#but because i am a man other consider me 'binary' regardless of how i feel about it | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

badchoicesworld · 10 months

Text

blog guide !!

requests are closed, but feel free to send them in regardless. just expect them to be answered a little later !

this is (for now) an across the spiderverse blog !

please allow me up to a week to write up your asks

characters i write for :

Miguel O’hara

Miles Morales

Miles 42

Hobie (let’s go brit rep)

Pavitr Prabhakar

The Spot

Peter B. Parker

Spider-Noir

general info :

i cannot stress this enough, i exclusively write everything but fem reader, y’all got enough .

that being said, feel free to request anything else at all- when it’s not specified i will just assume gender neutral for the sake of inclusion

trans readers, non-binary, everything in between and all about is completely valid here and i’m more than willing to write about it <3

i do have a health condition that can catch me some days, so there may be times where i’m inactive but it should never be for long periods of time

feel free to get oddly specific with requests ! the more i can work with, the better

but i also don’t mind if they’re just general requests that don’t require a lot of detail

i will NOT write explicit NSFW, i draw the line at clothes being removed unless it has something to do with a prompt (e.g. seeing top surgery scars for the first time), some of these characters ages are not specified yet and i don’t feel comfortable potentially writing NSFW for minors. that is a crime.

there will be some requests i won’t obviously be able to complete for a number of reasons, please do not spam me if this is the case. if i’m willing to fulfil a request i will try my best to communicate with you if needed :]

i have the right to deny requests.

i do wanna say that i am a white guy so i can’t write from first hand experience, but if you request something that includes diversity like a specific race or cultural aspects i will try my absolute best to deliver accurate works. I’ll research to whatever extent i need to (if you don’t already give some information) so i can provide for groups of people that are seriously neglected when it comes to fanfiction and such. and please, in the future, if i ever do fuck up PLEASE hold me accountable and if you can show me what i’ve done wrong and what i should’ve done; what i can do to improve, i would be so appreciative- my goal is to be as inclusive as possible with my writing and the last thing i want is to offend any body of people.

finally, there will be types of writing i can’t do for specific characters. for example, spot, idk how tf i would write like a whole one-shot when my man is how he is now so i’d probably just have to stick to headcanons n such

what i will write :

requests can be either platonic or romantic dynamics, potentially other stuff if you have any ideas. just lemme know ! i do like to consider myself half decent at writing, i’ve studied english literature and linguistics my whole life and i love it very dearly <3 i’m going on to study english as a whole at a higher level (literature, language, linguistics, creative writing)

i'm happy to also apply these headcanons to the cc's, so transgender miguel for instance! just let me know :]

i typically write in bullet points because im a mess

x male reader

x nb reader (feel free to specify if they’re ambiguous, masc leaning or whatever if it’s relevant to the ask)

x trans reader

x cis reader

x spider reader

x mutant reader

character x reader

if you request multiple characters (which is fine <3) i’ll likely default to headcanons for the sake of ease

what i won’t write :

x fem reader .

character x character

NSFW

triggering topics (excluding canon events)

weird fetish/kink stuff :[

hate speech, everyone is welcome here

masterlist :

hobie brown:

how i think Hobie would react to GN!reader calling them their husband casually, even though they’re not married

hobie brown with a transgender, vigilante reader (ftm reader)

hobie admires your fighting spirit (gn reader)

hobie’s punk, you’re metal (band edition, masc reader)

where you and hobie have the most loving connection, but don’t label it (gn reader)

where hobie meets gwens older brother (masc reader)

hobie notices how startled you get when he kisses you (gn!)

hobie realises you’re not as naive as he thought ! (gn reader)

with an s/o that cries a lot ! (gn!reader)

hobie with a snake mutated boyfriend !

hobie with a butterfly mutated boyfriend !

defending his trans partner !

miles morales

miles with an artistic boyfriend riddled with anxieties

miles with a snake mutated boyfriend !

defending his trans partner !

miles 42:

miles 42 w/ an artistic spider-reader ! (masc reader)

miles42 with a butterfly mutated boyfriend !

miles 42 w/ and alien boyfriend !

defending his trans partner !

the spot:

the spot getting flustered by masc!reader

the spot falls into winged readers home (gn)

spider-noir:

spider-noir finds out you’re transmasc on a mission !

helping noir understand trans issues (deadnaming, ftm reader)

with an s/o that cries a lot ! (gn!reader)

noir finds out you wear trans tape (transmasc!reader)

defending his trans partner !

25 notes · View notes

nillinlore · 7 hours

Text

It saddens me how entrenched the gender binary is, especially within trans and queer spaces. With very few exceptions, I'm still generally treated as a queer man (which is not how I identify) and even then I'm not considered "man enough". But I also dont tick enough boxes for people to consider me woman enough either.

Not that I want to be. It’s just frustrating that not only am I still frequently forced into a binary system that clearly isnt the right fit for me, but nobody knows how to approach or treat me due to how difficult it is to classify me. I fall through the cracks.

Femme folks seem uncomfortable around me in terms of how to include Mr, and mostly don't engage me much, regardless of how I'm expressing my gender identity, whereas masc folks often seem put off by how soft I come across and how queer I sound.

Kink and sex wise, I've been told I'm not firm or commanding enough to be a effective Dom and simultaneously that I dont look like or seem like I'd be fun to top as a desirable sub because of my suze and body type. Which is bullshit because given the space to be myself and affirmed I can be the best, most caring, giving and assertive Daddy fag that anyone could possibly want, who will breed you like the good pup that you are, or, the the most desperate, horny service doggo to the right Dom, who will do anything they possibly can to get you off and feel good with you.

Binaries fucking suck. And it's shitty that after a decade of being out as a gender nonconforming queer I still find myself failing to live up to the cisnormative gender roles and expectations that continue through supposedly radical communities.

This rant brought to you by recent feelings during queer dates and my continued struggle at making affirming connections with other trans and nonbinary folks.

Have some throw-back pics 🥰

#queer dating #queer sex #queer #t4t nsft #nsft t4t #trans nsft #enby nsft #queer nsft #nonbinary nsft #autistic nsft #nsft trans #lgbt nsft #t4t ns/fw

4 notes · View notes

justinsentertainmentcorner · 9 months

Text

Jason Sheeler at People:

Deep into a Malibu canyon, up switchback roads and overlooking a creek, is Wayne Brady’s house. With a view of the Pacific, a creek, and not much else, save for tall gates, it’s a fortress of solitude. “It’s a great place to think,” Brady, 51, says. And he has been doing plenty of that. Brady — known as much for his deft comic timing as his fully loaded smile — is ready to tell the world how he identifies: “I am pansexual,” he says, meaning that he is attracted to persons regardless of their sex or gender. Brady puts it another way: “Bisexual — with an open mind!” he says with a chuckle.

Today the house is bustling with activity. The Let's Make a Deal host's daughter, Maile, 20, and ex-wife Mandie Taketa, 47, are on hand. Taketa was the first person Brady came out to. “I just said, ‘Great.’ As I knew coming out would help him be happier," she says. Maile's response to Brady was mostly a shrug. “I just said, ‘Okay,’" she remembers, breaking into a big, proud smile. Also scattered around the house: a camera crew. Brady, Maile, and Taketa — along with Taketa’s partner Jason Fordham — are filming a reality series about their blended family, set to premiere on Hulu next year. Taketa and Fordham welcomed a new baby in 2021, and Brady is considered a co-parent.

There’s a lot going on, but Brady finds a quiet corner of the home and sits down. He takes a deep breath, leans back into the sofa and opens up to PEOPLE. Below is Brady's story in his own words.

I’m pansexual. In doing my research, both with myself and just with the world, I couldn't say if I was bisexual, because I had to really see what that was, especially because I really have not gotten a chance to act on anything. So, I came to pansexual because — and I know that I'm completely messing up the dictionary meaning — but to me, pan means being able to be attracted to anyone who identifies as gay, straight, bi, transsexual or non-binary. Being able to be attracted across the board. And, I think, at least for me for right now, that is the proper place. I took pan to mean that not only can I be attracted to any of these people or types physically, but I could be attracted to the person that is there.

[...]

I’ve been attracted to men at times in my life. But I have never dated a man.

Let's be really honest: I've also been attracted to certain men in my life, but I've always pushed that aside because of how I was raised, and because I live in today's world, and it's scary as s--t. What's the fastest way to hurt another man? I'm gonna call you out of your name. I'm gonna call you gay. I'm gonna emasculate you. I'm gonna use the F-word. I learned that very early from the people around me, they're like, "Oh, so those are bad things? Yeah. You, you don't wanna be that." So, what does it mean if I feel something? I don't think I'm gay, but what if I feel something for another [man]... That's still gay. I was already bullied about a bunch of other s--t. I didn't wanna add a top hat on top of that suit.

I’ve dealt with the shame.

A shame cake, just eating it every single day — and then worried about... people finding out. I've always had a wonderful community of friends who are in the LGBTQ+ community, people that I've grown up with in shows, gays and lesbians, and, later in life, my trans relatives and my niece. I've always had that community, but I've always felt like a sham because I wasn't being forthcoming with myself. I could speak out about Black issues because I can’t hide that. And you can play at being an ally, but until the day that you can truly say, "This is who I am, and I wanna stand next to you," that's not... I always wanted that day to come. I've told myself in the past, also, nobody needs to know my personal business. The world can absolutely go without knowing that Wayne identifies as pan. But that gave me license to still live in the shadows and to be secretive. What does that feel like to actually not be shameful, to not feel like, "Oh, I can't be part of this conversation because I'm lying?” I had to break that behavior.

In an exclusive interview with People Magazine, Wayne Brady, the former Whose Line Is It Anyway? star and current Let's Make A Deal host, comes out as pansexual.

Pansexual and bisexual are often erroneously mixed up, as bisexual means being attracted to more than one gender but not necessarily all genders, whereas pansexual means being attracted to all people regardless of their gender identity.

See Also:

The Advocate: Wayne Brady Comes Out as Pansexual in New Interview

People: Wayne Brady Comes Out as Pansexual — What to Know About the LGBTQ Label

#Wayne Brady #Pansexuality #Pansexual #LGBTQ+#Let's Make A Deal #Celebrities

11 notes · View notes

arctichotch · 2 years

Note

May be closer to a rad-fem than a terf, but you do say things to make people think that. I'm genuinely sorry, I know that's hard to hear, but when your feminism doesn't include men or even acknowledge that men can be victims and you can't listen to anyone who disagrees with you without becoming super vitriolic, it sends terfy/radfem vibes. I understand you feel strongly, and you have big feelings about this, but I'm saying this because I care. It might be time to just take a break and breathe

this is so condescending lmao. how is believing a woman was abused, based purely on evidence, radfem/terf-y? lmao

i don’t become “super vitriolic.” i might get a bit defensive because people are trashing AH for things that could be part of any victims story and in turn are trashing those people too. and people do be coming at me with the most ridiculous arguments for why amber is lying and it drives me up the fucking wall because they should look into dv, research, evidence etc before saying shit that is straight up lies and misinformation. because misinformation is dangerous. and if someone’s coming at me with misinfo, i’m not going to over look it for fear of seeming “vitriolic” or like a terf.

and i have never once said a man can’t be a victim. not once. because that’s bullshit. when i speak about victims or survivors or anyone at all who has suffered at the hands of an abuser, i am including everyone. men, women, non binary folks. every living breathing human being. to me, there is no threshold of standards to meet to be a victim (unlike what so many depp supporters think btw) because it happens to anyone and everyone.

yeah sometimes i reblog stuff discussing female abuse survivors in particular. or whatever else. because women are so often not believed about being abused while simultaneously being so frequently abused. or because i see it on my dash and think that it’s a good point.

supporting female survivors doesn’t mean i don’t support male survivors. those two things are not mutually exclusive. it just means i support survivors, regardless of gender. which i do.

just because i don’t believe johnny depp was abused (once again solely based on evidence) does not mean that i don’t think any men can be abused. if johnny had the evidence amber had, i’d believe him. it’s not about the person to me, it’s about the evidence, the facts. gender in abuse plays no role to me (besides maybe considering statistics in particular situations.)

i 100% think that society is not a place made open for men to come forward about abuse they’ve suffered. and that fucking sucks. and needs to change. as does anything in relation to dv because the world is a mess in how any abuse survivors are treated.

but, with regard to this case, i believe the woman in the situation because she has the evidence. so anything i’m talking about is with this case in mind.

it’s so fucking tiring and genuinely upsetting to be accused of not believing men about being abused just because i don’t believe one man about being abused. i believe and support many other male survivors (and have spoken to this in the past) but all that is discounted because i don’t support depp? that’s not fair.

supporting abuse survivors and advocating for them on a social/psychological level is something i am so incredibly passionate about. and what i intend to pursue in the future.

abuse is not based on gender. believing someone shouldn’t be based on their gender. i don’t believe amber heard because she’s a woman and i don’t not believe johnny depp because he’s a man. it’s not even something i overly considered before i began to be accused of not believing men etc. my stance on this case is purely based on evidence and what i know and have researched on ipv over the years.

you’re not saying this “because you care.” yes i feel strong about this, and have “big feelings.” i’m not 6 years old. i can speak about things i’m passionate about online without some anonymous person calling me a terf and telling me to shut up pretty much.

i have had plenty of conversations the past few days, listening to someone else’s pov but that doesn’t change what i believe. their evidence didn’t convince me all of a sudden that i was in the wrong because it’s the same facts i’ve seen presented over and over again.

like what have i actually said to seem like a terf? besides that i don’t believe johnny depp.

not believing one man was abused (once again, based solely upon the evidence) ≠ being a terf/radfem who never believes male survivors

and no i’m not going to take a breather. because i’ve had so many survivors speaking under my posts/my inbox/my dms who have been speaking about their experiences or thanking me for making some little post on here because it makes them feel less alone. and why the hell would i ever walk away from that because somebody wrongly thinks i give off terf vibes.

#like please #what did i even say lmao #this was so condescending tbh talking to me like i’m 6 #sorry for the #long post #i stand with amber heard #and will continue to stand with her because she is a victim #abuse tw #cw johnny depp #ask #anon

30 notes · View notes

marvellovelacevt · 1 year

Note

Thank you for sharing your introspection on this post (for those who missed it): https://at.tumblr.com/marvellovelacevt/707838783056461824/8o6fu1lv0bbf

I found this very intriguing! So, do you feel like there's a lack of more precise labels to cover your experiences and identity? Or is it a lack of representation of your experiences and identity? If that made sense. As in, is it hard for you to find people who speak of experiences and identities that *match* yours?

"Is using catch-all labels like 'non-binary' or 'queer' hampering my ability to understand who I am as a person?"

—I thought this was really interesting. In cultural anthropology (I only took a beginner course, so I'm not speaking as an expert), there's discourse of whether language determines a group's culture or if culture determines a group's language. What you just said makes me think of that very thing, as it sounds like language is shaping the "culture" (though in this case, I'd say your "understanding") of your identity, whereas your identity should be shaping the language.

i'm glad it interested you!

so, my relationship with my gender, sexuality, and self-image is really really complicated. it's less that i want a precise label for my identities and more that i don't want to have to use a label at all while still having control of how my identity is perceived. my identity is really hard for me to put into words sometimes even when they should feel concrete!

the term nonbinary can spark a lot of speculation about an identity when you lack a precise label. nonbinary is an umbrella, after all. there's a belief held by a lot of people that nonbinary is "diet woman", when that's demonstrably untrue as a whole and especially for me. if i'm thinking as my identity as a set of sliders, the slider for my internal identity skews very slightly masculine of center. but then, my outward appearance doesn't reflect that, and i don't want it to. presentation-wise, i skew more feminine. naturally, people are going to see me as "diet woman", and for that, i can't fault them. but they're objectively incorrect about their assumptions!

my gender is quite possibly the most difficult thing about myself to truly define because when i look at more precise labels, none of them reflect how i feel, because when i think of gender, i break it down into several parts; the internal, the presentation, and the performance. the performance aspect of my gender is the most unknown to me because i don't really register how i act at all. i am a blind spot for my perception. it doesn't help that because of One Very Specific Mental Illness I Have But Will Not Disclose, i tend towards being a social chameleon.

my sexuality is easier for me to place, but it's still very messy to define. in short, i guess that, on paper, i am biromantic and demisexual. i resonate with those experiences the most. but also... i don't? not entirely.

it's less an attraction to specific genders that i feel and more an attraction to queerness in every aspect. i consider myself t4t as long as i've gotten to know someone. especially in regards to other nonbinary or gender non-conforming people. when i think of the possibility of dating someone who is cisgender or when a cisgender person takes an interest in me, i feel like something hits a panic button inside of me and i feel like i have to leave the situation immediately. this happens most often with cisgender and heterosexual men, but it happens regardless of whether it's a cis man or woman and regardless of sexual or romantic orientation. it mostly ends up being a circumstance of cishet men being very common to encounter and them seeing queer, vaguely feminine people as something interesting and fun.

and so that's why i say i'm queer and not biromantic demisexual. but then, that also feels like a cop-out?

i have a lot of thoughts and feelings about my identity and i wish i had a better word for it for convenience. a label is convenient. but i also wish i didn't have to want a label for that convenience and that i could exist using broader labels without feeling like my identity is speculated about or doubted, you know? like personally i think "unlabeled" as a term/label fucks hard but then it also has a reputation of celebrities using it to foster speculation and parasocial relationships with their fanbases and then feeling it gives them a free pass to comment on queer issues or queer media in a way that makes them look really close-minded (not naming names. if you know you know.)

so, i guess my introspection is more about exploring why i feel like i have to need labels in the first place.

#answered #long post #queer stuff #queer #nonbinary #headless hodgepodge #sorry this took so long to answer sfdghdfgh #just trying to articulate my thoughts yk

3 notes · View notes

thegyusorcerer · 2 years

Note

Hello! So, I've been doing quite some research and figuring a lot about myself. I know I'm ace and demiromantic, but I don't know If I'm bi or a lesbian.

I've been calling myself a bisexual person since I'm 12, because I didn't care much about people's gender.

Now that I know that I'm ace and that I'm not attracted to men, I just have gender envy, I don't know If I would date a men or not. I know that I could date, women or people that are out of the binary spectrum. But I'm not that sure about men.

Do you have any advice? :']

Hi! First of all thanks for your ask, I really appreciate that you had the courage to send it in and I know that it can confusing and complicated to figure everything out 🥺. I admire you already!

My advice... well, I should mention that you don't really need to figure out which label fits best, and if a label starts feeling more constricting than freeing its probably not a good idea to keep using it. Maybe sapphic or queer can be enough. Though I also understand the other side of the coin where we sometimes want a label to feel seen, validated and like we belong so I understand the wanting to describe yourself with one. Either way, your confusion is understandable and valid. Whatever you choose to label yourself is absosutely wonderful! Don't forget that 🥰☺🌈.

Now to your question... how do you know if you're bi or a lesbian (I am guessing you're referring to romantic attraction bc you've stated you're asexual) ... that's a very complex question and one you can only answer for yourself. For me, realizing I'm asexual made it easier to accept that I didn't feel attracted to men romantically either bc those feelings have never been there... If it's dating what you're pondering, whether you could date men too or only women/non-binary spectrum people, it's up to you really. If you're one for casual dating then you know your boundaries and your desires best, what feels more comfortable and more like you. And if your answer is anyone regardless of gender feels right, then AMAZING! If your answer is certain gender(s) only, then that's AMAZING too!

I know that, being demiromantic, the romantic attraction takes time to develop for us and sometimes the gender plays or doesn't play a factor in that attraction and both are valid ways to be demiromantic!! 💚 Remember that you could also date someone even if the attraction is not there, many cupioromantic people could explain this.

In my case, I realized that I only experience romantic attraction to people of my same/similar gender after an emotional bond has been created because I saw the pattern in crushed I'd had 😂 AND also considered a long term relationship with a woman and it just felt right. I'd never felt that way towards a man, hence why I am a lesbian. Plus it has been like this since I was very young so I may not be the best person to ask 😅. BUT I hope this helps. Remember that whatever label you decide to use is up to you only!! Wishing you the best of lucks!

#answered ask #june's post ⭐

9 notes · View notes

girl4music · 3 months

Text

Being non-binary and non-binary being.

As I’ve been researching more and more about non-binary and the experience for many people of what it’s like for them to be non-binary rather than just going with the basic definition of what “non-binary” is, I’ve heard it said many times by non-binary people that non-binary means not exclusively or solitarily feminine or masculine. This got me wondering if you can identify as non-binary and female even if you do not feel exclusively or solitarily feminine all the time. Because the thing is, I identify as female or a woman and I am perfectly fine with being referred to by and as female or a woman but I do not feel exclusively or solitarily feminine all the time. I also feel masculine sometimes as well. I am what they call a “tom boy”. Forgive the stereotypes but I never wear dresses or skirts. I never wear make-up or perfume or jewellery. I’m not a “lady” at all and I would hate to be called a lady. These are the traditional feminine traits as far as understanding the differences in gender identity roles between the binary of “male” and “female” or “man” and “woman” which I’ve always thought was utter tripe and had nothing to do with either sex, gender or identity, which I do consider to be completely separate and different things or concepts. They are just the strict stereotypes of heteronormative and conservative traditions. What people are assigned and assignation isn’t something I care about whatsoever.

I’ve always put my experience as a human being or as a spirit first and foremost in my life so my gender is inconsequential to me. It’s more important to others when I navigate in social environments how they “gender” me. I’ve always understood nature itself as possessing the energies of both masculine and feminine regardless whether the sex is biologically male or female. As in - regardless of its biological genitalia. And I do not believe in identity point blank. Meaning, I do not believe in an assigned “I” or “self” or “me”. I do not believe in the stories people make up of who or what I am. How they perceive of me and what they think of me. This means I do not believe in names, ages, genders or basically anything assigned to a person at birth. Only what I feel or experience in myself and what I have interacted and engaged with all throughout my experience. In other words - who or what “I” am is always changing and evolving or is always a non-specific and fluid moving target. This means that I flow with nature and evolution and do not put an external permanence on what that is or looks like. But saying that - at the same time I have core values or morals that I go by and themes or concepts that I resonate with. For example, I resonate very strongly with the theme or concept of “queerness” or “otherness” (as I sometimes like to refer to it more as to avoid the whole “queer is a slur” crap). This basically means that I understand my being as “queer” or my being as “other” from the majority perception or worldview. Sometimes the complete opposite to it even. Like how a majority of people seem to perceive or view the world as being separate and external to who or what it is just because they have a dual perspective of it: of the separation and externality that they see between “I” and “other”. I never have and never will perceive or view the world in this way. I’ve always perceived or viewed the world as one interchanging energetic conscious entity where “I” and “other” work together to manifest and maintain each other. I’ve always understood the nature of life and existence (or at a smaller scale - the “conscious atomical being”) as relationship and connection in interaction and motion. This is what “spirit” is to me. It is less supernatural and paranormal and more just the general workings and functions of nature itself. It’s the way the “world” or the “Universe” always works. Nothing would ever exist without “I” and “other” working together. It is the principle and process of well… everything there is… at both the smallest and largest scale. I call it “spirit” for simple coherent explanation in communication with others but unfortuantely most people believe or think of spirit as supernatural or paranormal in nature or sometimes “out of this world” when that’s just not true at all. It is very much of this world. Very much its natural state. It’s default setting - you could say. “Spirit” simply means to me the relationship and connection of anything and everything working in tandem together - which if you’ve studied particle or atomic or quantum physics makes far more sense than anything else does because the smallest scale makes the largest scale and vice versa, which is the teaching principle of Democritus’ atomic theory. My understanding of the nature of “reality” or “other” is rooted in scientific philosophy and my knowing or awareness of self is rooted in nondualistic spirituality. So I have a very uncommon way of looking at identity that has confused a lot of people when explaining it.

So I understand my own nature and sense of self as something far more complicated and nuanced and multidimensional than most people. I do not think of it as “identity” because identity is assigned and therefore lends itself closely to the concept of dualism. I very much understand myself as both being and spirit as the sum of parts as well as a part of the sum. This means I do not separate or externalize myself from the all even though I am only one being or one spirit perceptually to others. So my identity or how I identify myself is less about “me” and more about how I relate to and connect with both “me” and “not me” (if that makes any sense) because I understand all of it as “me” as well as “not me” and how both can co-exist. How “I” work with “other”, fundamentally understanding “I” and “other” as one total conscious entity that cannot be without each other or there is neither “I” or “other”. The way I understand both “myself” and “not myself” is on a whole other level of awareness than the basic philosophy of “I am” and “you are” of identification.

So going back to the concept of “non-binary”. It really interests me even though it’s just another label for gender identity because - from what I’ve learned about it so far - it resonates with what I feel or experience for and in myself. Which is that the energies of “masculine” and “feminine” exist in anything and everything. Existence itself carries both energies fundamentally in its expression of being or of spirit. It is never exclusively or solitarily one or the other and thus I certainly don’t feel or experience myself as exclusively and solitarily one or the other. For clarity - nature itself is not binary. It’s dual perspective, yes. But it’s not binary. There is no such thing as binaries in nature in the sense that there is only ever two of anything or everything. This is a misinterpretation of what nature is or how it works. The understanding that there is “two” rather than one in all and all in one has come from Christian biblical text. The whole Noah’s arc story: two of every animal boarded the arc - one male, one female. We get “binary” in both sex and gender identity because we have a dual perspective as conscious beings but this dual perspective is not the reality of “things”. Reality, or should I say “externality”, is non-dual. The external “reality” couldn’t be dual because there would be no conscious experience of anything ever if it was. So we get “binary” in our subjective experience of reality simply because we have a dualistic perspective of it. We perceive an “I” and then an “other” and we immediately separate them into “two” different things. We can’t help it. That is what we experience and that is how we can ever have an experience at all. But for it to truly be this way in external “reality”means that consciousness cannot experience itself because awareness is dual perspective all the time. Any perceiving of a “thing” from another “thing” is misinterpreting the fundamental relationship of it. What is relationship? Think about it. It’s “I” relate to “you” and “you” relate to “me”. That is what it is! That is what anything is or how anything can ever be at all. And now all you have to do is get rid of the pronouns.

So I could be wrong but I think so many people resonate with the concept of non-binary to the point of wanting to identify themselves by it because they are feeling or experiencing their natural state of oneness. It’s no surprise to me that a lot of people that identify as non-binary are very spiritual. Not religious. Spiritual. Many non-binary people have a spiritual worldview without all the “religious” or “new age”connotations to it. Just as I do. Just as mystics do. Many Buddhist, Taoist and Hindu believers identify as non-binary even if they do not specifically use the label because their understanding of themselves and how they feel or experience in themselves is non-dualistic. Eastern civilisation does not separate or externalize themselves from everything else in existence like Western civilisation. From their inherent nature of being or spirit. And if there’s any Eastern religion I can say that I relate to or resonate with the most - it has to be Taoism because the whole ‘yin-yang’ philosophy is predominantly the philosophy I’ve believed in all of my life. What Taoists refer to as “The Way” or Hindus refer to as “advaita vedanta”. The oneness in all and the all in oneness. Nondualism.

So as you can hopefully see - my gender identity is a very insignificant concern to me. But non-binary is a very interesting concept to read about and study. I do resonate with a lot of what I’ve educated myself on. However - I am comfortable with being cisgender so I do not identify with it myself. I just find it fascinating because of the way I personally feel and think myself. It’s a very broad and open-minded concept. I like it.

#non-binary #gender identity #not exclusively or solitarily masculine or feminine #as I understand it #I think it differs depending on the person #but this is what I’ve learned about it from many people who identify as it #it seems to align with my belief of nondualism #and has done for many nondualistic believers

1 note · View note

nothorses · 2 years

Note

(Hope you don't mind if I just share my thoughts in your askbox, a recent reblog of yours inspired me).

I am finding more often the phrase "Gender is a spectrum" and the implications therein to be almost too simplistic. I think it's a fine jumping off point to approach gender, but for many people, even within the queer community, that's where it ends. To a degree that they try and then create that spectrum, or at least a representation of it, which I think is counter intuitive. The moment you start plotting identities on a literal spectrum and defining where they exist in relation to another is the moment you've kind of reverted back to the binary system, just varying degrees of less-binary.

I think instead we should move towards definitions that acknowledge there is no standard cultural understanding of gender, and there isn't just one way to relate to a gender identity. many of us have different paths to come to the same conclusion, and some come to entirely different conclusions all together. I think we should embrace everyone's unqiue understanding of their own identities, not just create a new, less restrictive standard. Personally, I don't find it easy to visualize my own gender on a spectrum at all, I love the term binary because it describes exactly how I feel about my own gender identity, and it's not any less wrong than someone who can. there's no right or wrong way to do gender.

(...but i understand that isn't as catchy as gender is a spectrum.)

Ooh, yes, I agree!

I think my personal understanding of gender has evolved a lot in the past year or so, and the conclusion I've sort of come to is that... well, it's a lot more complicated than even very inclusive folks make it out to be.

A lot of people try to explain gender as a wholly-internal experience; it's something that exists inside of you, detached from society, culture, and experiences. It's something you're born with, and it's intrinsic to who you are.

And while that might hold true for some people, I think it's also more confusing and counterproductive, even erasive, than it is universally helpful.

An individual's concept of gender isn't always going to be 100% internal and intrinsic. We all understand gender differently- not just our personal gender, but gender as a concept. Some of us relate it more to personal experiences, and some of us take influence from external sources; our cultural understanding of gender, our relationship to gender roles, the ways we have been personally treated in relation to gender, the ways we internalize all of those experiences... and more!

And, yes, even one's body can have an influence on this. Much as I believe trans people are their genders regardless of presentation and transition, I also could not, for the life of me, genuinely get myself to feel like I was a man- to believe it- until I was well into my transition.

Even now, I struggle with that. I wouldn't even blame dysphoria for that; much as it played a role, I just couldn't believe myself when I said I was a man. It felt truer to say I wanted to be one, and, well... even if it is "just dysphoria", is that not still a factor worth considering? It influences my concept of my own gender anyway, who's to say it's not a "real" factor in my experience of gender?

We need to allow room for diverse experiences and concepts of gender; and that means letting gender be not just a web of relational points, but a wholly individual experience influenced by a wide variety of possible factors.

Even the most straightforward-seeming concepts of gender (like "man" and "woman") will have different relationships to other genders and concepts for every individual. Everyone's "spectrum" of gender will look different from everyone else's, because there is no one correct or universal way to understand each individual gender in the first place.

70 notes · View notes

baya-ni · 3 years

Text

The Queer Appeal of Sk8

Recently @mulberrymelancholy reblogged a post of mine with a truly galaxy brain take about how Sk8 “is a show made for queer fans” and generally how sports anime often depicts love and relationships in a way that’s more accessible and relatable to ace/arospec people than other mainstream media does.

Just, *chef’s kiss* fucking brilliant. I urge you to read their post here (note I’m referring to the reblog not the actual post).

And basically, it got me thinking about this concept of Sk8 as a Queer Show, and the kinds of stories and dynamics that tend to attract queer audiences in droves, regardless of whether its queerness is made explicit or hell, whether that queerness was intended.

And that’s what I’ve been pondering: What are the cues, markers, or coding, in Sk8 that set off the community’s collective gaydar?

I obviously can’t speak for the community. So here’s what aspects of the show intrigued me and what, for me, marks Sk8 as a Queer Show beyond the subtextual queer romances: a punk/alternative aesthetic, Found Family, Shadow as a drag persona, and The Hands.

1.) The Punk Aesthetic

All three of the above screenshots are taken from Ep 1, and every single one of them depicts background characters. They’re nameless and ultimately unimportant characters, yet each of them designed so distinctly and so unique from one another, one could mistake each of them for the main character(s) of another story.

Of what little I know about Punk subculture, I do know this: that the ethos of Punk is heavily built around a celebration of individuality and non-conformity. Sk8 seems to have incorporated this ethos into the very fabric its worldbuilding, and the aesthetics and culture upon which it takes inspiration appeals specifically to a queer audience.

I don’t really need to explain why Punk has such deep ties with the queer community. For decades, queer people have found community and acceptance within punk spaces, and punk ideology is something that I think is just ingrained in the queer consciousness as both lived experience and a survival tactic.

Therefore, a show that adopts punk aesthetics is, by association, already paying homage to Queer culture, intentional or not.

Queer fans notice this- like recognizes like.

2.) Found Family

This also needs little explanation.

Too often, queer individuals cannot rely on their “born into” families for support and acceptance. Too often, we are abused, neglected, and abandoned by those who we were taught would “always be there for us.”

And so, a universal experience for queer people has been redefining the meaning of Family, having to build our families from scratch, finding brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers in people with whom we have no blood relation, and forming communities tied together by shared lived experience rather than shared genetics.

And this idea of Found Family is also built into Sk8′s narrative.

Like, for example, the way that Reki promises MIYA that he and Langa will “never disappear from [his] sight,” filling the void that MIYA felt after his friends abandoned him.

And in the way that JOE becomes a paternal figure for Reki, teaching him ways to improve in skateboarding, and ensuring that Reki doesn’t self isolate when he’s feeling insecure.

And in the whole Ep 6 business with Hiromi acting as babysitter to the Gang.

Hell, even ADAM (derogatory) is associated with this trope. Abused as a child, he finds solace in an underground skateboarding community and culture he helped create- his own found family (or some powertrippy version of it anyway).

Again, queer fans see themselves depicted in the show, but this time in the way that the show gives importance to Found Family relationships between its characters.

3.) Shadow and Drag

This is one that’s more of an association that I personally made. But I was intrigued by the way that Hiromi adopts his SHADOW persona. He wears SHADOW like a mask, and adopts a personality seemingly so opposite to his day-to-day behavior.

Further, the theatricality and general “gender fuckery” of his SHADOW persona, to me, just seemed so similar to a the characteristics of a drag persona (I don’t know a whole lot about drag but enough that I’m drawing superficial similarities).

There’s also this aspect of a “double life” that he, and actually all the other adult characters of the show, have to adopt, which is a way of living that I’m sure a lot of queer viewers see themselves reflected in.

4.) The Hands

Ohhhh the Hands.

One of the things I noticed very early on is the way the show constantly draws our attention to Reki’s hands, which I thought was a little strange for an anime about skating. After all, skating doesn’t really involve the hands, or at least the show doesn’t really draw attention to hands within the context of skating.

I count 3 times so far between Eps 1-9 in which hands are the focus of the frame.

First, when Reki teaches Langa how to fist pump after Langa lands his first ollie, second, when Reki and Langa make their Promise, and finally, when Langa saves Reki from falling off his board.

And you know what they say, twice is a coincidence but thrice is a motif (no one else actually says this I think I’m the only one who says this lol).

I’m not really certain why hands seem to be such a shared fixation among queer people (at least among those I interact with). All I know is that gay people are just fucking obsessed with them.

I have a Theory as to why, and at this point I’d love for other people to chime in and “compare notes” if you will, but I think it basically has to do with repression. And in the same way that queer people have had to redefine the meaning of family, we’ve also had to redefine intimacy.

Being overtly physically affectionate with someone of the same sex, even if they’re your significant other, or often specifically BECAUSE they’re your significant other, can still be dangerous, even now despite the “progression” of society. Queer people know this, this vigilant surveillance of our environment and ourselves, always asking ourselves, “Am I safe enough to be myself?”

Already, Western culture is pretty touch-averse. That is, it’s considered taboo to touch someone unless they’re a family member or a romantic partner. And to touch a person of the same sex in any way that could be misconstrued as romantic (which is most things tbh) is a big no no.

There’s just A Lot to unpack there.

But basically I think that queer people, by necessity, have had to learn to romanticize mundane or unconventional ways of being physically intimate so that we can continue to be romantic with one another without “being caught” so to speak.

Kissing and hugging is too obvious. But a handshake that lingers for just a second too long is much more likely to go unnoticed, braiding someone’s hair can easily be explained away as just lending a helping hand, touching palms to “compare hand sizes” is just good fun.

But for queer people, these brief and seemingly insignificant touches hold greater meaning, because it’s all we are allowed, and all we allow ourselves, to exchange with others.

God, I’ve gone off and rambled again. What’s my point? Basically that the way the show draws attention to Reki’s hands, and specifically how they’re so often framed with Langa’s hands, is one of the major reasons why I clocked Sk8 as a Queer. It’s just something that resonated with me and my own experience of queerness, and I know that I’m not the only one who noticed either.

So in conclusion, uhhhh yeah Sk8 the Infinity is just a super gay show, and it’s not even because of the homo-romantic subtext (that at this point is really just Text).

Because what’s important to understand is that Queerness isn’t just about same-sex romance.

Queer Love isn’t just shared between wives/girlfriends, husbands/boyfriends, and all their in-betweens. Queer Love can be two best friends who come out together, queer siblings who rely and support one another, a gay teacher who helps guide one of their questioning students, a queer community pitching in to help a struggling member.

And that all ties with another important thing to consider, that what we refer to as the “queer experience” or “queer culture” isn’t universal. In fact, it wrongly lumps together the unique experiences and struggles of queer BIPOC all under one umbrella that’s primary White and middle class.

So I think what drives a lot of my frustration about labeling a show like Sk8 as Queerbait is this very issue of considering queerness and queer representation within such narrow standards, and mandating that a show must pass a certain threshold of explicit queerness to be considered good representation.

I get that someone might only feel represented by an indisputable canonization of a same-sex couple. That’s fine. But labeling Sk8 as Queerbait for that reason alone ignores the vast array of other queer experiences.

The aspects of Sk8 that resonate most deeply with my own experiences of queerness is in the way that Reki and Langa share intimacy through skating (intricate rituals heyo). For me, them officially getting together ultimately doesn’t matter- I’ll consider Sk8 a Queer show regardless.

Similarly, @mulberrymelancholy finds ace/arospec representation in that very absence of an on-screen kiss. A bisexual man might find representation in Reki, not because he enters a canon relationship, but in the depiction of Reki’s coming of age, growing up and navigating adolescent relationships. A non-binary person might feel represented through CHERRY’s androgyny.

That’s the thing, I don’t know how this show will resonate with other members of the queer community, and it’d be wrong to make a judgement on Sk8′s queer representation based on my experiences alone.

That being said, Straight people definitely don’t get to judge Sk8 as Queerbait. Y’all can watch and enjoy the show, we WANT you to enjoy these kinds of shows, and we want you to share these shows and contribute to the normalization and celebration of these kinds of narratives.

But understand that you don’t have a right to tell us whether or not Sk8 has good or bad queer representation.

And even members of the queer community are on thin ice. Your experience of queerness is not universal. Listen to the other members of your community, and respect that what you might find lacking in this show may be the exact representation that someone else needs.

#and scene #i was up till 4am writing this instead of doing my hw #bc i hav Opinions dammit #sk8 #sk8 the infinity #sk8 meta #sk8 theory #queerbait

286 notes · View notes

uncloseted · 3 years

Note

saying "people who identify as girls are girls" is not simple. at all. i mean ok i am a girl. why? because i identify as one. but why? there's nothing that unites all girls. which doesn't mean that all girls have to be exactly the same but they at least need to have ONE thing in common. i mean if people say yeah i like women, when i'm in the street i look at women not men. how do you know? how do you know who's a man and who's a woman and who's anything else? and even woke people look at someone

1and think "girl" then think, or maybe they're non binary! but they never say or maybe they're a man. never. a person who looks like me has two options: girl or one of the hundreds of non binary identities. but to be a man, I'd have to try harder. it's not enough to IDENTIFY AS. ffs I can't be the only one who sees this. and just to clarify, i sent the joke about Emily being transphobic and i sent the first two of the three asks that you answered together i forgot this. you seriously thinl that if you raise a baby completely gender neutral, like one of those "theybies" and you tell them a girl is someone who identifies as a girl a boy is anyone who identifies as a boy nb is someone who identifies as neither, that they will deep down, without taking into account any stereotypes or biological essentialism, know what gender they are? even if they end up saying I'm a girl/boy, it will be because they will be exposed to girls and boys and "choose" the one they relate most to, or even because they like how the word "girl" or "boy" sounds.

I think you're asking some really good questions here. You're raising a lot of very philosophically interesting questions about the metaphysics of gender (what does it mean to have a gender, what does it mean to be transgender, is gender a social construct or is it innate to humans, etc) and how gender, as a social construct, impacts our lives on a day to day basis. Better philosophers than I have struggled with these questions for decades, but I'll do my best not to get too into the weeds on their different theories in this post. Instead, I'll offer my thoughts on what gender is and then investigate how we interact with it on a practical level. This is likely to be a long post, so apologies in advance, but it's a complicated issue that touches everyone's lives and I want to be mindful of that while writing this. Also apologies that this is going to be a pretty binary post. I don't mean to exclude nonbinary identities from this conversation, but to illustrate the points I'm trying to make, I think it's easier to talk about binary identities first. Just know that I do think nonbinary identities are real, valid and worthy of recognition and respect. Lastly, I'm not attached to any of the views expressed in this post. They reflect my thinking at this moment in time, but that might change as I learn more about these topics. I apologize if any of the views presented here are inadvertently hurtful. That's not my intention at all, but I recognize that regardless of intention, some things can cause harm. My goal in this post is to explore some ideas, and I would love to hear other people's opinions on this topic or criticism of these ideas. The Metaphysics of Gender So, to start out with, what is gender? Why are you a girl? Why do you identify as a girl? Why does anyone, and what links those people who identify as "girls" together? Is identifying as a girl enough to be one? These are complicated questions, both philosophically and culturally, and they've become more visible as we've become more culturally aware of gender variances (recently in the West. Third genders have always existed, and do continue to exist, in many cultures around the world). In biology and philosophy, there's a concept called "homeostatic property clusters" (stay with me here, I promise I'm going somewhere with this). "Homeostatic property clusters" is basically just a fancy phrase for the idea that if a creature has enough of a certain set of characteristics, they can be defined as part of a larger category, even if they don't have all of the traits that creatures in that category might have. In the PhilosophyTube video "Social Constructs", Abigail offers the category "mammals" as an example of a "homeostatic property cluster". Mammals are creatures that have warm blood, produce milk, and birth live offspring. Humans are mammals based on these characteristics, and so are seals and giraffes. But platypuses are also mammals, even though they lay eggs instead of birthing live offspring. These three properties, having warm blood, producing milk, and birthing live offspring, tend to "cluster" together, but they don't have to all be present in order for the creature to be "a mammal"- in this case, two out of three is fine. I think gender is similar. It's a homeostatic property cluster that includes biological, psychological, and social traits. Not all of those traits must be present for a person to "be a girl" or "be a boy", but enough of them have to be present in order for the person to be considered as part of that category ("girl" or "boy"). That cluster of traits is what all "girls" have in common, even if those traits aren't exactly the same for each individual. So, then, in the context of gender, what are those traits? "Biopsychosocial traits" is all very good as an academic term, but what does it actually mean? Let's start with the biological traits, since I think they're what most people default to when talking about gender. Biological Sex and Gender One trait we might consider when talking about whether someone "is a

girl" is sex characteristics. Sex and gender are fundamentally separate concepts, but for many people, they're linked. Many cis people consider themselves cis because they were "born in the right body" or lack the desire to medically transition. They have a "subconscious sex" that matches their physical body. So I think this is a good place to start. We might ask the question, "does this person have primary or secondary sex characteristics associated with being "a girl"?" It feels like the answer should be obvious- do they have tits and fanny, or don't they? But in reality, "biological sex" itself is kind of a homeostatic property cluster. Female sex characteristics include XX chromosomes, ovaries, estrogen and gestagen, a vagina, uterus, and fallopain tubes, breasts, and a menstrual cycle. But there are people without some of these traits that are still "girls". For example, some girls don't have a menstrual cycle (due to menopause, hormonal birth control, low body weight, PCOS, etc), but they're still girls. Some girls don't have a uterus (for example, if they've had a hysterectomy), but they're still girls. Some girls never develop breasts, but they're still girls. Some girls are born with Swyer syndrome, where they have a uterus, fallopian tubes, a cervix and a vagina, but have XY sex chromosomes. They're still girls. Any one of those traits by themselves can't be enough to decide if a person "is a biological girl" or "isn't a biological girl", but if a person has enough traits in that cluster, then they can be considered part of the larger category "biological girl". That by itself is kind of a TERFy take, so I would offer that the biological trait in the cluster "girl" is "has a cluster of female sex characteristics, either naturally or artificially, or gender dysphoria resulting in a desire to acquire those sex characteristics." But that alone can't be enough to determine if someone is or isn't "a girl". If it was, it would exclude pre-medical transition trans boys, even pre-medical transition trans boys who are living their lives as boys. It's also a transmedicalist take- it would also exclude trans people who never medically transition. To me, that doesn't feel right. People shouldn't be considered "a girl" or "a boy" based on biological essentialism, the pain of gender dysphoria, or their access to medical transition. So there have to be other factors at play- other traits in the cluster. Gender as Identity On the other side of the spectrum, some people say that gender is identity. You are "a girl" or "a boy" because that's how you identify- it's how you see yourself. In this viewpoint, gender is something innate to a person, that they instinctively know about themselves. It's perhaps a "female soul" in a "male body". In your ask, you express some scepticism about this view, and I'm inclined to agree. If humans have souls, I'm inclined to think they're not gendered, since what constitutes gender varies so widely across cultures and time periods. But I do also think that "identifying as" is an important element of "being a girl". Identifying as a girl is a basic criteria for being a girl. No person who doesn't identify as a girl can be a girl. It's an innate property of "girlness", the same way that an innate property of triangles is that they have three sides. But I do agree with you that I'm not convinced it's enough to only "identify as". Other traits in the cluster have to be present, because without a physical or social transition (or at least, the desire for a physical or social transition, particularly in cases of people for whom it's not safe or possible for them to transition), a person's identification doesn't have much practical value. Gender as a Social Role If "identifying as" isn't enough, then perhaps an important part of the gender conversation is the social role that gender plays in our lives. A gender is put upon us when we're born, and people continue to expect us to fill our assigned gender role throughout our lives. Maybe what's important isn't our body

parts or our internal identity, but instead, the gender role society lets us adopt. Perhaps society has to let you adopt the gender role you identify as. Either you're perceived as a woman or you aren't, either you "pass" or you don't. Perhaps those expectations that others have of you are what defines your gender. Intuitively, this seems to be tapping into something that feels true, at least to me. "Identifying as" isn't enough because society has to acknowledge that we are who we say we are. As you say, perhaps we have to "try harder" to "be a girl" or "be a boy" than just "identifying as". But this, too, has its problems. What about trans people who can't or don't pass? Does their transness get revoked for not appearing like they're trying hard enough? And what constitutes "hard enough"? Is trying at all "hard enough", or is there a point at which you "become" your gender? How many people need to reach a consensus on your gender before that's who you "are"? Does it get revoked by one person who misgenders you? And what about people who are cis, but occasionally put into an opposite gender role because of the way they present themselves? It seems to me that relying on other people to confer gender onto us is at once too limiting and not limiting enough. Gender as Gender Expression Going off of the idea of gender as a social role, then maybe gender is how you physically express yourself to the world- how you look to others. Maybe if you choose to express yourself as a given gender (through hair, clothes, makeup, voice, etc.), that's the gender that you are (or a reflection of the gender that you are), because that's how society will gender you. But that seems insufficient as well, for a lot of the same reasons that gender as a social role does. There are people who express themselves in stereotypically "masculine" ways but who identify as girls and who are understood to be girls by those around them. Their "girlness" is not culturally taken away from them based on their gender expression (unless there's another trait within the cluster of "being a girl" that they appear to not have). A girl can wear a full face of makeup, a dress and high heels, or have a pixie cut, no makeup, and wear a flannel and Doc Martens, but that alone isn't enough to say that she's not "a girl". This is especially true now, where very few ways of presenting are viewed as inherently gendered. Dresses and skirts are no longer exclusively "a girl thing" and pants have long been gender neutral. And what constitutes "presenting as a girl" and "presenting as a boy" changes across culture, time, and based on other characteristics an individual has (like class, race, size, or level of ability). So gender expression doesn't seem sufficient by itself to determine gender identity. Gender as Behaviors and Actions (aka Gender Performativity) Okay, so gender isn't just gender expression. But what about gender as a set of behaviors, something that you do? Gender performativity is a theory presented by Judith Butler in 1990 (sorry, I know I promised I wouldn't namedrop philosophical theories, but this is important to the conversation). Butler says that gender is constructed through a set of "acts" that are in line with societal ideas of what it means to "be a girl" or "be a boy". This performance of gendered acts is ongoing, even when we're alone, and is out of our control. Butler believes that there's no such thing as a "non-stylized" act- that is to say, everything we do is an act, and there's no such thing as an act that is not perceived as being somewhere on the spectrum of masculinity and femininity (at least, not in the current world we live in). The way we stylize these acts have the possibility to change over time. So Judith Butler believes that we "do" gender rather than "being" gender- that a girl "does girlness" over time. Put another way, a girl does behaviors, actions, and expressions that are stylized as "girly", which is what makes her gender identity "girl". And this gender, "girl", is constantly being

produced as the girl produces more of those "girly" acts. Instead of having an innate gender or expressing our internal gender through the way that we present, Butler thinks our outward gendered acts create our inner gender identity. Those acts and the way we perform them are shaped from the minute that we're born, when we're thrown into a pre-existing gender category and taught that "people like us" do things "in this way". This theory offers an answer to the question we asked in the previous section about gender as presentation; someone who is dressed "masculine" can still be "a girl" because they're performing "girlness"- they're doing acts that are in line with what we think of as "a girl". Because Butler doesn't believe that you're born with an internal gender, her work is controversial in trans spaces and are sometimes thought of as being trans-exclusionary (although Butler herself is a trans advocate). But I think disagree. Presumably, a person could change the stylization of the acts they perform. A person who was performing "boy" can begin to instead perform "girl", although they did not grow up performing "girl". It may be difficult, as they haven't had the performance of "girl" thrust upon them their entire lives, and have not experienced the "oppression experiences of girlhood" that can shape the performance of "girl". But gender performance and gender socialization are a lifelong process, and so the more a person "does girlness", the more they will be perceived as "doing girlness", and the more they will be expected to "perform girlness." I think it becomes something of a feedback loop where performance feeds socialization and socialization feeds performance. What about the "theybies"? What would happen if you raise a baby completely gender neutral? What would happen if a baby wasn't thrown into a pre-existing gender category upon birth? Would they identify as a gender without taking stereotypes or biological essentialism into account? This is essentially a question about social constructs. If we raised a baby with the understanding that some people have male sex characteristics, some have female sex characteristics, and some people have a combination of both, but removed the social constructs we have around gender, would gender still exist to this child? What you've created here is a "Twin Earth" thought experiment- a hypothetical where there are two Earths that are identical in every way except for one. Our Earth has the social construct of Gender, but Twin Earth does not. Would our Theyby still have a gender if they lived on Twin Earth? I think no. They wouldn't have a context to understand the social systems that we've created around sex characteristics, and so they wouldn't be able to place themselves within those systems. They wouldn't understand why we've based our whole society around sex characteristics as opposed to something else. They would be able to identify that they have the sex characteristics associated with "boys" or "girls", but not what it means to "be a girl" or "be a boy". (If you want to dig further into this idea of Social Constructs, that PhilosophyTube video I linked above is a good place to start). They could learn, but it wouldn't be innate to them. We, however, don't live on Twin Earth. We live on Earth. And on Earth, we do have the social construct of gender. So even if you raise a child completely gender neutral, they still have a concept of what it is to "be a girl" or "be a boy". They might learn that "girls" have long hair, or wear dresses, or are nice and caring, or are emotional, or walk and talk a certain way, or wear pink, or whatever other social constructs we ascribe to the gender "girl". They might learn that "boys" have short hair, wear pants, are mischievous, are aggressive, or walk a different way, or wear blue, or whatever other social constructs we ascribe to the gender "boy". Kids who are raised gender neutral look at the physical characteristics of other kids, the gender expression of other kids, the performance of "girlness" or

"boyness" that other kids do, and compare them to the physical characteristics they have, the gender expression they like, the gender expression that's expected of them from others, the performance of gender that they gravitate towards, and the performance of gender expected of them from others, and they tend to pick the one that feels more like their category. Most kids start conceptualizing their gender identity around age 3 or 4, and that's true for kids who are raised gender-neutral as well. When they start spending more time out in the world, they notice that they're different from some kids and similar to others, and they learn the language to describe those differences. But all of this is kind of beside the point, because raising a child as a "theyby" doesn't ultimately have the goal of the child not having a gender or growing up to be agender or genderqueer. It has the goal of allowing children to develop their likes, dislikes, and views of themselves without the contribution of harmful gender stereotypes. And I think that's actually a really great goal- how many of us that were raised female were discouraged from pursuing certain interests (especially science and technology related interests) because those "aren't girl things"? Kids will be exposed to those harmful stereotypes eventually, but if a kid is raised until age 3 without them, they might be more resilient to them when those ideas are presented. And for kids who do end up being transgender, being raised without gender lets them know that they'll be accepted by their family no matter their identity. Okay, but give us some answers... what is gender? So, we've gone over a lot of things that gender isn't, or at least, a lot of things that can't exclusively constitute a gender. But where does that leave us? What does that make gender? I propose it's something like the following: There are lots of ways to have or experience a gender. In order to have a gender, a person must:

1. Identify as that gender and: 2. have a cluster of sex characteristics matching the biological sex associated with that gender, either naturally or artificially, or gender dysphoria resulting in a desire to acquire those sex characteristics AND/OR 3. socially inhabit that gender, through gender expression or gender performance, or have a desire to socially inhabit that gender

I think that covers pretty much every case I can think of. People who identify as a gender and have the sex characteristics matching that gender are cis people, regardless of their social presentation. People who identify as a gender and have gender dysphoria or who have medically transitioned are the gender they identify as. People who identify as a gender and socially inhabit that gender are also the gender they identify as, and so are people who identify as a gender and would like to socially inhabit that gender but can't due to financial constraints or safety concerns. They're just experiencing trans identity in a different way to medically transitioned people. Gender as a Social Construct Okay, so that's the metaphysics of gender, or at least, an approach to the metaphysics of gender. I want to make it clear that I'm not attached to this theory, and I don't necessarily think I'm right. This is just where I've landed in my thinking right now, and I'm open to hearing other people's opinions and criticisms. In any case, it's very abstract, very philosophical, but maybe not super practical for the other questions you're asking here, and definitely not simple. So why, in my original answer, was I making the claim that "people who identify as girls are girls" is simple, then? I was making that claim because the way we interact with other people isn't metaphysical. It's practical. And practically speaking, all you need to do is acknowledge a person the way they ask to be acknowledged. Does someone say they're a boy named Jack who uses he/him pronouns? Great, call him Jack and use he/him pronouns. Does someone say their name is Sarah and use she/her pronouns? Great, call her Sarah and use she/her pronouns. Does someone say their name is Alex and they use they/them pronouns? Great, call them Alex and use they/them pronouns. Does someone say their name is Cloud and they use ze/zir pronouns? Great, call them Cloud and use ze/zir pronouns. You don't have to understand their relationship with their gender or what their gender means at all. You can even think their gender is "cringe". But you do have to respect the way they view themselves, and acknowledge them how they want to be seen. Think about it this way- if you were at an event and someone had a nametag that said, "Hi! My name is Taylor", but when they introduced themselves, they said, "I know my nametag says Taylor, but actually I go by Riley," what would you do? You'd just... call them Riley, right? You don't need to know why they have the wrong nametag to respect that their nametag is wrong. You probably wouldn't insist on calling them Taylor because that's what the nametag says. You probably wouldn't even ask how they ended up with a nametag that was wrong. Trans people are people, and they deserve respect just like anyone else. That's why this is simple- all you have to do is listen and be respectful, even if you don't understand. Wrapping up, here's my question to you. What is it about trans people that makes you uncomfortable? Think about it honestly, and try not to default to, "it's political correctness run amok! People are offended if you breathe too loudly!" Does it feel like a challenge to your own identity, either your gender identity or your sexuality? Is it a discomfort with society changing? Is it a fear of getting something wrong and offending someone? The vast majority of trans people I've met just want to be acknowledged for who they are. They'll politely correct people who misgender them or accidentally say something transphobic. And the ones who are the most aggressive or militant are the ones who have been hurt the most by a system that won't acknowledge them for who they are. It's a plea to be seen in a world that denies them that visibility. Maybe it isn't trans people that need to become less sensitive, but us who need to become more accepting. Some resources that you might be interested in if you liked this post: The Aesthetic | ContraPoints Social Constructs | Philosophy Tube "Transtrenders" |

ContraPoints Gender Critical | ContraPoints Judith Butler's Theory of Gender Performativity, Explained

12 notes · View notes

communistkenobi-archive · 3 years

Note

hey uhhhh i really hope this doesnt bother you but youve mentioned before that you read a lot of "are you a trans guy or butch" posts and i was wondering if by chance you still had the links to them? im sorry if this makes u uncomfortable you dont have to asnwer in that case

Totally not a problem! Actually a really great resource was the r/FTM subreddit - if you keyword search “butch” or “lesbian” in that sub you’ll get a lot of helpful threads of people discussing their experiences on whether or not they’re a butch lesbian or straight trans guy, and in my experience they’re pretty chill regardless of where you fall on that question. I found the r/butchlesbians subreddit more hostile to this discussion, but there are also some good threads on there.

In trying to answer specific questions about your sexual & gender identity, what I found most helpful was asking myself “can I be happy with a woman as a lesbian? can I be happy with a woman as a man? when I have children, do I want to be their mother, or their father?” Thinking about your future goals re: your romantic partners and family and trying on different versions of yourself in that future can be helpful.

For the longest time I thought that my inability to see myself with a woman was because of internalised homophobia (and when I was much younger that was definitely part of it), but even as I became okay with gayness, that feeling didn’t go away. The only way I can envision a happy future for myself is as a man - a husband, a father, a brother, a son.

And something else too is like, it is okay to mourn that shift in identity in some ways. I took a lot of pride in being an out lesbian in academia and in my extended family, about being better & smarter & louder than the homophobic and misogynistic men who would dismiss me as an annoying bitch. What I’m grappling with now is having to set aside my (reasonable & well-founded) distrust of straight men so that I do not turn that disgust inwards, while also using the experience of living as a woman who once dated men & has been assaulted by men to inform how I treat women as a man.

I think the incredible thing about transmasculinity is that you can exemplify all the very best parts of manhood by informing that masculinity with your prior experience of being treated as a woman in society. I know how men treat women, I know how often they let women down or don’t stick up for them or belittle them for things as petty and harmless as the way they eat or what they wear. And I remember even before I started consciously questioning my gender identity, I constantly told myself that I could do & be better than that, that I was furious at men for not taking such easy and obvious opportunities to be better and being intensely jealous of them as a result, because I wanted to yell at them and tell them they didn’t deserve to be men if this was how they “did” masculinity.

I realise not all of those thoughts and feelings are like, the most politically correct or directly fit into political understandings of how society works (no one “deserves” privilege over others no matter how good they are, etc), but they are how I experienced the world trying my very hardest to be a woman.

And also - I think you can feel some or maybe even all of these things and still consider yourself a butch lesbian. This isn’t a simple question of “am I a man or a woman?”, because butch lesbians have their own complex and nuanced understanding of their gender that is often times entirely outside that binary. I know it’s been said in trans spaces many times before, but answering the question “what will make me the happiest?” often answers the other question “who and what am I?”, and I don’t think you can honestly answer the latter before answering the former. trans identity is about your happiness with yourself!

#misc.txt #questions in spaaace #barbecue dad but make it slutty #and if you wanna talk more anon I’m open!!!#long post

47 notes · View notes

thedreadvampy · 3 years

Note

Hey Ruth! I noticed you've talked in the past about asexuality in quite a negative manner. As an ace-person (who has received backlash for it) I was wondering: do you still uphold these opinions?

Hey! I have in the past said I don’t really...like people popping up in my ask box asking me My Opinion On Asexuality, but I do appreciate you asking me as someone I kinda know and with your face turned on, so I’m gonna aim to answer in the macro. Though I mean it depends on what the opinions...are? I have had a lot of opinions over the time I’ve had this blog and I don’t necessarily know what all of them were or which ones have concerned you. I can give you a top-level view of how I see my views, though (however, since I have been largely holding off on answering this kind of ask for Literally A Year Now this is less an answer to your specific question and more an answer to the last year of asks)

(also if I get dogpiled in my inbox for Having Bad Asexuality Opinions which I do every time I talk about asexuality regardless of what I actually say then. my phone is broken I won’t know about it :) so I feel untouchable)

I don’t think I hold a negative opinion of asexuality as an identity (I say I don’t think bc we all have blind spots)? I have a lot of very important people in my life who are asexual, aromantic or aroace and. I mean it feels pretty condescending to say ~uwu it’s valid~ bc like. ace and aro people don’t really need my input to validate their identity. but a) it seems like a pretty accurate way to describe their experience and b) I know a lot of them have had a really huge boost from finding a name and community to fit their experience and have found that really helpful, and I’ve seen that make a huge difference in people’s lives and I’m really happy to watch my friends come to understand themselves and feel comfortable and accepted in a part of themselves they had felt really alienated or stigmatised by. In a broader sense, I think there’s huge value in decentralising romance and sex in our assumptions of What Human Happiness Means and for some people that’s not the most important thing, and for some it’s just not interesting.

So like. I find it difficult to really express these opinions in any meaningful way because my opinion on asexuals and aromantics is much like my opinion on trans people or idk like people of colour. like very obviously those people exist and very obviously those people don’t deserve to be marginalised or stigmatised but it would feel. weird and performative to just make a post saying like “Asexuality Is Good And Valid, I Am Pro It” bc again like. who needs my permission or cares about my opinion. it’s not a Good Thing To Do it’s just. a thing you are that shouldn’t be treated as a bad thing.

however. and I suspect that this is what you’re referring to. while I love and appreciate ace and aro people, I think building communities and active support for ace and aro people is valuable and needed and, as above, I think Asexuality Is Good And Valid I Am Pro It, I do take some issue with elements of how discussions around asexuality are framed online (pretty much only online, I really haven’t run into the kind of black-and-white thinking in in-person queer spaces)

and I also. think there are some issues with people extrapolating their experience of their own sexuality onto the world in a way which. I’m just going to say a lot of the time when I talk about The Ace Discourse in a negative way it’s around people assuming that the world is split into a binary between ace and allo people, or assuming that only aspec people experience a nuanced or complex or fluid relationship to their sexuality while pigeonholing allosexuality into a pretty flat image of sex and romance focus. and I have always felt like this does a massive disservice not just to people who don’t identify with aspec labels, but also to the general hope that we could work against the expectation that there’s a Standard Amount To Value Sex/Romance - I think that the assumption that there are aspec people and then Everyone Else Has The Normal Type and Level of Attraction just. reinforces the idea that there’s a “Normal” type and level of attraction. which is ultimately pretty self-defeating and also just. observably untrue.

and this division of the world into Aspec People and Allo People also has some other weird knockon effects - I don’t think there’s anything intrinsically wrong with identities like gray ace or demi or other aspec labels beyond asexual and aromantic, but I do think that the way those labels are used is often. unhelpful. and they’re defined in such personal, subjective ways that you get weirdnesses sometimes like people Diagnosing Each Other With Demisexual or people saying ‘you can’t talk about this experience you share because it’s an Aspec Experience’ and again. there isn’t a concrete material experience there because the whole experience of romantic and sexual attraction, what that feels like and how sharply divisible it is is very, very personal and subjective. and everyone has different experiences of those and will name those experiences differently.

there’s also. historically a minority of Big Ace Blogs that kind of sneer at allosexuality or who would hijack posts about other issues to derail them to asexuality. but I don’t think they were ever representative of the community as a whole and I certainly think that inasmuch as those blogs remain around they’re a legacy of the Long-Ago (and a lot of them are trolls imo)

but there is. an issue I take that does seem to be more currently live which is the question of allo privilege. I think personally that framing all allosexuals/alloromantics as privileged over all aspec people on the basis of feeling sexual/romantic attraction is provably untrue in a world where people, particularly queer people, are actively oppressed and marginalised for expressing non-normative sexuality. it isn’t that I don’t think asexuality and aromanticism isn’t marginalised and stigmatised, because it visibly is, but it seems pretty reductive to boil it down to a binary yes/no privilege when both sexualisation and desexualisation are so actively tied into other forms of marginalisation (this is what I was trying to express in the argument about Martin a while ago - sex and sexuality are so often disincentivised for fat, queer, disabled and neuroatypical people that it doesn’t...feel like a reclamation that those tend to be the characters that get fanonised as ace where slim, straight, able-bodied and neurotypical characters aren’t. like it’s more complex than a binary privilege equation; sex and romance are incentivised and stigmatised differently at the intersection of oppressions and. for example. in a world where gay conversion therapy and religious oppression of gay and SGA people is so often focused specifically on celibacy and on punishing the act of sexual attraction, I don’t think it’s a reasonable framing to say that a gay allosexual man has privilege over an aroace man on the basis of his attraction)

so those are like. things I would consider myself to feel actively negative about in online discourse (and again. in online discourse. not in how I relate to asexuality or aromanticism or aspec identities in general but in the framing and approaches people take towards discussing it in a very specific bubble).

but also. um. the main criticism I have of the online discourse culture of asexuality is that there are things I don’t have experience of that I have mentioned, when asked, that I don’t personally understand the meaning of but I don’t need to understand them to appreciate that they’re useful/meaningful to others. things like

the difference between QPRs, asexual romantic relationships and close friendships

how you know the difference between romantic attraction and friendship

the distinction between sexual attraction and a desire to have sex with someone for another reason

and I hope I’ve generally been clear that this is. honest lack of understanding and not condemnation. I personally have a very muddled sense of attraction and often have difficulty identifying the specifics of any of my own emotional needs so like. it’s a closed book for me at the moment, how you would identify the fine distinctions between types of want when I’m still at step 1: identify That You Want Something Of Some Sort, Eventually, Through Trial And Error. but I think I’ve always been explicit that this isn’t a value judgement it’s just a gap in my own knowledge and yet. every single time I’ve said anything other than enthusiastic “yes I understand this and I love it and it’s good and valid” (and again. I have not gone out of my way to talk about it I have mostly only mentioned it because people keep asking me to talk about it) I have got a massive rush of anger and accusations of aphobia and “just shut up if you don’t know what you’re talking about but also answer my 30 questions to prove you think Correct Things about asexuality” and. I understand that this comes from a place of really unpleasant and aggressive backlash towards the ace community so it’s a sensitivity with a lot of people but like. it doesn’t seem proportional.

also I feel like ever since I hit like 700 followers my Tumblr life has been a constant cycle of people asking me Are You An Ace Inclusionist Are You An Exclus Are You An Aphobe Justify Your Opinion On Asexuality which. eventually yeah I’ve got pretty snippy about the whole thing. but you know. fuck it I’m just gonna lay it out and if you or anyone else is uncomfortable following me based on those opinions then I’m sorry to hear that and I will be sad to see you not want to engage with me any more but I also think that’s absolutely your prerogative. however I will not be taking questions at this time (and not just bc my phone’s broken) - demands for an argument about this Are Going To Be Ignored so if you want to go then go.

so like the big question I reckon is Do You Think Asexuality Is Queer and

yes. no. maybe. I don’t understand the question what does it mean for an identity to be queer?

there are spaces and conversations where any form of aromanticism or asexuality makes sense as a relevant identity. talking about hegemonic expectations of normative romance. building community. combatting the idea that heterosexual missionary married sex between a man and a woman is the only rewarding or valuable form of relationship or intimacy.

there are spaces where I think heterosexual aros/heteromantic cis aces don’t. have a more meaningful or direct experience of the issues than allo cishets. because while being aro or ace or aspec has a direct impact on those people on a personal and relational level, disclosure is largely a choice, and the world at large sees them as straight. they don’t have the lived experience of being visibly nonconforming that SGA people and aroace people do. they may still be queer but there’s a lot of conversations where they bring a lot of the baggage of being Straight People (because. even if you’re ace or aro you can still be straight in your romantic or sexual attraction and if your relationships are all outwardly straight then you don’t necessarily have an intimate personal understanding of being marginalised from mainstream society by dint of your sexuality). this doesn’t make you Not Queer in the same way that being a bi person who’s only ever been in m/f relationships is still queer, but in both cases a) you don’t magically have a personal experience of societal oppression through the transitive properties of Being Queer and b) it’s really obnoxious to talk as if you’re The Most Oppressed when other people are trying to have a conversation about their lived experience of societal oppression. and they’re within their rights to say ‘we’re talking about the experience of being marginalised for same gender/non-heterosexual attraction and you’re straight, could you butt out?’)

(I very much object to the assumption coming from a lot of exclus that “cishet ace” is a term that can reasonably be applied to non-orientated aroace people though. het is not a default it really extremely doesn’t make sense to treat people who feel no attraction as Straight By Default. when I were a lad I feel like we mostly understood “asexual” to mean that identity - non-orientated aroace - and while I think it’s obvious that a lot of people do find value in using a more split-model because. well. some people are both gay/straight/bi and aro/ace, and it’s good that language reflects that. but I do think it’s left a gap in the language to simply refer to non-attracted people. this isn’t a criticism of anything in particular - there’s a constant balancing act in language between specificity and adaptability and sometimes a gain for one is a loss for the other)

some queer conversations and spaces just. aren’t built with aces in mind. and that isn’t a flaw. some spaces aren’t built with men in mind, but that doesn’t mean men can’t be queer. some conversations are about Black experiences of queerness but that doesn’t mean non-Black people can’t be queer. not all queer spaces will focus on ace needs but that doesn’t mean asexuality isn’t queer, or that queerness is opposed to aceness - sex, sexuality, romance and dating are all really important things to a lot of queer people, especially those whose sexuality and romantic relationships are often stigmatised or violently suppressed in wider society. there should be gay bars, hookup apps, gay and trans friendly sex education, making out at Pride, leather parades and topless dyke marches and porn made by and for queer people, romantic representation in media of young and old gay, bi and trans couples kissing and snuggling and getting married and saying sloppy romantic things. and there should be non-sexual queer spaces, there should be discussions around queerness that don’t suppose that a monogamous romantic relationship is what everyone’s fighting for, sex ed should be ace inclusive, etc.

I think the whole question of inclusionism vs exclusionism is based on a weird underlying assumption that If An Identity Is Queer All Queer Spaces Should Directly Cater To That. like. aspec identities can be queer and it can be totally reasonable for there to be queer spaces that revolve around being sexual and romantic and there can be conversations it’s not appropriate or productive to centre asexuality and aspec experiences in and we can recognise that not all queer people do prioritise or have any interest in sex or romance. in the same way that there’s value in centring binary trans experiences sometimes and nonbinary experiences at other times but both of those conversations should recognise that neither binary or nonbinary gender identity is a Universal Queer Experience.

anyway that one probably isn’t one of the opinions you were asking about but I have been wanting to find a way to express it for a while so you’re getting it: the Ruth Thedreadvampy Inclusionism Take.

uh. it’s 1:30 on a work night so I have been typing too long. if there was an opinion you were specifically thinking of that I haven’t mentioned, chuck me another ask specifically pointing to what you want me to clarify my thinking on. sometimes I gotta be honest I’ve just been kind of careless in my framing (thinking of the Martin Fucks debacle where I spent ages insisting I didn’t say Martin couldn’t be aroace then read back like two days later and realised that I had said “he’s not aroace” bc I had written the post at 2am without proofreading and had meant to say “unless you think he’s aroace”) so I May Well Not Stand By Some Posts or might Stand By Them With Clarification

28 notes · View notes

shoyouth · 4 years

Note

Hey you’re writing is really cute and I saw your hcs for a mc with a girlfriend and I really loved it! Do you think you can do a ikevamp suitors react to a transgender mc? One who was born female but identifies as a man? Lgbqt otome fans don’t get enough love so I’d be super awesome if you could write something ❤️

Hello darling!! I’m so sorry this took me a month or so to get to, but I’m glad to be doing it now! I also had an ask for a non-binary!mc but since I feel like all the suitors would treat the two similarly, I’ll be trying my best to fit it into one/accommodate both here :) hope you enjoy, love! Please lmk if anything sounds sketchy/offensive, since I don’t have experience with this myself!

napoleon ; okay. You stare at him dumbstruck bc he’s not taken aback for a moment, he just shrugs and then asks if you want to spar. I feel like he’d treat you v similarly to issac and jean even if you are his lover, bc there’s a v specific respect and care he treats those two with, a way he looks out for them. Would never falter with your pronouns, and if anyone makes a comment he’s like?? Your point?? They’re obv a man/non-binary, idk how you’re seeing a woman. He would also never hesitate to draw out his sword if anyone dared to grow a little too bold/rude.

arthur ; handsome ol’ chap! absolutely slathers you in compliments to validate your identity and make you feel confident, you almost wonder if he likes the way calling you by your pronouns rolls off his tongue. Though he normally was into women, I don’t think he would be opposed to dating you at all, and would grow icy with others who made comments about your relationship. He’s be very vocally supportive, but his teasing compliments will take a softer, more sincere turn if you ever need him to remind you that you’re valid.

mozart ; I see him helping you fix up your appearance ngl? Like not spending a bunch like comte, but silently aiding you in how to appear/act manly/non-binary for the 1800s, such as fixing/trimming your hair into a more “fashionable” look for the times, or nonchalantly informing you that your sleeves should be a little longer. He doesn’t do this to invalidate you at all! He thinks it’s a more subtle way of helping you feel confident navigating their world in your own way. Never hesitates to inform you that you look rather dashing that evening, or to run his finger along your chin with a proud/loving gaze in his eyes.

leonardo ; he’s immortal, he’s heard many a things that haven’t been considered ‘the norm’ for the times. He just kind of nods and takes a step back to admire your face, saying that your features are beautifully androgynous/masculine. If you bind your chest, he’ll frown if you suggest using a kind of corset, and will instead get to work tinkering a more comfortable and safe binding for you to use. Always refers to you as your desires pronouns, and corrects anyone who uses incorrect ones nonchalantly. He likes that he can get away with certain things with you that normal het couples wouldn’t be able to.

vincent ; I think he’d be intrigued and easily adapt to your pronouns; he’d treat you with respect regardless. He’s probably heard of transgender/non-binary before, but I think he, like leo, would spend a lot of time admiring your face and the way you present yourself. Will constantly compliment you, but unlike arthur, it’s not to fluster you or subtly make you feel confident, but bc he keeps finding things about you to be in awe of. You’ll be a very common subject in his sketches and paintings because of the way you hold yourself.

theo ; His brows raise a bit, but they lower just as quickly and he accepts it. You almost think he doesn’t care/remember bc he always calls you a dog instead of your name/pronoun, but he instantly corrects anyone who uses the wrong one, and glares at anyone who gives you shit. If you ever get down on yourself for your appearance not matching your identity, he sternly sits you down and firmly lists everything about you he finds beautiful and fitting to what you want to be. And though it wasn’t his intention, you never fail to grow flustered bc of the little details he’s picked up on, due to the nature of his job rubbing off on his own perceptiveness.

issac ; A little flustered boy. Similar to jean, I think he’d have the right attitude but be a bit clumsy about it. He doesn’t want to offend you! Ofc being trans/a man/non-binary doesn’t matter, he just loves you, but he’s anxious and overthinks how he address you, how he acts around you. Should he not call you petnames? Are those considered feminine? Am I invalidating them by using them?? He just grows stiff and nervous and you have to remind him to breath: just use the correct pronouns and respect you, there’s not much else to it. After a while he relaxes and it comes easier, but he just doesn’t want to lose someone else he loves of his own doing.

dazai ; I will admit he’s a little hard to grasp for me, but I believe that elusiveness is a part of his character anyways lol. Nothing about how he perceives you changes. You’re still you, aren’t you? Doesn’t matter what gender you are, what name you go by, what appearance you have. Maybe his nickname for you will change, but that’s it. I feel like with him you may not even be aware of your gender/it’s impact, bc when you’re with him it doesn’t matter, so you feel light and free from having to think about/act like your identity. You’re just you.

jean ; I think he would be open-minded to it, albeit confused. If you took the time to explain to him what you identify as and what it means, he’ll accept it, not one for many questions. I personally believe he’d be awkward about it a bit?? But would never treat you wrong! I mean in the sense of those clumsy lgbtq+ supporters with the right attitude, if that makes sense lol? So unsurely asking if you’d like to spar...? Or constantly looking to you for confirmation on things you like, what you do, etc etc. Ik jean is supposed to be silent and intimidating, but I imagine him as a clumsy man whose seen too much and doesn’t know how to act bc he was robbed of a childhood, so yeah hopefully this makes sense!

comte ; he’s seen even more than leonardo bc he’s immortal and timetravels; it doesn’t phase him. Tbh he just beckons you to come shopping with him so he can find you the latest male/androgynous fashion, with charming suits and coats and hats. For binding, he’ll try his best to buy you a safe kind, or he may enlist Leonardo’s help or even go to the future to find you one—nothing is too much/expensive when it comes to you. Will always treat you right/like royalty, and remind you that you’re valid and anything you need to feel that way, he will make it so. Gets a v dangerous look in his eye if someone disrespects you.

sebastian ; he’s from the future, so nothing new. Honestly he may even be relieved?? Idk he’s just so formal and polite that I think he’d feel more relaxed with another masculine/non-binary individual from the future, bc he would be able to talk in a certain way he would feel wasn’t as “proper” with a woman, if I’m making sense? He’d have no problem refering to you as your identity, and will always find a way to make you feel comfortable/valid, even if he needs to try and sew his own version of a binder for you.

shakespeare ; okay I’m sorry for those who like shakespeare but I feel like he’d lowkey fetishize it oof. Just like how I think he’d use unrequited love of a lesbian!mc to fuel his plays, he’d think of you as interesting inspiration—at first, at least. He’d run his hand through your hair, down your lapels as he admires you, amused, and it’s only if you grew cross and forced him to see you as your identity/a person, that he may fix his unhealthy perception. After reading Vincent’s route, I’ve come to think that you really need to push against him to reach his actual feelings/past his unstable/dangerous side. Once he’s over that, he would love to cast you as male roles in his plays, bc you have even more conviction than the regular men tbh.

138 notes · View notes

quillyfied · 4 years

Text

The thing about gender is that even for cis people it can be such a wide and weird experience, if you think about it (bear with me bc I am cis and am having a Feeling about gender idk)

Like. If we are being honest, “gender roles” are performative and not great indicators of what the differences between genders should be (assuming a binary), and personally as a person who identifies as a woman and whose gender identity matches with the physical indicators of what society has termed “female”, I really only settled for “woman” because “person with vagina comfortable with she/her” is unwieldy. I don’t know what “woman” means in my own context except that it just feels right. Comfortable. I’m not mad about being called “they/them” and actively tickled by “sir” but in general I prefer “she/her” and “woman.” I am not a woman in the same way my mom is, or my sister in law, or my best friends. If every woman’s experience with “femininity” is so different, why is it under a single banner? If “woman” is a uniter in a physical sense, how do trans women, both with and without dysphoria, know they feel like women? What does that mean, to be a woman? And if it’s such a personal distinction, why do we have a banner for it at all? Beyond there being a social blueprint for behavior based on external physical indicators, which has been obsolete for decades and was unnecessary before that.

My (painfully moderate) father, when my youngest sibling came out as nonbinary, had a hard time in that he, a cis man, has never had to think about his gender in any meaningful way. It’s never been an impediment to him to be perceived as a man and he’s never considered anything different. In his mind, the idea of “gender” is useless and if we must have “genders”, they should only matter in a medical sense, since the rough binary of human physical sex comes with different medical needs depending on the physical sex traits of each person. While in theory that’s not terrible, it doesn’t reflect the reality of the social side of sex and gender and the history of oppression for not having the indicators of male sex and adhering to the social expectations for having one sex or the other. History is important. History shapes society, which shapes gender identity, since gender is a social construct based on social understanding of external sexual indicators.

Back to my original point, gender is weird even for cisgender folks because even within the constructed binary, people don’t fall into neat categorical boxes and gendering certain activities and behaviors is highly damaging. We know this. We have known this. We have known this to the point that there is an entire character trope of “not like other girls” that has wrapped back around to being a damaging gender-conforming performance. And we also know that the physical indicators of sex aren’t always as cut and dry as they appear, either, regardless of the socialization of the person in possession of any configuration of physical and genetic indicators. There’s intersex folks. There’s chromosomal weirdness. There’s any number of disorders and health issues that can muddle the issue (and I would argue only muddle it in that they can interfere with the vision of standard biological functions, which isn’t always right, either). I have PCOS and produce more testosterone than is typical for a cisgender woman, which manifests in a variety of ways that go against the medical and social definitions of a woman, but I still feel like a woman regardless of facial hair and reproductive ability, and that has nothing to do with my breasts and vagina at all. I’m a woman because it feels right. Full stop. I’m not a man or non-binary or any other gender identity because it doesn’t feel right. Could that change one day? Maybe. I wouldn’t rule it out. But that’s not my current reality. Woman is fine for me. “Girl power” or “sisterhood” exist because of social pressure and shared physical sexual indicators but neither of those things are exclusive to cisgender women, and so the feeling of community I have goes beyond gendered language and rigid definitions. I have as much in common with another cisgender woman who doesn’t like makeup as I would have with a trans man with perpetually sore feet as much as I would have with a non-binary person being fat-shamed as I would have with a trans woman who likes Pokémon. My support and solidarity is not just for people who look and think and behave like me. It’s not even just for cisgender women who look and think and behave like me.

This got really far away from me. But. If the experience of just being a “woman” is so varied and wide open, on both a genetic and a social level, what makes any of us think that 1. There’s such a thing as a simple binary, and 2. Attempting to adhere to it and force others to as well is a good idea?

#what even is gender #gender studies #take several hundred words to say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING #incredible

99 notes · View notes

bi-rising · 3 years

Note

so the thing is. i've always been pro non-binary and i want to continue to be but i have been reading some stuff and i'm worried bc it kinda makes sense and ik it's a bad thing but god idk i need to hear your opinion. so there's this post of someone saying trans ppl wouldn't exist in an utopia where genders aren't a thing and someone else explained how that was wrong because of disphoria and then said "while yes, there would be a lot less nb ppl bc gender stereotypes are more their thing..." and it got me thinking bc i never really understood what nb is. i also saw other people say that nb and genderfluid don't make sense because they're not about gender, but stereotypes about masculinity and femeninity. and i think i agree? (what i hear most from nb ppl is that they don't feel like they fit in with society's ideas of man or woman, but as a somewhat masculine cis woman neither do i? or many others at least) because those things are societal, you can be a binary gender while not agreeing with societal gender norms, or gnc. and what confuses me further is that most nb ppl are gender aligned. i reason they're aligned to the gender that corresponds their sex? (i'm asking from the deepest pit of ignorance😅) but if they feel like they don't fit in the binary genders, how can they be aligned with masc of fem? i mean for example a nb person who's female by sex and is very femenine, wears makeup, long hair, basically doesn't look androgynous at all, are they really not a woman who doesn't agree with gender stereotypes? bc i also feel like a lot of people are treating nb as a quirky thing to use to get in the lgbt community (like they wanna be oppressed, for whatever reason). idk. i'm a bit lost (and drunk), gender discourse is quite complex...

you're right, gender discourse is incredibly complex, especially when so many people are ready to jump down your throat and cancel you and destroy your friendships regardless of your intentions and/or level of knowledge. therefore, i'm also going to speak carefully on this subject, bc i feel that nb discourse is rife with people foaming at the mouth to ask any questions at all so :^)

anyway, i've seen that post before, and i think i agree with you as well. binary trans people have a disorder. it's been proven that trans people's brains have the neural pathways and neural structural patterns of the gender opposite of their sex. therefore, even in a utopia without gender roles and stereotypes, they would still be trans. that's also why it's incredibly important to keep transgender as a medical acknowledgement, not just to force insurance to help pay for gender reaffirming surgeries and therapies, but also to acknowledge that it's a real, neurological occurrence--and hopefully gain more research and acceptance of it.

and because of that, i also am in the same boat as you, where it's likely that nb people would not exist in such a utopia, or if they did, it would be an extremely small amount, even smaller than it is currently. from what i've seen in the nb movement is a lot of push against gender roles and gender stereotypes; i would cautiously hazard a guess that there are two main reasons for people identifying as nb

1) they are gnc

2) they don't "feel" their gender, as they believe cis people do, and conflate lack of femininity/masculinity or a neutrality towards one's own body with having a different gender

i personally can't see anyone having nb dysphoria, simply because the science isn't there for it. the body has two setting--male or female (please note that intersex people are not being considered here, as their condition is a birth defect and not the creation of a third gender or a lack of gender). therefore, there are female and male hormones; female and male neural structures; female and male neural pathways. i don't believe that there is dysphoria associated with not having a gender or having a third gender outside the binary--HOWEVER. however, i believe that many things can be mistaken for nb dysphoria

for example, many binary trans people have had a stage wherein they identify as nb for awhile. it's like a stepping stone, from what i understand, between believing they're cis to understanding they're trans. there is also trauma, especially sexual trauma, that can cause a disconnect between one's own gender and themselves. internalized misogyny/misandry can also be a culprit, or simply not wishing to exist within the boxes that female and male stereotypes push people into. and lastly, there's also body dysmorphia, which can be difficult to recognize for what it is. of course, it may be a desire to simply "be different" than other people, especially for those that are online a lot and have been bombarded with "cis is bad" for years and years, but i would like to give people the benefit of the doubt first instead of jumping to conclusions like that

despite all of this, i do think it is important to respect nb people and be courteous and kind to them. this is just my own opinion, and i personally will never attack or dismiss a nb person. the only problem i will ever have is if a nb person uses neopronouns, and that's bc i am neurodivergent and believe that pronouns equal gender. then, though, i believe that's a separate problem entirely from being nb critical

#jupe's inbox #also pls drink some water!!#don't get too bad of a hangover adkfjasdf

9 notes · View notes