madgastronomer:

rainfelt:

thisisthinprivilege: Yes, I should have used better language on that. My apologies. Rather than saying they don’t fit trans men or some non binary folk, though, it’s probably better to say that they are designed for flat and mostly-flat chests. Plenty of trans men bind or have had corrective hormones/surgery, and I’ve heard trans men speak out on the privilege they have acquired from changing their gender presentation. Relevantly, especially fat trans men, who get to see first-hand the difference in how fat people are treated when they’re perceived as men versus when they were perceived as women. In short, not all trans men are tossed under the bus. These shirts do fit some of them. And some women, cis as well as trans, do find the shirts more comfortable than the so-called “women’s cut”, because their bodies don’t fit the expected hourglass curve. Some women vastly prefer wearing oversized “men’s” shirts because fitted clothing makes them uncomfortable, for any number of reasons. Personally, the tendency to shrink the shirt and put the logo on the breasts makes me pretty uncomfortable half the time, and I’m cis. Unfortunately, since I’m also very busty, “unisex” shirts need to be huge, not just a little baggy, before they will fit me. Anyway. None of this changes that the shirts are 100% made with men in mind. That man as the default and woman as the variation is definitely what is happening here. That it is only accidentally the case that nonbinary people and trans men are often better served by the so-called “unisex” shirt. But OP is still making assumptions on the physical shape of trans and non-binary people. Specifically they’re lumping trans men together with cis women and “some non-binary people” as not being served by the “unisex” shirt, leaving trans women out entirely. I doubt OP meant to imply that trans women are better off in a shirt designed for cis men, or that trans men aren’t… but when we’re trying to be careful with our wording, this is a big one. thisisthinprivilege speaks from a white, cis, heterosexual-centric place. On the one hand this is kind of okay, because the focus should remain on thin privilege; on the other hand, it makes the blog not as inclusive as it could be, with a lot of submissions and posts that assume all their readers are one thing and subtly, quietly, turning away other readers who are already marginalized enough in their lives. If you’d like a suggestion from this humble queer but admittedly thin reader… maybe bring in more mods who can speak from other perspectives? Make it clear to your readers that thisisthinprivilege is an intersectional blog, for all fat people. Even just adding footnotes on submissions that, for example, say “thin privilege is about meeting Mr. Right” to acknowledge that not all of your readers are interested in meeting a man… would help, imho.

“thisisthinprivilege speaks from a white, cis, heterosexual-centric place.”

Excuse me? No. How fucking dare you assume this about us.

The mods are not all straight. I am queer, and I believe so is one of the others. The mods are not all cis. One of us is genderqueer, IIRC. All the current mods are white. We did have, at one point, at a black mod, who chose to leave rather than deal with the shit we deal with, having quite enough to deal with otherwise. We have occasionally offered moderatorships to other POC, not because they are POC, but because they are fat activists we respect, but they have declined. They have generally seemed to feel that they have quite enough to deal with without the extra trolls.

Our submissions come from a wide range of people, including cis and trans and otherwise, queer and straight, and a number of races and genders.

The mods do attempt to use more inclusive language. Sometimes we fail, because we’re talking primarily about public perceptions (like “men’s” clothing and “women’s” clothing, which are designed based on what the designers believe men and women’s bodies to be like, which assumptions are, yes ciscentric, and which leave out considerations of trans and other people entirely {and by the way, there are nonbinary trans people}; I’m not lumping anybody in with anybody, I was, unwisely, using the industry’s labels to discuss the categories they sell them under, for which I have apologized), and we mistakenly fall into that language. We try to own up and apologize. We try to remain aware of our own privileges. We are not perfect. We do try to feature posts by a range of submitters, but we have to work with what comes in. We don’t solicit posts from specific people.

You are thin. How about you don’t try to tell us how to run our blog.

-MG