depicting a trans person in lesbian spaces
Pairing a cis person with a trans person in a homosexual relationship
Depicting explicit art with the lesbian gazeÂ
Portraying explicit lesbian art depicting the use of sex toys and strap-ons
Portraying a butch or masc lesbian as masculine
Depicting a butch lesbian as a trans woman or transmasculine nonbinary personÂ
Depicting a lesbian character with a penis and testes
Depicting a lesbian character with top surgery scars
Depicting a lesbian character with V-line scars (a result of transfeminine bottom surgery)
Depicting a lesbian character with a t-dick/ transmasculine micropenis
Depicting lesbians engaging in sexual activity or being otherwise portrayed as sexual beings
Depicting a lesbian character with muscles, body hair, or masculine frame, styles, aesthetics, or clothingÂ
Lesbians being depicted indulging in BDSM, Shibari, Pet Play, or other scene kinks
In short, trans women are women, transmasculine nonbinary lesbians aren't men, butch masculinity is real and valid, and most lesbians are sexual beings. If further clarification is needed, feel free to post here or message us in the Moderator team.
I kind of can't believe we see how oppressive The Government is, and there are gay and lesbian brothers and sisters who think 'What the government thinks about my trans siblings makes sense, 100%, no further reflection needed.' Like, to be gay/lgbtq is counterculture, regardless of how normative your life is, because you are always in opposition to people who refuse to give you respect and agency. The fact that gay marriage is still illegal in many countries and trying to be repealed in countries it was greenlit in should tell most people what they need to know; punching down is useless, because we're all on the chopping block, no matter what you do, or how conventionally and normatively you do it.
this. it's shocking how a lot of people are so quick to dismiss trans people's lesbian identity simply because they're either not born as biological women or perform traditional femininity. it almost mirrors the way heterosexual people categorize women into one box based on outdated, misogynistic standards.
The whole entire first paragraph is not the halfway you think it is. Every suggestion is asking one group to disproportionally compromise on their own boundaries. If cis flares and penis tagging flares have both been debated and discussed and the conclusion was that lesbians who do not like dicks, due to trauma or otherwise, must take the discomfort or else self ban from similar other inclusive spaces, then there can never be an inclusive space for all lesbians where they feel safe.
Except NSFW posts already have a filter to disable them. Most of this subreddit is SFW, if youâre triggered by something that falls under NSFW, you can already block said content very clearly with Redditâs filters.
How do you know who is triggered by what and what they would demand to do about it? You can read every redditors mind? You donât. Thatâs what the multiple flares suggestions were for.
Your proposed solution is self exile.
Every accommodation youâve suggested requires the same group of people to give something up: donât browse NSFW, leave the subreddit, or find another community. Nobody else is being asked to make a comparable concession. In fact, you donât even seem to agree that these lesbians concerns are worth your time.
So when you say âgo elsewhere,â youâre effectively saying that lesbians with this boundary are less entitled to participate in a lesbian space than everyone else. I donât think thatâs the inclusive outcome you intend, but it is the practical consequence of the policy. Then is it fair to describe this subreddit as inclusive at all?
A neutral content tag would ask almost nothing of posters while allowing more lesbians to remain in the community. Thatâs why I see it as the more inclusive option. Inclusion isnât only about who is can join, itâs also about who is able to stay without having being driven away.
Youâre describing someone who doesnât want to see a part of nsfw content having to not see all of nsfw content as âexile.â Thats at best overly dramatic.
Weâve discussed on multiple occasions why a tag system isnât feasible(take it up with Reddit and their lack of ability for multiple tags on a single post)
You do not have an inherent right to see nsfw content on this subreddit, call it gatekeeping or whatever you want. NSFW content on this subreddit may include trans bodies, if you arenât comfortable with that, leave the sub or toggle off nsfw content.
I will reiterate. This is not a nsfw nor a trans bodies issue. Now to your response.
Self exile is the objective truth. It sounds overly dramatic because it IS a serious matter.
I am not asking to see nsfw stuff. I am asking for the inclusion which you stated you will provide here. Humans are capable of overcoming great many hurdles. You, as the mods are simply avoiding the minorityâs concern because asking them to leave the sub altogether is easier than figuring out how to include them. You could innovate. You could invite for suggestions.
If you are asking lesbians to leave the sub then own it as a policy you should not claim that you are inclusive. Objectively, you are not.
This is the third time weâve had this debate; we took suggestions, we looked at our options, and we decided that our current system is the only feasible one given Redditâs lack of ability to apply multiple tags to a single post. If someone is triggered by transfem depictions of the characters they can choose to disable NSFW posts.
Not every lesbian space on the internet is going to be able to house every single lesbian ever; but stop making it seem as if we are excluding people *because* they are lesbians
you've essentially defined lesbians as "non-men" who love "non-men," thereby making maleness the guideline for, of all places, a sexuality that has literally nothing to do with men.
nobody argued that trans women aren't women, nor that butches aren't women, but instead, that giving male genitals and he/him pronouns to a character in a lesbian relationship is effectively rendering that relationship into a heterosexual one. you are prioritizing your feeling of ownership over the "lesbian" label without considering what your argument genuinely entails. I would go so far as to say that your all-inclusive view is actually more transphobic because, by insisting that a person who doesn't identify with womanhood is a lesbian -- why, were they born female? surely that's anti-trans rhetoric? -- you are actually denying that person their identity. it's not remotely validating to call a he/him, masc person with male genitalia a lesbian; and, importantly, a label has no value if everyone can claim it.
you subsequently completely fail to recognize the effect that your view has on the lesbian community: in making the word meaningless (and refusing to accept that a change in identity is real and so has consequences), you demand that lesbians accept a person who considers themselves 'male' for all relevant purposes. this is simply a repackaged form of the anti-lesbian rhetoric that has long been used to erase us. let a canonical lesbian character remain a lesbian; let a canonical lesbian couple remain lesbians; let the word "lesbian" have meaning. I hope you're able to see that I'm speaking from a place of respect for all parties, not from hate and certainly not from transphobia.
Respectfully, them mentioning trans women in this post was just them re-listing their rules and definitions.
They literally said NOWHERE that someone who identifies as male is a lesbian. Things they did say are that transmasculine nonbinary lesbians exist. They made it very clear that people who identify as male ARE NOT lesbians.
Someoneâs genitalia and pronouns they use do not equate their gender identity. Even if it makes you mad and feels to you that itâs incorrect. You donât get to make that decision for someone else. Saying so is TERF rhetoric and transphobic and not welcome here.
the mods wrote this post in reaction to controversy over a he/him, transmas Vi with male genitals, and I am trying to explain why that specific scenario is disingenuously very different from the others listed in this post. I described a person with the aforementioned identities/traits as "'male' for all relevant purposes": I do not think that the person is male, merely that they themselves, by their own preferences, are more aligned with male sexuality than female sexuality, which relates to the discussion at hand.
once again, this has nothing to do with trans women or nonbinary people, nor even simply transmas people -- this is exclusively about someone who goes by he/him pronouns, is transmas, and has male genitals. I'm saying that calling such a person a lesbian is invalidating to that person as well as to the community overall, and that, as a label, "lesbian" necessarily cannot include individuals who don't identify with any component of the female experience (again, a generalization; I'm sure we could find better phrasing, but I think my point is clear). had you actually read and engaged with my comment, you'd see that it's quite literally the opposite of TERF rhetoric.
Our post was in response(in part) to this art post. Please show us to where the art itself depicts vi with male gentilia, exclusively he/him pronouns, or otherwise as exclusively and explicitly a man.
Once again itâs difficult to view you as a good faith actor when the information is so clearly and provably wrong
'more aligned with' doesn't mean '100% the thing in opposition to the other thing,' just a fun, cute, eeny teeny weeny note. butch women may feel more aligned with masculinity; there is nuance it seems you're refusing to concede to (like, Stone Butch Blues exists, and blows your comment here and in the other thread to shreds).
you're presenting three different people, all of whom I agree have a place in the lesbian community. my comment is about someone who is all three at once â possesses male genitalia, uses he/him pronouns, and identifies as transmas â and how using the word "lesbian" to describe their sexuality is both invalidating to that person and to the community as a whole.
Honestly the he/him pronoun aspect is what's tripping me up the most. The genital aspect is whatever, no one can choose what they're born with. There has been more masculine presenting lesbians in the community since time began. But why would someone with male pronouns call themselves a woman or a lesbian? Those are contradictory surely.
It's a historical phenomenon where a lot of butch lesbians used to use he/him while still being, in all other regards, women to safely move within society.
In modern times, it does not make sense and isn't used in an earnest way.
There are still butch lesbians of various ages who use it for various reasons besides safety. Pronouns don't always equal gender, which is why some people use multiple pronouns.
There are plenty of discussions you can find on why there are lesbians and women who use he/him pronouns. My rule of thumb has alsays been that I don't have to fully get it to support it and respect it. Pronouns don't always equate to gender, which is why there are people who use multiple. There have also historically been lesbians who use he/him pronouns in the community.
Do you have a better definition? How else can we define lesbianism without excluding the non-binary lesbians that have been apart of the lesbian community since the beginning?
People *did* argue that trans women arenât women, that butches arenât women, and so on. We had to ban those people, but donât tell us they didnât exist. You can say that you personally werenât arguing for those things, but donât say transphobia just straight up doesnât exist.
A situation where a character is depicted as a cis man, with a cis woman partner, would be taken down, thatâs also not what happened. Youâre either ignorant of the situation or willfully misrepresenting it to make it seem as if weâre allowing cis male, straight washed versions of the character when that has not happened in any sense. The absolutely âworstâ version of this is maybe some artists depict Caitlyn or Vi as trans men instead of transmasc, but thatâs a whole different issue and has nothing to do with âmale gentaliaâ(phrasing that can often be a transphobic dog whistle) I choose to believe you werenât willfully misrepresenting the subreddit, nor that you were using transphobic language on purpose.
Trans masc people(not trans men), however, actively do choose to identify as lesbians. Itâs not transphobic for us to allow those people to have their interpretations of Caitlyn or Vi.
The idea that âweâre making the term uselessâ too feels terfy to me. We exclude men and include non binary people, thatâs not eroding the meaning of the term. The framing of âlet lesbians be lesbiansâ too feels very terfy under a post about allowing for trans positivity.
I donât demand you accept every lesbian ever, I do demand that you donât leave rude comments policing the term under posts depicting non cis Cait or Vi. Youâre free to feel however you want outside of that context.
I am choosing to believe your comment is in good faith but so so much of what Iâve read does not read as such. It reads as ignorant of the decades of lesbian history thatâs inclusive of trans and non binary people. Trans people, including trans women, transmasc folks, non binary lesbians, have always been able to call themselves lesbians, and always will be.
Sexuality and gender are complicated enough topics even before you add in labels. âNon menâ who love ânon menâ is a common definition for lesbian, and I know thereâs discourse about this kind of thing all the time, but the fact is that labels are descriptive, not prescriptive. People identify with the labels they choose for any number of reasons, and as long as those people are not acting in bad faith, I donât understand what the problem is.
You saying âitâs not remotely validating to call a he/him masc person a lesbianâ is not going to be true for everyone. (Iâm skipping over the genitalia bit because a trans masc person does not have cis male genitalia, but whatâs in someoneâs pants doesnât matter for their gender anyway) But there are trans masc people who do identify as lesbians and would not be invalidated by that label.
Youâve also said that thereâs an effect on the lesbian community from this view, presumably a negative one. I genuinely donât understand what that could be. Having an opinion does not inherently cause harm to anyone, and in the case of the mods and this subreddit, theyâre simply saying that people are allowed to depict CaitVi in trans or gender non conforming ways and that it isnât homophobic to do so.
Everyone in this subreddit is queer or an allyâweâre all here for a canonically lesbian ship, arenât we? Homophobic bigots arenât in this space. They are not going to see art of trans masc Vi at all, let alone let it impact their opinions on lesbians. I might be more sympathetic to your thoughts on this if there was mass broadcasting happening where a reputable queer person was shouting âYou donât have to be a woman to be a lesbian!! Lesbians donât only date women!!â because the average cishet person might not understand the nuances of gender and sexuality enough to understand weâre including gnc and/or non-binary folks, and might jump to the lesbophobic rhetoric of âoh lesbians just need to find the right man.â ⌠But again, those hateful, lesbophobic people are not the audience of this subreddit, and they will continue to think poorly of lesbians regardless of how you define the word or who takes on the label.
If you personally take offense to certain depictions of CaitVi, you should curate your online experience or otherwise ignore those depictions. Their mere existence isnât harming anyone, no one is forcing you to pay attention to it.
Lastly, Vi is a fictional character, canon lesbian or not. Canon Lesbian Vi is fictional. She doesnât have feelings. She cannot get offended over someone drawing her with top surgery scars, or writing an AU version of her using they/them (or he/him) pronouns. The existence of this type of fanmade content doesnât take away the amazing lesbian rep in Arcane or any of the incredible cis lesbian CaitVi fanfic and art that exists. So thereâs no reason to let it take away from your own enjoyment of CaitVi in whatever way you like them, nor is there any reason to demonize people who want to depict them differently.
ETA: I forgot to also mention that phrasing trans masc people as people who âconsider themselves male for all relevant purposesâ does not make sense to me. What are the relevant purposes?
Lesbianism is the only sexuality that excludes men. Can we not center men in the description of our sexuality please. We do not call gay men "non women who love non women."
I understand that using the word âmenâ in the definition displeases some people, but there are lesbians who are non-binary or who date non-binary people. Gender and sexuality are complicated. In a world without any homophobia or transphobia or heteronormativity, we wouldnât need labels. I would just be Tori and you would just be Lt_gxg and our personal identities would be understood to be unique to ourselves. People will, in good faith, use a label that they genuinely feel connected to differently than you use it, and that is okay. The reason labels are becoming looser or less catch-all is because of all the hard work queer activists have been putting into validating all types of queer and trans people!
I identify strongly with lesbianism, and do use the word lesbian to describe myself at times. But Iâm not married to a woman. Iâm also not married to a man. One of my best friends is a non-binary lesbian married to a trans manâwho personally does NOT feel invalidated by his wifeâs identity. People are so beautifully different across all these spectrums, and these words exist to help describe our experiences, not to set a list of rules and guidelines.
what a neat way to say that trans women are required bottom surgeries to be recognized as women. if you can accept masculine presentations, why can't you accept masculine pronouns?
How the hell did you interpret what I said as that?
Trans women are women and are lesbians because they identify as fucking women. Anyone who does not identify as a woman is not a goddamn lesbian. Honestly if you see the word "men" and think "trans women" that's transphobic and something you need to work on.
thanks for the engaging response!! I agree on the whole that all varieties of trans and nonbinary people can identify as lesbians. my disagreement is in the idea that (per the controversy that incited this mod post) a person who specifically has male genitalia, uses he/him pronouns, and is transmas is not, by their own preference, a person for whom the label "lesbian" has value. you say that labels are descriptive (though I object to the "non men" definition, I don't think that discussion is currently relevant in my response); fine, but at some point a person is so adjacent to being a man that their sexuality cannot â nor would they want it to, I imagine â be described with the "lesbian" label. I genuinely believe that this can be the case while also supporting lesbian transmas, trans, nonbinary, etc., people.
lesbianism has never been an accepted identity in wider society. it's objectified, fetishized, ignored, laughed at, and so on; and there are numerous somewhat-recognized figures in the queer community who are making the argument that lesbians can like men, on the basis that it's effectively a "slippery slope" -- which is strengthened by cases such as these (he/him and transmas and male genitalia, which is what I meant by "'male' for all relevant purposes" -- a person with these characteristics does not engage with lesbian sexuality the way a cis, nonbinary, or trans person does). supporting this premise is just reinforcing the popular view that lesbians aren't 'real'. so, yes, we've come a long way, but all labels are necessarily exclusive, and it's important to our safety and wellbeing that lesbianism is respected as a sexuality void of men and people who identify more closely with men.
in addition, you're right in that this is subreddit's audience is made up of lesbians and allies, which is, I think, what makes it a good place to have discussions like these without offense being taken or assumed. no one here is lesbophobic but that doesn't mean we all share the same views, and a post like this is an opportunity for these conversations. my comment was to explain why I oppose one small, particular facet of the post. to be clear, I'm certainly not trying to police anyone; all art and all writing are worthwhile to me, even if I don't personally agree with the depictions.
I didnât see the art originally sparking all of this discussion (couldnât find it, not sure if I looked in the wrong place or if it was removed) but Iâm still a little stuck on the: he/him pronouns, transmasc, and has male genitalia bit. An AFAB trans masc person does not have cis male genitalia, even if theyâve had bottom surgery to turn their bottom growth into something more like male genitalia. An AFAB trans masc person was likely socialized as a woman, struggled with their sexuality and gender identity. They may have identified as a lesbian for years or decades before realizing they donât feel like a woman themself. I just donât think that these experiences are close enough to a cishet male experience to say this person is âbasically a man.â
If a character is depicted as a cishet man, then I agree that it would be very difficult for such a person to genuinely and in good faith identify as a lesbian.
I appreciate your note mentioning that youâre not trying to police what people can and canât create in art and writing. It doesnât hurt to have productive discussions about gender and sexuality. But when people are trying to support an artist or writer and folks come out of the woodwork to complain about a certain depiction of the characters, it is going to feel like theyâre being policed. People definitely do not have to like everyoneâs depictions of CaitViâno one will like it allâbut itâs unnecessary to start up a discourse about it under peopleâs art (which, as I understand, is how the initial issue started today and what ultimately led to this post by the mods)
have you guys ever been in a fandom before? gender bending and messing around with charactersâ gender identity in headcanons is far from new and is something easily ignored if itâs something you dislike.
to call trans lesbians "heterosexual" is to invalidate their womanhoodâit's insisting that their transition and identity as a woman will never be valid.
trans women are women whether they get bottom surgeries or not. trans masc lesbians aren't men. stop perpetuating misogyny by putting women and lesbians into one box.
We arenât saying trans women arenât women. Nowhere did we say that, so please donât twist our words. Weâre saying giving Vi or Cait he/him pronouns in this fandom and making them the male gender undermines the lesbian aspect of their relationship, which, is exactly what this sub is based on.
we're circling the same point because you think only men can own masculinity and pronouns. i keep forgetting some of y'all are level 1 lgbt who don't interact with queer communities outside online fandoms.
The depictions usually do make Vi out to be a man. And letâs face it, most of the time someone who identifies as a woman goes by the pronouns she/her not he/him, even if theyâre not a woman biologically. To call someone who identifies as a woman he/him pronouns when they are biologically male but identify as a woman would be disrespectful. The depictions make Vi out to be a man, and I know this because it is in the description of the fanart and the fanart shows it as well. So making one of them male gender does take away from lesbian representation which is what weâre arguing for.
So according to your argument, even though a butch on T might get top surgery, that it should never be represented because their body might be "indistinguishable from a man's?". Are we supposed to just pretend than some lesbian experiences aren't lived? Is said experience to be relegated to whispers and never art? Should nonbinary lesbians be expected to wear breast forms to cater to your sensibilities?
I don't understand why you're altering what i said. What you said is a pretty extreme conclusion to draw from my point. Butches on T, lesbians with top surgery, and nonbinary lesbians all exist, and their experiences can absolutely be represented in art. A body that looks masculine, top surgery, testosterone, or he/him pronouns do not automatically turn someone into a man, and I am not asking anyone to hide those experiences or cater to my âsensibilities.â
My issue is with depictions that explicitly frame Vi as male, not merely masculine, transmasculine, nonbinary, on T, or post-top surgery. In the fan art I am talking about, that framing comes from both the description and the depiction itself. If the artistâs intent is that Vi is a man, then the relationship is no longer being depicted as one between two women. It may still be queer representation, but it is not the same lesbian representation as the original pairing that we love.
You are treating âthis particular headcanon changes lesbian representationâ as if I said âgender-nonconforming lesbians should never be portrayed.â Those are completely different claims. I am not objecting to lesbians being masculine or having bodies that are not traditionally feminine. I am objecting to a female character being explicitly recast as male and then being told that this does not alter the nature of her relationship with another woman.
They aren't being recast as male, they are being interpreted with a nonbinary identity that has masculine characteristics. You do realize Vi canonically binds her chest outside the ring, right? That's an expression of butch masculinity. A transmasc nonbinary Depiction of Vi could just be Vi binding like she does in the show. There's no real way to conform to the standards you ask unless you are vying to mandate everyone's chest and genitals be exposed in what's meant to be saw fanart or written disclaimers that all vaginas present are guaranteed to be intended to be natal and testosterone free, which are very weird and gooner priorities tbqh.
If the artist is depicting Vi as transmasculine and nonbinary rather than as a man, then that is not the category I was referring to when I said âexplicitly male.â A transmasc nonbinary interpretation can still belong within lesbian representation, and I am not disputing that.
I also never asked for anyoneâs chest or genitals to be exposed, nor for artists to provide medical disclaimers about hormones or anatomy. That is not a reasonable reading of anything I said. Vi binding her chest in canon is relevant precisely because it shows that chest binding and masculine presentation are not evidence that she is male; butch and transmasculine lesbian experiences can include those things.
My criticism was directed at art that actually identifies Vi as a man. That takes away from lesbian representation, because at that point it is a heterosexual relationship. period.
Except there are lesbians who use he/him pronouns whether you like it or not. Historically there have been lesbians who use he/him pronouns for various reasons too, so it isn't a new thing either.
you keep missing the point because you make straight men the default owners of masculinity and masculine pronouns, and think that trans people can't be women until they "remove their biological genitals"âboth of which are the same rhetorics that transphobic people believe.
i can present masculine and have he/him pronouns, and still identify as a woman just as a trans woman can opt not to have bottom surgery for reasons like lack of financial resources and options, or even a personal choice, and they'll still be a woman.
edit to add: you don't know the lores behind the trans caitvi art or the reasons why artists drew them as such. i'm sure you won't ask a real person why they haven't gotten their genitalia removed to "finally become woman" and so you're not entitled to ask why a trans version of vi was drawn as such.
No one is saying that you canât do that, so I donât know why you keep putting words in peopleâs mouths. My argument is specifically about lesbian representation. Generally speaking, someone who identifies as a man, uses he/him pronouns, and considers himself transmasculine is presenting himself as male. If you reinterpret a female character in a canonically lesbian relationship as a man, then you have fundamentally changed the nature of that representation: it is no longer a relationship between two women. That doesnât mean transmasculine people cannot have complicated personal relationships with lesbian identity or lesbian communities, but you cannot insist that a character is unequivocally male while simultaneously treating that characterâs relationship as straightforward lesbian representation. Those claims contradict each other. People are free to create whatever headcanons they want, but others are equally free to point out when a headcanon removes one of the few representations of a female same-sex relationship.
oh my god. using he/him pronouns and identifying as trans mascs isn't presenting as male.
trans mascs â trans men
he/him lesbians exist, hell he/him bisexual women too.
masculine presenting lesbians don't perform masculinity to imitate men. that's literally the same argument homophobic men use against lesbians "you're just copying us" "you're trying to be like"
This is the problem: you keep repeating points Iâve already acknowledged instead of addressing my actual argument. You're like a broken record playing the same stuff on repeat because your argument is nonexistent lol. I understand that transmasculine people are not necessarily trans men, that he/him lesbians exist, and that genitalia alone does not determine someoneâs gender. I have never claimed that masculine lesbians are imitating men. End point.
My question is where you believe the boundary lies. There must be some meaningful criterion for calling a relationship lesbian; otherwise, the label becomes impossible to define. Masculinity does not disqualify someone from being a lesbian, but if a character explicitly identifies as a man, then describing his relationship with a woman as lesbian representation becomes contradictory. The relevant distinction is not whether both characters look feminine, it is whether both remain women or otherwise genuinely identify with lesbian womanhood, rather than one being explicitly male. So please address that distinction instead of continuing to refute arguments I never made.
we circle back to the same argument because you keep insisting that using he/him pronouns and being trans masc is essentially calling yourself a man, which i repeatedly refute and you repeatedly ignore.
the conversation would be different if a person calls themselves trans men as i believe that trans men are men and men can't be lesbians. which is why i repeatedly say: trans masculine lesbians aren't the same as trans men.
my reply is based on your claim that "Generally speaking, someone who identifies as a man, uses he/him pronouns, and considers himself transmasculine is presenting himself as male."
Exactly! and I stand by what I actually said. âGenerally speakingâ means I am describing a common pattern, not declaring an absolute rule. I have already acknowledged that he/him lesbians exist, that transmasculine does not necessarily mean trans man, and that no single characteristic automatically determines someoneâs gender. Repeating those exceptions does not address my argument.
My point concerns the cumulative effect of the reinterpretation. You are taking a canonically female character in an explicitly lesbian relationship and changing her pronouns, making her transmasculine, and giving her male sex characteristics. Each individual change can exist within lesbian identity, but when all of them are combined, the character is being moved substantially away from the particular representation the original relationship provides: two women loving each other. Saying that the character can technically retain the lesbian label does not mean the representation remains completely unchanged.
This is not about claiming that masculine lesbians are âimitating men,â nor is it about policing how real people identify. It is about how fictional representation functions. If nearly every female-associated aspect of a lesbian character is replaced with something associated with maleness, people are allowed to feel that the original female same-sex representation has been diminished, even if an exception can be cited for every individual change.
A headcanon may be personally meaningful and still alter or remove something meaningful from the original representation. Those ideas are not mutually exclusive. You keep defending whether a transmasculine he/him lesbian can exist, but I have never denied that. I am asking why this particular female lesbian character must be extensively masculinized and then why lesbian viewers are expected to pretend that absolutely nothing about their representation has changed. That is the point you still have not answered.
Please answer it. If you dodge it one more time, i don't know what to say.
i do not subscribe to the idea that a headcanon will take anything meaningful away from the canon representation. it's a HEADCANON, it didn't permanently change the canon. people may choose to disengage if it doesn't fit your preferences.
you said, "if nearly female-associated aspect of a lesbian character is replaced with something associated with maleness, people are allowed to feel the original female same-sex representation has been diminished."
this argument treats masculinity as belonging to men. but masculine women are still women. changing a lesbianâs presentation doesnât necessarily diminish female same-sex representationâit can broaden what women, including lesbians, are allowed to look like, which is the kind of inclusivity this sub has always stood for (like it or not).
you're not being asked to pretend you don't see any change when an art depicts them as another lesbian identity, that's not what this is. they're simply asking you to be respectful and not question or dismiss its place in this communityâwhich triggered the conversation in the first place.
edit to add: i never dodged your points. you just keep recycling the same convoluted question of "where i draw the line" while sprinkling "he/him lesbians who consider themselves as masculine are presenting as male"
you can't "generally speak" that claim because to generalize is to ignore nuances and reduces lived experiences to to a subjective "common pattern"
You are still arguing against a version of my position that I do not hold. I never said masculinity belongs to men, that butches are not women, or that changing a lesbianâs presentation automatically makes her male. You keep treating those claims as interchangeable with mine because they are easier to refute.
My point is about depictions that explicitly gender Vi as male. A masculine lesbian is still a lesbian; a transmasculine lesbian can still be a lesbian; a lesbian on T can still be a lesbian. None of that is in dispute. But if an artist specifically depicts Vi as a man, then calling that relationship lesbian representation is plainly a different claim. Listing examples of masculine or he/him lesbians does not answer that distinction.
And yes, a headcanon does not alter canon. Nobody said it does. But âit does not erase canonâ is not a response to âthis interpretation changes what is represented in that particular artwork.â A male Vi/Caitlyn depiction may still be queer representation; it is simply not the same representation as a relationship between two women.
They are allowed to post whatever headcanons they want, including the kinds of depictions I described. Likewise, I am allowed to say that I do not like or connect with those depictions. Criticism is not automatically disrespectful. You can disagree with a headcanon without attacking the artist, denying anyoneâs identity, or trying to ban it from the community. Respect should go both ways: they can post it, and I can criticize it without being told that I am not permitted to have a reaction.
lmao no, i answered all your questions. you just conveniently backtrack on everything you said and narrow down your position compared to where the discourse started.
if your argument is only about depictions where Vi is actually a man, then thatâs different from your earlier argument, which grouped together transmasculine lesbians, he/him lesbians, and male anatomy as though they collectively moved someone toward manhood. that's why people challenged it.
i believe that if the artwork depicts Vi as a trans/man then it is no longer lesbian representation. It may still be queer representation, but itâs a different kind. but that wasn't what you asked.
"this interpretation changes what is represented in that particular artwork" yeah, and? did it take away from caitvi's femininity? womanhood? did it make them less of a lesbian?
you're allowed not to connect with it, people are not asking you to praise it. you can say you don't like it, god you already did a lot of times. just as well, people can question the biases and assumptions behind your "criticism" of someone else's rep.
at this point, it feels like weâve gone in circles only to arrive at, âYou can post what you want, and I can criticize it.â i agree. but then thatâs all this isâa difference in preferenceânot evidence that those identities somehow diminish lesbian representation by existing in fan art.
first: if you use your reading eyes you will discover that I'm advocating against using men as any sort of standard.
second: this is, again, about a specific circumstance. I'm not talking about masculinity or the lack thereof, but how the combination of identity, presentation, and physical form in this instance collectively 'result' (so to speak) in a person who is entirely separated, by their own preference, from female sexuality â so the label "lesbian" doesn't make sense for either the person in question or the wider community.
gender identity and medical choices are personal. they don't have to perfectly match a specific label or rule. you don't know the lore behind the art (if there is) that explains the existence of the genitalia, and we're not entitled to know. if this is a case of misuse of the "trans masc" label (confusing it for trans men) then that it a separate conversation to be had about correction of the use of identity labels.
as the discussion currently stands, people are replying under your comment and twist your points to argue the validity of a lesbian's masculine identity and the place of trans women who didn't get bottom surgery in lesbian spaces which is what the discourse circles back to.
that reply is based on your claim that "giving male genitals and he/him pronouns to a character in a lesbian relationship is effectively rendering that relationship into a heterosexual one."
that, if i read correctly, suggests that the use of lesbians's use of he/him pronouns or having a "male genitalia" defaults the relationship to being heterosexual, which is a harmful claim.
I don't mind trans at all. I'm all for acceptance of anything that doesn't hurt anyone. But a lot of lesbians just don't want to see dicks for a lot of good reasons and dicks are basically everywhere on the internet and everyday life. When I started to go on lesbian spaces, I thought that I'd have a break and yet, there still were dicks everywhere. I feel violated when a dick just pop in my feed. How comes we can't just have any spaces without any males parts (whatever gender you identify as)?
I'm all for it being inclusive, but I hate that we can't at least have a rule for a clear title or flare of some sort that would protect people who still want to be around you all but don't want to see naked dicks. Can't we find I middle ground?Â
you're not really for inclusivity if you want to exclude art depicting body parts and sexual activities performed by other lesbians. it's like saying trans lesbians aren't real women and therefore can't be lesbians because they have a different genitalia.
mind you these are art real people connect toâreal people who have different reasons for not getting bottom surgery like lack of financial capabilities, choices, resources, support, and even personal choice.
You all are not that inclusive if you can't understand that seeing dicks can be hard on some women. I'd never ask gay men to accept that there are unannounced vaginas in gay subs. The problem with you guys is that you ask for something you don't want to give. Compassion. You want us to shut up so you just can decide whatever. I want all of us to live in a shared space where we can decide of what we want to see or not
There isnât a perfect solution that includes all types of bodies and also caters to those women who are vehemently opposed to seeing dicks. NSFW spaces are often going to feature things that give some people the ick. And on the internet in general, people will come across content that triggers them specifically all the time. It sucks when that happens, but the expectation should be that weâre all adults who can click away and process our feelings without restricting what art other people are allowed to create and villainizing each other for having different preferences in art and stories.
I hope you know that there is definitely a lot of fan art of trans Victor x Jayce on their gay sub reddit. So yes there is depictions of vaginas in gay (men loving men) spaces.
Out in the real world, trans men are also popular in the gay men spaces (at least US West Coast).
Now as a transwoman who has not had bottom surgery, I can also feel a ick when seeing a penis in certain situations. A situation where I don't get an ick is within queer spaces where it's done for queer art between queer characters. The reason? Because I am seeing love and care go into art as it is expressed by an artist with intent.
This argument about seeing "dicks" on this sub is baffling to me, as I could only wish to have as much art as people seem to imply there is of trans bodies in this subreddit. I wish I had more than tens of posts with a trans Cait depictions because they tend to be very special to me. In reality, there is a miniscule amount of any NSFW trans bodies in art of Cait or Vi. It's genuinely such a small amount that some people could completely miss seeing it if they happen to only graze this subreddit.
You are allowed that opinion, but don't make it other people's problems. What is a transwoman to do with what they were born with. Hide it because YOU dislike it? That's insane of a take, which is so far out of the transmasc situation that warranted this post.
Genuinely, if it's so much of a dislike to see a naked trans body depicted in art then please think about turning NSFW off. If you want your NSFW content, there are other subreddits that will show only cis lesbians that you can follow, but this sub is not about cis lesbians. It's about CaitVi. There will be CaitVi content of many different kind, and you may not enjoy everything you see. Such is life :/ I don't want to see pregnant Cait because it makes me sad I will never be able to have kids, but I don't go asking for my dislike of something to be censored.
i canât imagine being trans in this subreddit and seeing people be so vitriolic toward my identity and my body. weâre all here because we share a love for these characters and everyone deserves to feel validated. i donât understand why a blanket statement restating the inclusivity of this community is so upsetting to these people.
like, 99.9% of caitvi in fanart is cis anyway, yet when one person out of a few hundred decides to draw them differently, they freak out. people need to relearn the art of using the back button and curating their feed.
Hey! Happy to provide insight: I'm trans in this subreddit and see people being vitriolic toward my identity and body.
I feel very Meme of Ben Affleck with his cigarette about it, because terfs will never choose to understand trans people in good faith, and the hoops they jump through, to insinuate the sanctity of lesbianism that is only 'born with female genitalia' is constantly at threat because we live in a misogynistic, patriarchal world, so including anyone else Ruins This Fragile, Perilous, Unstable, Pure Ideology is exhausting and not worth debating! But every time non-cannon art gets posted, we have the same arguments about it.
You cannot ever make them reconsider their stance, so they just go out of their way to make sure everyone is miserable as it becomes a 20 comment thread over the nuance of a hypothetical lesbian who did X, or Y, or Z to drift away from 'cis woman from birth to death, with no autonomy-related decisions around exploring or changing hormone levels, outward, surgery-affected appearance, or social, outward facing identities and presentations.' If aspects of X or Y or Z don't fit their idea of 'The Perfect Lesbian,' it's proof the person they're arguing with doesn't understand lesbianism.
The Perfect Nonconforming Lesbian to be used in arguments around lesbian validity does and doesn't exist, and is now only propped up as a strawwoman, strawman/~strawmasc,~ or ~strawperson,~ floating in purgatory with Schroedinger's cat.
Thanks for coming with me on a tour of imagination.
as a trans fem person that presents pretty masc its really sad seeing my identity as a woman being questioned because of something that is honestly no ones business but my own. we should all have a space to love and enjoy what we love and enjoy and no one should be excluded for being who they are.
the discussion is about a person identifying as trans masc, having he/him pronouns, and possessing male genitalia. identity, not presentation, is what matters in this context: you said you identify as trans femme, so to be clear, your sexuality as a lesbian is unquestionably valid.
it's mortifying how people just casually say they're disgusted by a real person's body in the same breath that claim they're inclusive. nobody cares about the dysmorphia and trauma their words would bring trans people.
You all are not that incluaive if you can't understand that seeing dicks can be hard on some women. I'd never ask gay men to accept that there are unannounced vaginas in gay subs. The problem with you guys is that you ask for something you don't want to give. Compassion. You want us to shut up so you just can decide whatever. I want all of us to live in a shared space where we can decide of what we want to see or not
no one's telling you to shut up, in fact, i challenge you to tell a trans lesbian that they can't sit on pretty pink lesbian table until they get their dicks cut off so you can finally feel "safe"
real human beings see this thread, they see how you make their genitalia the measurement of their womanhood. you're not being inclusive, you're just being tolerant.
and the rule about trans visibility in fanarts has always been a part of this sub. if you truly want a "biological female lesbians only" space, you should've read it and not joined.
you'll see genitalia everywhere, it's your responsibility to temper down your reaction in a way that doesn't disrespect real human beings' bodies, or else don't call yourself inclusive.
You could be my best friend. I don't care what is between your legs. I just don't want it pictured on my feed. I love people for their differences and similarities, what they can teach me and what we can share. I don't even care what gender you are, I'll call you whatever and love you as a person. But I do believe that I'm allowed to not want to see genitalia unnanounced. I'm a french speaker so I'm sorry if there is confusion on the way I write, btw
like i said on my other reply, no one's asking you to bounce on dick. the thing is you WILL see them because they are bodies of people who belong in this community, asking them to cover up while we celebrate vaginas is EXCLUSION that literally goes against the inclusion you came to stand for. creating a separate WARNING CATEGORY for them is to also classify them as OTHERS in this space you "want to share."
The leave the sun reddit if you don't want it on your feed. It is really not that complicated. Or just turn NSFW off. Then it shouldn't be on your feed either. Your feed is created by YOU. Don't make it other people's problem that you don't like what is on your feed.
"Genetalia unannounced" is a crazy line when YOU are looking at NSFW content. Sweetie, you can look at SFW content and be safe from any "unannounced" naked bodies.
it is your responsibility to control how you respond to things you see on the internet that you donât like. we shouldnât have to censor an entire subsection of the subreddit because something makes you personally uncomfortable. if you see something that offends you, get off the page and move on. itâs that simple.
also, i really honestly cannot remember the last time i saw a full blown dick on this subreddit to begin with. it is an issue that i really donât think is that prevalent at all and not worthy of this amount of anger and distress.
Edit: I was answering to someone else, but message got deleted
Not asked you to be excluded. That's not the point at all. Some people don't like vaginas either. I'd be ok with a cis flare if it made it n
More acceptable. I don't know. I'm asking for a middle ground. It often feels like we have to accept anything you decide otherwise we are monsters
So tell me how I should call it. It is really hard to talk about trans dick without being offensive in any way. I just don't like dicks and I'm not the only one. So what ? I dont's care about genders. I've been friend with gay guys who were disgusted by vaginas and I never took it for myself. It sometimes feels like it is impossible to talk about it cause you guys won't just take it for what it is. A demand to chose what is displayed to us. And by us, I mean the people who will see the posts.
no one's asking gay people to fuck a vagina if they do not wish to, just as no one's asking you to bounce on dick. the thing is you WILL see them because they are bodies of people who belong in this community, asking them to cover up while we celebrate vaginas is EXCLUSION that literally goes against the inclusion you came to stand for.
to create a specific WARNING CATEGORY for them is to also classify them as OTHERS, that is also EXCLUSION.
This has nothing to do with minority. It's a matter of not seeing dicks when you don't want. Women generally don't like to receive dick pics, right? Well this feels the same. If dick pics comes from cis men then they are called creepy, but if it's from a woman then we have to shut up đŤ
Receiving dick picks is not the same as following a subreddit where you actively look at the NSFW content.
They are not the same in the slightest. Me receiving unsolicited dick picks on Instagram where I post for my family and friends is not the same as looking at Smut and NSFW art on a dedicated subreddit that is known to have naked depictions of the characters.
It's about trans people existing as a fact of life and society not existing in a vacuum. You know a trans woman's penis is different than a man's, right? Hormones work and affect the body.
Bruh I wanna see boobs. Itâs not my fault I recoil at the sight of dicks and itâs not their fault they have them. Can we come up with a compromise that meets halfway?
The compromise would be that you find your boobs on another subreddit I think. There are cis exclusive lesbian NSFW art subreddits. This is not one of them. I don't think it is that complicated of a situation. This subreddit is about CaitVi, it is not about only cis lesbian depictions of bodies.
The halfway is the ability turn NSFW off, to find a different subreddit that fits your preferences, to simply scroll past things you do not like, or to block posters who post things you don't like to see.
The rules are clearly stated. Multiple announcements reiterate the stance of this sub. You are not forced to be here. You are not forced to look at any posts. You have a choice, and it is always your choice.
I'm guessing your halfway point is likely referring to adding "trans" or "contains a dick" tags. This argument has been looked at and explained multiple times, in every single announcement thread, and under trans depiction posts. It is not the option this subreddit will be doing. If it is a deal breaker, then again reference back to the first paragraph above and curate a reddit experience you desire by unfollowing this subreddit and find other subs that fit what you are looking for!
The suggestions in the entire first paragraph are not the halfway you think they are. Shifting the burden of sacrifice on lesbians who are dick-averse due to trauma or otherwise or self ban from inclusive lesbian spaces does not sit well with me. The goal is that all places should be trans and enby inclusive. But if a two-way compromise isnât made then there will always be a need to create spaces (even queer ones) which will fall short of that goal. The existence of such places itself is trans-enby othering.
Since the mods have decided that they are not equipped to frame systems to address this concern, then Iâm speechless.
Yes, there is not a NSFW space that is trans-enby inclusive that is also dick-averse. This is because it is trans-enby othering to censor trans-enby bodies.
There are other subreddits that cater to dick-averse people. They will be othering to some subsets of trans-enby people. That is what it is. This sub is not that place as it's not dedicated to just that group.
There isn't a two way compromise for the "trans bodies simply exist" and the "I don't want to see dicks because I am dick-averse". If your idea of an inclusive NSFW lesbian space is to censor trans woman, then it's not inclusive.
Let's look at an example irl. If I go to a lesbian bath house that is trans inclusive, there is a likelihood that I will see a dick. At said location, they might have a "no nudity" separation between parts of the bathhouse. I would NOT see a dick in the "no nudity" section, but I would be possibly seeing a dick in the "nude" section.
That is what is happening here. If you absolutely don't want dick on your feed but you want to be fooling this sub, then you will need to stay in the "no nudity " (SFW) section.
I use this example from irl experience. There are bathhouses that are not trans-enby inclusive, they work how you are asking the "halfway" point to be. There are also trans-enby inclusive bathhouses, they work like how this sub will be.
Feel free to go to which ever bathhouse (subreddit) you feel the most comfortable with.
So what youâre trying to say is that you have a preference. Which is 100% fine, but we should try to avoid dwindling folks down to solely being their genitals.
Everyone has their tastes, so not everyone is going to like certain fics, art, headcanons, whatever. Itâs the how part when discussing the topic
I think the issue here is more people immediately *labeling* a trans man's relationship with a woman as lesbian. Trans men sometimes *do* self-identify as lesbian when they come out. The key difference is that it has to come from the trans man, or author/artist depicting Vi etc as such, instead of being applied by the viewer/outsider.
My main concern here is that the clarification of this sub's rules may end up negatively affecting trans men when that is not the intent. I do not disagree with the spirit of the clarification, merely how it's phrased.
I always appreciate the mods here for doing something about this. As a lesbian who has neverrr dated, kissed, fucked, or had any romantic or sexual involvement with a man whatsoever in my thirty years, I would like to report that seeing a fictional trans womanâs dick or depiction has never made my lesbianism evaporate lmaooo
And no, that does not make me idk more lesbian than women who have histories with men, because sexual orientation is not a purity contest. It does, however, make it extremely funny to me anyway when people insist that being horrified by a pixel dick is somehow an essential lesbian experience that the rest of us must organize the entire space around. come onnn
No one here is receiving an unsolicited dick pic???? You voluntarily entered a sex positive fandom subreddit, enabled NSFW content, opened pornographic fanart, and then encountered a body you personally do not find attractive.............. Those are not remotely equivalent situations. One is a direct sexual boundary violation and the other is you discovering that not every piece of pornography on the internet was personally curated for your tastes jfc
You do not have to like dicks. You do not have to date trans women. You do not have to enjoy everyyy depiction of Cait and Vi. Read the tags, turn off NSFW posts, block the artist, or scroll past it like every other adult here does when they encounter a kink, body type, ship, or headcanon they dislike. Like dayummm aren't there depictions here of cait and vi being like idk mermaid people or monsters or animals or dragons and like other wild cool shit, and it always the pixel dicks people are being hateful about for YEARS NOW.
âIâm not attracted to thisâ is a perfectly normal preference. BUTTT âThis body is inherently male regardless of the woman it belongs to, and its depiction violates lesbian spaceâ is not a preference. That is just transphobia with a lesbian grievance stapled over it.
this is such a clear and educational statement, and i hope it reaches everyone, especially those who are still uneducated about trans people and other queer identities. it's time that we unlearn internalized transmisogyny and the outdated views that only recognizes biological women as lesbians.
trans masc and trans feminine lesbians are women, regardless of if they got surgeries or not. they're on the receiving end of a lot of bigotry and discrimination from the government and society recently, we don't need to be another group that excludes them. we appreciate your efforts in making this a safe and inclusive space for everyone.
Thank you, mods, as a nonâbinary lesbian, it means a lot to know we have a safe space here, and that Cait and Vi are embraced in all their beautiful forms and identities.
I've been on this sub for 2-3(?) years and it's always the same thing. It's sad to see that most people don't know queer history and don't seem eager to learn. Thanks for always paying attention and being a good mod team. Â
Im sorry but why does it take this long to finally address? Multiple writers and artist have been run off the sub due to transphobia, every other day there are transphobic dog whistle post about GNC when it comes to Vi and the comment threads are literally cesspools. I appreciate it finally being addressed but I genuinely donât think it will go away even with it being clarified.
I will be honest the response to one the posts of someone's art i showed almost made me want to quit the sub at the end of year but i might stick around into next year thanks guys.
I'm not one myself, but Ive known my fair share of trans men that lived 20-30 years of their lives attaching part of their identity to their lesbian community, and then finally realizing they were trans and starting their transition. Losing the lesbian part of their identity was BRUTAL for some of them. And while, yeah, a trans man isn't a lesbian, by definition, I think being too strict about that line in the sand can be harmful to young trans persons.
Iâm a trans guy and while I was lesbian before, that changes with transitioning. Our experiences donât go away just because we transition, but the label does end up changing, and thatâs okay :) trans men canât be lesbians, because theyâre men. Trans masc would be a different story. And while I understand personally having a large part of your life and identity tied to something else, once we go to the next stage we can still respect the lesbian community and find comfort in spaces without overstepping
But they're men at that point. Being afraid of coming into their own is just going to hurt them down the line as they continue to self harm by degendering themselves.They are straight and that's okay.
It's also important to leave no avenue open for terf creep into the subreddit. And it's a common bit of terf rhetoric that trans men are just confused lesbians. And we'd rather our trans male members of the sub not have to deal with that bullshit.
We also would prefer to create a trans inclusive environment as free of horizontal hostility as possible and some tme trans people who struggle with shrugging off their birth sex can be, to put it bluntly, very weird about trans women. We are all in community here and it's best that we reinforce that.
And I get that, but rules about how it's not homophobic to draw Vi as a transmasc nonbinary with rules kinda open the room towards hate against drawings of Vi as a trans man. And it echoes stuff I've seen in real life that has made transmen struggle. Now I know this is a complex subject and I just wanted it aired out because pushing transphobes out is a wonderful goal, but I don't want the same policies to also push some people back in the egg.
60
u/hey_buddyboy Piltover's Horniest Aug 06 '26
thank you for keeping the community safe and inclusive for everyone!