I will say this once because I'm tired of seeing stupid discourse: anti-transmasculinity is not about being treated bad because we clock as men, it's about being treated as stupid little girls because transphobes think we've been tricked into this.
It's kind of the opposite of transmisogyny- instead of fear and revulsion, it's constant condescension, the implications that we've been whisked away from femininity by scary bad guys, that we're going to cause 'irreparable damage' because we don't know what's best for ourselves, somehow. People fearmonger a lot about the "ugliness" of transfem people, but for transmasc people that 'ugliness' is used as a warning- you'll look like THIS! You'll go BALD! Your top surgery scars will leave you MUTILATED! A lot of aesthetic concerns. Worry about our 'beauty'. Because it comes from that same stupid reactionary 'we gotta SAVE the WOMEN' shit, but this time they have to save them from getting 'stolen away', as if we're being seduced or pressured into this. As if we can't make our own decisions.
For TERFS specifically, they're losing one of their own. We're 'gender traitors', willingly aligning ourselves with the half of the population they consider unilaterally dangerous and evil.
We aren't REALLY trans, we just want the benefits that men get. You don't actually want to transition, you're just trying to avoid misogyny.
You aren't actually a man, you're just a self-loathing lesbian.
Why can't you just be a butch girl? Why can't you just be a tomboy?
Why can't you just be something that I don't think is icky?
Anyway. Like all things, it boils down to misogyny. Women stupid and gentle, dont know what best for them, evil men trick into taking man juice, must save because lady stupid and dont know what best for them (having babies and being Feminine).
Theres like. Obviously more to this but I'm just a Transmasc Rando explaining this from my perspective, and I'm not the best with words. Anyone is free to hop in and add on to this
2K notes
·
View notes
hi! i actually would liek to hear your thoughts on the whole "health" = "care" thing but i dont want to subject you to my followers on that one post so i'm asking you about it here instead 👀
oh i didn't want to subject you to a rant! but thanks for giving me the opportunity :) I just can't stand the idea that if you "take care of yourself" you will automatically be healthy, and that if you are unhealthy it's because you didn't do a good enough job taking care of yourself. side note that i think the concept of "healthy" in and of itself is an issue because it's predicated on a set of ideas that cannot and do not work for everybody.
but in this particular case what pisses me off is this common fanon construction: sam eats vegetables and runs = sam cares for himself = sam is healthy vs. dean eats burgers and doesn't run = dean does not care for himself = dean is unhealthy. also at play is dean's drinking, which i view as a serious disease influenced by social factors and his mental state, but which others view as a personal moral failing (dean drinks = dean doesn't care about his body = dean is unhealthy). i'm not saying either of them is healthy or unhealthy, just that i really don't think it's up for us to decide how healthy anyone else is, and especially not based on how much care we think they are or should be taking.
12 notes
·
View notes
it's kinda weird that when you look at health recommendations for various medical conditions associated with fatness it's always 'just lose 10% of your body weight to see a risk reduction' (so like 20-30 pounds for the average overweight or obese person according to the bmi) but then in day to day medicine there's not really a way of like, removing obesity as a diagnosis on your insurance paperwork for example, even if by a certain standard you've lost enough weight to reduce the risk of health conditions that insurance would be concerned about. if you're an average height weighing 300 pounds and lose 30 pounds, which seems to be the amount that's considered reasonable to lose and maintain if you want to like, reduce your cholesterol, you've gone from morbidly obese to morbidly obese.
4 notes
·
View notes
@fullybeautifultheorist replied to your post “I know I have some drafts that at least mention...”:
Tbh the fact that Cole was possessed doesn't really change much. Cole was egoistical and obsessed murderer in season 3 as well as in season 5. There is literally no meaningful change in his behavior during all 3 season. And even un season 7 he is playing peeping Tom
Hmm, honestly, I see your point, but I think I would disagree. I’m not a fan of Cole’s, by any means, but I think knowing that he did not purposefully become the Source of All Evil and he wasn’t in full control would change things for at least Phoebe. I don’t want to whitewash his sins, because there are many but there is at least some kind of inherent tragedy in his loss of agency and autonomy after he tried to redeem himself. He really was trying to become good, even if it was for flawed reasons. I also think that it could bring either more pain or comfort to Phoebe and the sisters, because on one hand, they hadn’t been tricked so badly that Cole had never actually changed sides but on the other, they’d still been manipulated enough that they thought he never did if that makes sense.
7 notes
·
View notes
"Whys lloyd nicer to harumi than his dad"
I think you just answered the question right there. His dad.
Meant to love and support and be there for him
But Lloyd's whole life has been marked by things his father has done. And then s8 onwards kicks it up a whole bunch of notches.
He doesn't have to accept any changes, after all his father has done.
He's also like a thousand/s of years old.
It's probably easier to think that someone around your age, who's only been doing bad things the past few years, who you know is hurt too, can change more. That might hurt less.
...there's also the whole thing of. Manipulation having lasting effects lmao
4 notes
·
View notes