I'm reading Radcliffe Hall.

She has many feelings that modern transmen, female detransitioners, and butch lesbians would recognise.

But to call her a "transman" makes no sense, historically.

I'm reaching for something here, you might be able to help me clarify it.

The existence of the category "transman" depends on the possibility of medical transition.

You can't be a tramsman without it.

You might have all the same feelings, but not have access to drugs and surgeries, and it wouldn't make sense to say you ARE trans.

I want to go back to my Foucauldian academic roots and start talking about the way in which institutions create and forbid desires, identities, enable ways of being. But also, f*ck Foucault, child rape apologist, "bucolic pleasures," no thanks.

How do i say it in words i can believe? Am i back to "trans is not a thing you are, it's a thing you do and it's a very recent, modern solution?"

Ok,i think i have it. Is the desire to say about historical figures "they ARE trans" actually a move to solidify trans as a category?

To say that trans as a category has always existed and that it can exist outside of drugs and surgeries? To give it "depth and weight"?

If you say "x historical figure is trans" you are saying "trans is what you are, not what you do."

I’ve seen lots of people defending porn and BDSM on this website recently, and a lot of other people critiquing them for it. I feel like both sides miss something important that the other side has to say. I usually stay out of this debate, but I feel quite strongly about this.

The critics of BDSM have many things right. The fact that BDSM is used as a smoke screen by abusive men who murder their partners and then blame it on a “sex game gone wrong” should appal all right thinking people.

Pornography/ 50 shades have mainstreamed many of the more extreme practices of BDSM, including choking and anal. This mainstreaming has not brought with it any understanding of consent, or how to reduce the risks associated with more extreme practices.

This has led to young women being pressured into painful and humiliating sex acts that they do not want, did not ask for, and do not understand, without having any trust in their partner to carry out the acts safely, or even with regard to their own desires. This is appalling.

Many defenders of BDSM would agree with all of this. No really, they would. The argument is that if you are pressuring an unwilling partner, murdering people, if you are a dom who has no concern for your sub’s experience, you are not practicing BDSM, you are being abusive.