[Rachel Bronwyn]

A feminist response:

Of course it’s heteronormative. The vast majority of fetish material online (and everywhere) is heteronormative. It’s justifiable on the basis the same opportunity exists to those whose preferences/orientation lie outside the limitations of heteronormativity to produce such a space and discriminate based on those specs. I see nothing inherently wrong with exclusion of content from privately own and operated forums. It may be the case that the content being permitted within a given forum is absolutely revolting but I’d sooner critique what they do permit than their choice to exclude. It’s definitely an example of exclusivity though.

Transgender as a fetish doesn’t leave room for agency at all. It’s not about the person. It’s about the process and, maybe, the physical outcome. I will not pretend otherwise because it makes me uncomfortable that things that, in meat life, are very ugly also get people off. This is why I’ll never use the label “sex-positive”. If anything I’m “sex-neutral”. I will criticise what gets people, including myself, off. Kinks like transgender are objectifying. Some of what gets me off is dehumanising as fuck too. The subject matter in much of the art seen here is not treated ethically or even given personhood, much less celebrated as an individual with agency because there is no line between preference and objectification in these cases. The preference is inherently objectifying. I accept that.

Here’s why I’m neutral though: I don’t have to delude myself to believe what gets me off is empowering in order to condone and engage in it on the strict basis it occurs within the confines of consensual interaction where it’s being done for mutual satisfaction. Once dehumanisation based on kink transcends those consensual bounds, we have a problem. In my experience, people are generally terrible and, no, it wouldn’t surprise me if lots of people here do exactly that (nothing to do with this particular site or these particular people, just my take on a lot of people in general as being stupid and awful – I would say the exact same about any other group) but I’ve got no evidential support for it and, as misanthropic as I am, people are innocent until proven guilty in my world.

I’m going to call “process of women changing” as a foundation for a network of social interactions amoral. I don’t think it has any relevance to morality. I concern myself with ethics, not morality, but if we’re working within the confines of morality, I’m going to say this forum’s foundation is without relevance to morality because I can’t qualify a behaviour as immoral without it harming someone non-consensually. The “process of women changing” as a kink being the basis of congregation and social interaction isn’t inherently harmful to anyone. It’s a shared interest. I will call it exclusive and discriminatory but only in the sense choosing who you date is exclusive and discriminatory because the people you tell “no thanks” possess the exact same opportunity to reject you.

I can’t tell you what the forum’s official or unofficial stance on “femininity” or “the female form” is. I can tell you it’s probably narrow, reflecting social constructions of gender and their associated physical characteristics. That being said, I’d argue there’s a wider range of body types accepted as “feminine” or constituting “the female form” in this particular crowd than in the general public just because you see appreciation for fat women and muscular women here. Fat lovers are treated almost as badly as fat people in the general public so it’s not something people are very open about outside exclusive settings.

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve drawn attention to as problematic. Discrimination is a problem. Objectification is a problem. Our very narrow, limiting constructions of gender are a problem. The assumption of heteronormativity is a problem. I am viewing this through a particular lens though and it’s one that specifies a) the space is private hence the owners’ entitlement to dictate what content is permitted and b) the objectification and limited definitions of “femininity” and “the female form” and assumption of heteronormativity is occurring within the forum’s fetish content and not a part of human interactions.

I will say though all these things have been real life problems for me and I’m sensitive to them. I remember bursting into tears after giving a several hour lecture I’d worked for weeks on which I was very proud of and my instructor’s response was “I like your hair”. Nothing to do with my performance, just my appearance because that’s what mattered and was the most relevant to him. It wasn’t the first time that sort of thing had happened. Being forced and trying to exist within the limitations of what constitutes “feminine” by the general public’s standards has made me utterly miserable my entire life as neither my natural behaviour nor interests or my face fit the bill. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve had to tell people “Being female doesn’t mean I’m submissive and, if I am submissive, it doesn’t mean I’m submissive to you”. It was a contributor to my lack of enthusiasm with the BDSM crowd. I have had people ejaculate on my leg on the train. Everything you’ve mentioned has the potential to do real harm and I have experienced it first-hand. We are talking about these things within very specific parameters though and I believe, so long as these things remain within the confines of a private setting or art and consensual interaction, they’re not causing harm.