#don't waste our time | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

spiderfreedom · 7 months

Text

not gonna effortpost about this today because I gotta get work done but real short

I notice this argument being used all the time: "you can't make a definition of 'woman' that does not exclude some people that we call women. therefore, the only good definition for 'women' that includes all people we call woman is 'people who identify as woman.'"

and the thing is, philosophically, "you can't make a definition of {thing} that does not exclude some examples we also call {thing}" is something that applies to almost every category! it's literally a whole philosophical problem of "what is the definition of a chair?" didn't we have a whole meme about how nobody can even agree on what a sandwich is?

it's not something unique to women, tables, horses, sandwiches, salads, or anything else. it is a problem of language itself.

you can apply the exact same argument to other categories: "how do you define 'blackness' without excluding some people we call 'black'?" if you're american, maybe you will use the one-drop rule, in which case halsey is black and anyone who had a single black ancestor four generations ago. but is that actually how we use the word black? does that capture something meaningful about being black in america? how about being black in the world?

let's go further: "how do you define 'transgender' without excluding some people we call 'transgender'?" within the transgender community, there is no real agreement on what it means to be transgender! beyond a vague sense of "identifying as the gender society assigned to you", but even that can be challenged. if a cis (female) woman takes testosterone, starts hanging around trans women, calling herself a trans woman, is confused for a trans woman by the people that she talks to, experiences oppression on the basis of being perceived as a trans woman... can she be considered a trans woman, despite being female?

ultimately "how do you define things" is a philosophy of language question more than anything else. perfect definitions that encapsulate sets neatly do not exist, because the terms we use are socially contingent. when people came up with the word 'table', they didn't also create a logically rigorous definition for it. they just said 'well, this thing here is a table.' and then people argue about the edge cases. because also, nobody actually agrees on the members of sets of every single word!! just like how we all have different ideas of what is and isn't a sandwich!

that's the other thing, people already disagree about what words refer to. someone who has the 5ARD intersex condition has testes but may be raised and socialized as girl because their parents think their genitals kinda look like a vulva. is this person a 'girl/woman'? people are not sure... which makes sense... because it is an edge case. is a stool a chair? is a hotdog a sandwich? is an open sandwich a sandwich? the further you get from the 'prototype', the more people are going to be disagree.

so the entire question 'what is a woman' is just an exercise in confusing philosophy of language framed as saying something very meaningful about the social category of woman. it is not! it is a problem of language that we cannot define 'woman' or 'chair' or 'salad' or 'horse' or 'gamer' in a rigorous way. it is nothing inherent to women, chairs, salads, horses, or gamers.

(but what about science?) good question, what about science? science tries to operate differently from the way laypeople talk about things. scientists take common words, like 'energy', and give them different, more rigorous definitions in order to try to figure something out about the world. for laypeople, 'energy' is something vague and diffuse. for physicists, 'energy' is the force that causes things to move, and its behavior is described by certain mathematical models.

similarly, laypeople may take 'woman' to mean 'a person with breasts and vulva/vagina', but a biologist may have a more rigorous definition of 'female': 'producing large gametes.' this is useful because it helps us see commonalities between creatures that may look really different, like flowers, bedbugs, asparaguses, cats, and humans - all very different creatures where sex looks different, but still have a distinction between 'producing large gametes' and 'producing small gametes' - there's no intermediate gamete. biologists have a different word for what people/animals look like, and that is 'phenotype.' when a parent looks at a child with 5ARD condition, they see the child has no visible penis and thus 'looks 'looks female.' a biologist would say that the child's sex is male (because they have the reproductive equipment to produce sperm, and none of the reproductive equipment to produce ova) but that their phenotype is ambiguous. sex is a binary variable, but human development is a long process where are a lot can happen, and so sexual phenotypes are not variable.

so already we're pretty far from the lay definition, because laypeople don't have the same idea of what sex is as scientists do, and don't distinguish between someone's sex and their appearance - for them, the sex is the appearance. who is right? it depends on what you want to do. scientists want to discover meaningful things about nature, and their definitions are far more useful than the layperson's for that purpose. which definitions are useful is also socially determined - we may feel sympathy for the child with 5ARD, told they were a girl their whole life, but who learns that they have testes. should we continue to treat this child as a girl/woman, or should we encourage them to view themselves as a boy/man? that is a social, cultural, legal argument, not a scientific one. the biological truth is the same regardless of the social, cultural, legal arguments, but there may be a compelling case to act differently. that's on us as humans to decide!

so yeah I'm just tired of hearing the same damn arguments over and over again. "what is a woman? is someone with CAIS a woman? is someone with 5ARD? what if we take a young non-intersex male and give them female hormones?" like this will never take us to where we want to go because it's a philosophy of language question disguised as a scientific one. the real question is, what are we talking about and which definitions will help us in that? if you believe that female people are exploited on the basis of their female bodily functions, then obviously you want to bring attention to that by using the word 'female'! if you want to focus on feminine socialization, then it may be useful to bring up cases of people who may not technically be female but were still raised as them, like Erika/Erik Schinegger, a male (possibly with 5ARD) who was raised as a girl and believed he was a girl for most of his youth.

trying to make a single catchy response to a question of what is 'x' is never going to satisfy everyone, because it cannot, because language is imperfect and real life is messy. scientists try to cut nature at the joints, but their cuts may not look like laypeople's! (and don't get me started on scientists disagreeing on what is a joint and what is not, metaphorically.)

and at its worst, when chasing an ironclad definition, you get bizarre answers that seem detached from reality, like saying 'people with CAIS condition are genotypically male and have underdeveloped testes, so we should treat them as males'. they may be reproductive males, but they have a female phenotype, and are raised as girls, and are literally unreceptive to testosterone - to treat them as 'men' on the basis of developmental or reproductive sex certainly seems to be missing something very important from the picture! see below: a person with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS):

does it really make sense to say this person is a man due to her having testes, which technically makes her reproductively male? is that capturing reality? or are you trying to force reality to fit into your definition because you're afraid that if you cannot create a perfect definition of 'woman', that we will never be able to talk about biology and female oppression?

tl;dr: questions like 'what is a woman' are designed to be time-wasters because they are not actually answerable because language sucks. argue for your operative definition, your context, and move on. and don't be afraid to change definitions based on the context... sometimes reproductive sex is relevant, sometimes phenotype is more important, sometimes socialization is more relevant. this is not weakness, it's recognizing that reality is not so rigid and sometimes you must use a different model to get the understanding you want.

#feminism #radical feminism #mypost #stop wasting your time... being dogmatic to any definition always results in weird outcomes #i don't think this weakens the radical feminist case at all #sometimes looking like a woman (have a female phenotype) is more relevant than one's reproductive sex #sometimes one's reproductive sex is quite important #5ARD people go through a normal male puberty for example and if they get a surgery they can also reproduce using their sperm #many 5ARD ppl identify as women bc of their socialization. and in some spaces that makes a lot of sense!#but in sports it is probably not fair for them to compete because they are male in reproductive sex and in phenotype.#recognizing complexity will not hurt us; it will make our case stronger and fuller and richer #justice for all requires dealing with the edge cases and not just defining them away #if you care about intersex women then you need to get used to thinking about this sorta thing #because it is very common for intersex kids to be raised as female despite being reproductively male #it's a space requiring nuance. care. compassion. and thoughtfulness.#philosophy of language

28 notes · View notes

bandzboy · 22 days

Text

looking back at the first big 4 boycott attempt, even tho YES it was very disorganized but i think one of the main reasons why it never worked it was simply because people were discouraging others from participating and saying that it would never work and no one would get on board and etc. i remember from cameron phillip's video on the hybe boycott that he said that saying these things will make people not want to boycott and no ones want to participate in other words: is not productive at all and doesn't help with anything. i also think that people would often use the fact that it wasn't organized to not even bother participating because in hindsight, the goals were pretty simple these people just didn't wanna inconvenience their comfort and it's honestly why it never worked since so many people were in denial that there was a problem

#i hate to break it to you #but this is a music industry problem #and something needs to be done #people don't understand that if everyone comes together #things could probably move forward faster but no #we are here wasting our time questioning whether we should be doing this or not #when people are dying every day bc of these genocidal and propagandist assholes that exist in the industry #tris.txt

8 notes · View notes

zexonyte · 30 days

Text

yeah i made him a fish lookin thang whatcha gonna do about it

#mother series #giegue #earthbound beginnings #yeah im proud of this so im putting it on tumblr too. hiii mother times server how yall doing #ignore that he doesnt have a back leg i tried but it looked kinda weird and cramped #anyways i gave giegue gill things and a more fish-esque appearance because i hc his species is aquatic #like they come from an oceanic? aquatic? unsure. well its a planet that is almost entirely water im talkin subnautica levels of sea #that's why he had that capsule orb thing in mother 1. he needs it to live and the weird engine-esque things at his side are like purifiers #making sure the liquid is suitable. not too focused on much else (why bother when you're a super powerful psychic) but isn't exactly fragil #like the material is flexible and rubbery even. you hit it and it bounces back a good amount #we don't really get an explanation for why earth itself was chosen to get invaded. at least i don't remember if there was one sorry 😭 BUT #i hc also that the reason giegue's species decided to invade here specifically was because of territory. i mean we've got a lot of water #maybe they took george and maria to test humanity in a sense. if they reacted positively to an alien child mayybe they wouldnt have needed #to straight up eradicate humanity maybe this time we wont need to fight too much. would be inconvenient to waste firepower on these #simple creatures. they're not even that smart. can't even use our epic brain powers lol (aged real well)#once again they aint found him yet but when they do they gon be surprised #anyways its like 4 in the morning i cant keep doing this. thanks for reading my brainworms over a game ive never played 🤙

7 notes · View notes

mosiaks · 7 months

Text

i might need to do some unfollowing or reminding or messaging or something bc basically no one fills out the interest tracker and then there's a whole chunk of people who only follow this blog and not any of the sides where shit actually happens and it's like-- buddy that's not helpful to anyone.

#pay no attention to the man behind the curtain / ooc.#i URGE you to AT MINIMUM FOLLOW THE SIDE BLOGS OF PEOPLE YOU'RE INTERESTED IN #and if you REALLY want to ensure i'll write with you put your preferences IN THE INTEREST TRACKER #so then i don't have to shift thru all my blogs and see which you follow so i know what memes or w/e to send in #if you ONLY want to follow this one for your dash's sake or w/e you HAVE to fill out the interest tracker or it's waste of BOTH our time

14 notes · View notes

ishipthis · 9 months

Text

Why do I feel like it's possible from the spoiler pictures that the 'proposal' is the red herring, because she's not asking him to marry her right there, she's asking him to get married, right there. Surely that can't be, like it makes no sense, and yet..... It also kind of does?

Does Freddie need another wedding? No.

Is everyone they love already there? Yes.

Could the cliffhanger be 'Does he say yes?' possibly?

I don't know guys, a perfect red herring is not are they engaged, with that name we're either expecting that to happen already, and if they don't that's no real surprise either. We're already strictly in one camp or the other. So the question begs, how do they knock us off our freaking chairs? Skip the engagement and suggest a wedding.

And then fade to black.

#I know it doesn't sound all that plausible #but if we take the photo stills Marissa and lewbert are with each other prior to the wedding #would he see her on the wedding day?#they don't look all that happy in that photo #and okay moving that aside #in the photo with the director only the main cast are there #If that's a wedding photo why aren't Marissa and lewbert there?#and in that photo that's making us all crazy #they seem to be at the front of the isle #and she could have been telling everyone the wedding is off but then proposing to him #and saying that she doesn't want to waste time #they've wasted enough #she KNOWS that he is it for her #why not start today?#and then they fade to black and we collectively lose our shit #creddie #icarly #carly x freddie

24 notes · View notes

thenonbinarydetective · 1 year

Text

As I've said/supported before, Barbara shouldn't be Batgirl. And Gotham Knights shouldn't have had her be Batgirl, as it falls into the ableist trope.

However, I do understand why she is Batgirl in this game. She is the most recognizable Batgirl to the general audience. This is where we lose some people because this game is not actually meant for just batman/batfam fans like some people believe. It's meant for anyone remotely interested in buying video games, like every other video game in existence. I know some people might find that condescending, but I don't mean it that way. It's important to remember who buys video games, even specifically "Batman" ones.

Meaning they made the safe bet because money is the driving force. Barbara is a safe bet. But honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if she was a bet they didn't have much of choice in making. Either because it's not really made by an independent studio or evaluating the loss between a number of fans not purchasing a game because of Barbara no longer being a full-time wheelchair user and the number of potential buyers not wanting to buy a "Batman-oriented" game while not knowing who any of the characters are. Additionally, the potential strain of resources in adding more than the current cast of characters we have. They settled on the safest, known characters attached to Batman, probably for monetary reasons.

That being said, Cass and Steph could've been good additions to this game. I don't think Duke would have; he is still too new. The batgirls here have more of a footing and deserve to exist in more than just Scribblenauts and LEGO Batman games. However, I can see how introducing them with Batman might be a better bet for all three of them than Gotham Knights ever would have been. It creates an association for the general audience, which is more important to developers than specifically Batman fans (the general audience is larger and gives more money). Yes, they should be used more in games for more recognition, but for that idea to succeed, there needs to be a plan that actually promises audience growth.

People are allowed to have boundaries towards the reliance on an ableist trope and dislike the game for it.

People are also allowed to acknowledge that Barbara Gordon in Gotham Knights is still a disabled character and the fact that they worked with a charity focused on disabled representation in gaming (AbleGaming) to represent spinal disabilities in a respectful/realistic way that isn't relying upon on "magical/scientific cures."

Wheelchair users are valid for being upset that Barbara Gordon isn't one as well, the same way that people with other disabilities can still feel represented by this version.

None of these things are mutually exclusive and can exist at the same time.

Me being able to rationalize their actions doesn't mean that I agree with everything they do, as I have shown in the past. I just don't believe that a piece of media or a studio is unsalvageable or irredeemably evil for falling into a bad trope. Media is flawed. This constantly happens. If we view media that way, then we'd have to abandon literally every piece of media in existence.

Me acknowledging that the game made an effort to include aspects of disability doesn't mean that I don't believe there are no ableist aspects to this game. That's just a stupid assumption.

People are also flawed. Playing Gotham Knights, someone isn't a terrible evil person who is irredeemable and should die. That isn't a productive view. People can recognize how they interact with media and address how it exists in their lives and the lives of others.

This article has a pretty good explanation of how I feel and how some others feel. I've basically paraphrased it multiple times: https://halfglassgaming.com/2022/08/gotham-knights-lets-talk-about-barbara-gordons-spine/.

I won't say more because I don't have much more words than there are multiple ways to look at things other than everything is either fully correct/good or wrong/evil. It's fine to acknowledge that things can exist in a combination of multiple factors, and morality is something defined by each individual human.

#Everything I'm saying here besides the gaming industry stuff isn't new information on this blog #some people like to pretend it is but who cares #it's easier to assume things than to actually see if it's true #is this a better version of what I said #probably #gotham knights #gotham knights game #kinda like the last time where I made a post and didn't just like them or reply #if you come onto this post or in my askbox to stir the pot or threaten me I don't care #just don't waste either of our time #expend your energy somewhere else #barbara gordon #stephanie brown #cassandra cain #duke thomas #bruce wayne #batman #batfam #video games #disability in gaming #jason todd #tim drake #dick grayson #batgirl #just for the tag readers if you use insane kys or assuming that because someone can walk they aren't disabled #you're being both ableist and hypocritical #wb montreal

58 notes · View notes

chocolatespyro · 5 months

Text

sorry our drawings princess movie posting right now this movie is so bad and wonderful at the same time and i love it for that

#I love how Calobi's self insert makes it a point to talk about not drawing any copyrighted characters I think during that scene where he #gives a rousing speech about them needing all the help and drawings they can get to fight Mist or whatever his name was when he made a whol #career off of cartoon rap battles with copyrighted cartoon and video game characters HJDFHJDFHJBD #Not sure if he still does it (I don't think he does? I'd need to look more into the channel lore. cant believe im saying that)#Also like. before that they had a whole light and cheery musical number and then it shifts to this serious tone with the speech #he even says they need to stop wasting time as if he wasnt singing and dancing and doing push-ups(?) moments before with the rest of them #its fucking great #our drawings - princess movie

9 notes · View notes

symbologic · 4 months

Text

Recently saw a discussion on Twitter about why Skypiea gets more hate in the West than in the East

The easy answer is: Blame dudebros and powerscalers who care more about fights than about story (to which they will argue arcs like Impel Down and Marineford were FULL of story), or privileged people feeling uncomfy about the anti-colonialist themes (even though, let's be real, those themes are probably lost on the average Western reader :/)

But Skypiea hate in the West wasn't always a thing. At the time it was being released, most English-speaking fans who were keeping up with OP scanlations and K-F fansubs genuinely enjoyed it.

I honestly think part of the Skypiea hate has to do with a trend we've seen over the past decade, where Western audiences are so, so quick to label certain story elements as "filler" without considering their thematic importance and how it ties into the story the author wants to tell.

Basically, Western audiences have become obsessed with hyper-optimized, fast-paced storytelling that leaves little room to breathe

If the people and politics of an arc are beyond the scope or interest of the story's main antagonists, it's suddenly dismissed as filler that detracts from "more important" things

This attitude is not limited to One Piece alone.

#IMO part of it has to do with the “time is money” capitalist work ethic that permeates so much of Western society #that it even bleeds into our leisurely activities #and creates a false sense of urgency in EVERYTHING we do; including the stories we are allowed to tell #Everything has to be optimized! Or else it's a waste of time #"If the story's oppressors don't care about these people...then why should I??”#<- Starting to think THIS attitude is why Marineford gets so much praise #despite having a huge ensemble cast with zero SHs aside from Luffy #while people shit on arcs like Wano because “there's too many characters”#one piece #skypiea arc #text post #meta #skypiea has always been one of my favorite arcs #my senior quote was actually the one Oda used from Willy Karen:#“Anything man can imagine is a possibility in reality.”

13 notes · View notes