#especially if its for male/social validation
Text
We lose everytime a girl in fiction who is on the masc side and happy with it becomes very feminine as a supposed sign of maturity
#Also applys to alt girls#Tropes#to everyone in my notes saying cassie sandsmark this was cassie vagueposting#IM NOT !!! REFERRING TO THOSE INTERNALISED MISOGYNY WHO DRESS MORE MASC CUZ OF THAT AND START TO EMBRACE FEMINITY JUST FINE#IN A POSITIVE WAY#this is more like. girls who were explicitly shown to dress gnc/masc leaning because thats simply their personality and what they like#and are comfortable with but still need to be “corrected” to dress feminine#especially if its for male/social validation
13K notes
·
View notes
Text
No wonder “gender identity,” understood by well-meaning LGBTQ+ advocates as an abstract feeling, has done such a poor job of justifying sex change. If biological sex is part of a material structure of value, then society has a concrete interest in any potential gains or losses that may result, feelings be damned.
Gill-Peterson tells the story of Robert Stonestreet, a 10-year-old boy who was brought to the Johns Hopkins Hospital for a rare urethral defect in 1915. When the doctors informed his father that the boy had ovaries and should be reassigned as a girl, the man refused, explaining that he already had six girls at home and his son was a great help around the family farm. Of course, Stonestreet was prepubescent. Whatever biological advantage he had over his sisters was the natural spoils of working daily on a farm. The point is that his father’s social validation of his gender was the basically incidental result of an economic calculation about his sex. Twenty-one years later, Stonestreet asked the same doctors to certify him as male so he could wed his fiancée. They refused — one suspects because a marriage with no reproductive potential struck them as dead in the water, especially with the national birth rate at an all-time low. Three days later, Stonestreet committed suicide — the victim of a society that could not make up its mind on how best to make sense of his gender while also extracting value from his sex.
This is the larger historical reason why the anti-trans movement does not want transgender people to receive sex-altering care. It is not clear how, if at all, such people will fit into the division of sex in America.
-Andrea Long Chu
1K notes
·
View notes
Text
Turn It Off!
Gentle!Wednesday x Autistic!Male!Reader
Summary: Wednesday comforts you after Enid almost sends you into sensory overload.
Words: 1076
Wednesday POV
Normally I would resent anyone who would even dare to think of asking me out, but that all changed when a particular psychic boy asked me to be his friend, and soon to be boyfriend.
Y/N L/N, a real gem among idiots.
I instantly took a liking to him, he's different from everything else and I soon came to find out why.
Y/N has autism spectrum disorder, which would be a valid explanation for some of his behaviour since coming to nevermore.
He's extremely shy, when he asked me to be his friend he almost broke at the seams. He's really nervous during any kind of social interaction with those he doesn't know.
Loud noises are especially irritable for him. Wolves howling in the quad would be torture for him, making him put his headphones on the second he sees them about to howl.
Meltdowns. Some imbecile thought it was funny to blast an air horn into his ears during lunch break, the result was Y/N having a meltdown with no one able to help him.
When we started talking I knew he felt a connection to me, he was a bit scared of me but also intrigued.
He's vastly intelligent, easily an IQ of 160. He's truly gifted with intelligence and that's coming from me. I'm not one to be humble.
When we started dating I took him to the weathervane, I didn't want to scare him like I did with everyone else. He's a fragile boy and didn't deserve that.
I wanted to protect him, to care for him and help where everyone elsen had failed him.
I love everything about him. I love the he'd hide his hands in his sleeves when he's shy. I love the way he talks about his favourite things in great detail. I love the way he could come to me when he's upset.
I love him, so very very much.
-
Me, Enid and Y/N are currently studying for our botany test next week. Enid, as usual, is procrastinating while me and Y/N have been studying since the test was announced.
We both go to reach for the eraser on the desk next to us, only for our hands to touch. I kissed the top of his hand making him blush madly, he really is cute; I hate myself for using that word.
Enid is dancing around her room being the foolish lycan that she is, she never ceases to amaze me how foolish she can be, its actually quite remarkable.
Suddenly, she decided it was a good idea to start blasting her incessant music out of her speakers, causing Y/N to cover his ears and whimper out of discomfort.
"Enid, turn it off" I said with a warning tone, though she only chose to ignore me and do her embarrassing dance moves in front of my face. Y/N began to whimper louder, making my anger with Enid rise to new heights.
"Enid turn it off!" I said louder; no effect was made.
"Why? It's getting boring in here, let's have some fun!" She said loudly, only adding to Y/N's discomfort. I was furious.
"ENID!" I shout, startling the both of them. "Can't you see that Y/N is getting upset because of your music blasting his ear drums apart, he's sensitive to noise you imbecile!" She looked over to Y/N to see him curled up in a ball with his hands over his ears, a guilty expression painting her face.
I point my finger to the door. "Get out" is all I say. She obeys and walks out with her head hung low. She knows about his noise sensitivity and yet she still does this, the audacity of some people.
Though my anger was strong and prevalent, I still heard faint whimpers from my side of the room. Y/N was still feeling uncomfortable after all that noise and was curled up in a ball on the floor by my desk. Thing was trying his best to comfort him, but nothing seemed to work.
I walk over to him and sit down opposite him with a gentle smile on my face. I patted my knees indicating for him to sit in my lap, he nodded and crawled into my lap and I hugged him tight, he preferred pressure over feather light touches.
He sniffled quietly, hoping I wouldn't notice. He looked away from so that I wouldn't see the tears streaming down his face like a river, as if I'd resent him for it. I pulled his face by his chin to look at me and offered a reassuring smile. I only ever smile for him.
"It's okay to cry in front of me, I won't be mad. Please don't be afraid to cry in front of me, I don't want you to be scared of me, darling." And with that he broke, he hid his face in my shoulder as I stroked his back, my blazer becoming wet with tears but I didn't care.
"I'm sorry Wednesday, I know you hate emotions." He said through his sobs. I felt my heart break a little, he thought I'd hate him for it.
"No it's okay, sweetheart, it's you so I don't mind at all. I would never be disappointed in you for being upset. Enid is the one I'm disappointed in, she should've been more mindful of your needs."
I pulled back from him. "Can I kiss you?" He nodded and I planted a gentle kiss to his lips. "Wanna cuddle for a bit?" He nodded again and I guided him to my bed.
We sat on the bed and I held him with a vice grip from behind. I wanted to reassure him that he's okay to be emotional around me. I had not realised he feared me so much.
"I won't leave you for being emotional Y/N, you know that right?" I whispered behind him. "I'm always here to listen you, I know it can be hard to operate somedays and it can be overwhelming for you, I'm hoping you'll let me in and help you and comfort you in any way I can." He turned around, he looked taken aback by what I said, I meant everything.
"You would do that? For me?" I smiled and nodded
"I'd do anything for you, mi amor." He leaned forward and kissed me gently, smiling against my lips which I happily returned.
Maybe I'm not unlike my mother and father after all...
#jenna ortega x reader#jenna ortega x you#jenna ortega#male reader#wednesday x you#wednesday x reader#wednesday#autism#comfort#jenna ortega x y/n
308 notes
·
View notes
Text
An incomplete but very angry diatribe about the missed potential of the Star Sapphires
So back in the day Geoff Johns and co decided to open up the Green Lantern mythos and add some more flavor and expand the concept of sci-fi tech powered by elemental emotion to more than just willpower. Which yes, is not an emotion, we ignore it and move on.
Anyway we got some really cool stuff! A rage tyrant fueled by experiencing incredible injustice on a personal and cosmic scale, whose vendetta twisted him into something terrible. An avatar of greed who was never allowed to have anything, not freedom, not family, not safety, who takes and takes and takes to fill a void that can never be satisfied. A priest who lost everything but presses on through his unshakable hope that the future can and will be better. It's a lot of fun stuff!
So in this great creative re-imagining, they had to do something clever and fun with the idea of an all female corps powered by love right? They took the opportunity to move past the purely romantic, sexual idea of love and the obsessed femme fatale archetype, because they had the chance to really explore different types of affection now that there were a bunch of different avatars with different stories to pull from right?
Right?
Nope! The only Sapphires we ever learn about are heartbroken over a cursed romance like Carol, grieving a dead fiance like Miri Riam, forcibly mind controlled to be one like Fatality, or just Miss Bloss who...kind of said she wanted to join up? No clue what her deal is, as far as I'm aware that's never really explained. And then we just never learn about anyone else, and still haven't. The hell is "The Lost Sapphire"? No idea, we'll likely never know.
It's frustrating because not only is this a glaring example of the depth of plotlines offered to women in comics compared to their male counterparts, but also a wild lack of imagination. Love is one of the most complicated emotions we experience. Fear, anger, hope, all pretty easy to quickly define. Love is multifaceted, cultural, incredibly contextual and a factor in so many different kinds of relationship. Just thinking logically it should be much easier to flesh out the motivations of a group pulling from such a nuanced source of power, versus something as clear-cut as rage. But no, the red lanterns got so many varied reasons for their rage, the male ones especially: Bleez being the woman was of course given the SA narrative, which I don't think is inappropriate on its own, that's an incredibly valid reason to be angry, but as the ONLY truly prominent female Red Lantern it's like...c'mon guys. But still, at least she and Atrocitus had different reasons for becoming what they are, and that variation was played for plot and drama.
But there's not a single Star Sapphire that personally champions something other than romantic love. And before you shoot me, it is explicitly mentioned that they DO protect other forms of love, so there's no reason for them to all be sexy and obsessed with kissing people. There are no Sapphires that are driven by:
The love of their children and families, even in a tragic sense, like Atrocitus and Saint Walker and Larfleez are...
Their love of their people, or their culture. It would have been interesting if Fatality was inducted BECAUSE of her pain at losing her world, but no, they just...replaced her anger with lovey vibes and called it a day.
Their love for nature. Not everyone is social, but social love isn't the only way to strongly experience the emotion.
Their love for themselves. Where is the fun narcissistic ass who loves their own self image to the point of getting powers? It would have been a fun twist and a cool way to get another villainous Sapphire if you wanted to.
Their platonic love of ANYTHING really. Are ace/aro people just...not capable of love then? It doesn't mean anything to be willing to drive cross country to help a friend move just because they needed it and you care? No? You need to be fucking for it to count?
It's like...fascinating if you really think about it. In this vast fantasy universe full of alien races with wildly different perceptions and life cycles, and where the other corps have plenty of non-human, truly alien looking members, that the women's only love corps is full of only hot hot scantily clad baddies. Most love that people experience in their lives isn't even romantic! You will have far more experiences with friends and family members and even loving strangers than you will have with romantic partners.
Like the reason is clearly sexism, duh, but we know sexism is bad, that's obvious, what I really want to make clear is how much this blatant, unexplored sexism just completely desecrated the potential of the worldbuilding here.
From another angle even: Let's say this this WAS the sex and romance all the time corps. Let's say that you wanted to keep it all women. I hate the idea that women are capable of love in a way that men aren't, that's such a bad take and just regressive and unhelpful, but let's just play ball for a moment. They're not even hot? Their designs are such ridiculously narrow versions of feminine attractiveness that they're not even successful at really being mass appeal sexy. I haven't even reached the point of complaining about the fatphobia and criminal lack of different body types yet, I'm still just saying that from the standpoint of fantasy sexy it's not even good at being stereotypical offensive fantasy sexy. It's just boring! They're all so visually boring! You can be scantily clad and still have an interesting and coherent character design! But that is not what they gave these women! They actually redesigned the classic Star Sapphire costume and made it MORE sexist and boring:
Yeah it was cheesy but it was also cute and fun? The design is playful classic sci-fi girl and this is when she was still a dangerous unhinged villain. Its fun to look at and feels tonally coherent next to Green Lantern.
And then they just...
No actually, I will not explain this one, you have eyes.
And yeah they fixed her costume finally,
But! She's still stuck as Hal Jordan's romantic punching bag, and has not gotten to have any new adventures on her own.
So.
What I'm saying is it's a flop all around. 2/10, and only because despite everything Fatality STILL managed to serve. I actually think that all of the corps have been poorly used since blackest night, even the greens actually, but they never even gave the Sapphires a chance. They last showed up in...a WW annual I think? During the whole dark gods event, they needed Diana to help them fight the evil god of love, and there was a guy in the corp finally, and they talked about sisterhood and then we haven't heard a peep from them since. I think Carol might be due to get her ring back in the GL ongoing but she's not really been treated well so far, so I'm not hopeful for anything fresh and well reasoned.
So my lovely ladies (and that one unnamed guy), until they let you get it together it may be time to
#dc comics#comics meta#hal jordan#green lantern#star sapphire#carol ferris#fatality#atrocitus#larfleeze#saint walker#sexism#shut up cerata#dc editorial answer for your crimes
103 notes
·
View notes
Text
let's talk about anti-xenogender bigotry, as it often reveals a lot of how people see gender, and especially nonbinary gender.
this post in particular is inspired by a reddit post i found by accident when i just wanted to download the xenogender flag (lol).
the post was shared by a trans woman who claimed that xenogenders aren't genders and thus not valid. she made sure though to say that she totally supports nonbinary people.
her first point on why xenogenders don't exist was that how valid a gender is is determined by its societal support, and since xenogenders are only supported in "fringe extremist "trans" spaces", they aren't real.
firstly, interesting that any trans person who supports xenogender people gets their trans card revoked. we're no longer trans, we're "trans".
secondly, hinging the validity of a gender on the amount of social support it has directly contradicts with her supposed support of nonbinary people. maybe she happens to live in the most nonbinary-friendly place ever, but overall, the very concept of nonbinary gender does not have a lot of societal support. so, according to her logic, nonbinary people are inherently less valid than binary people. some might even say that only fringe extremist "trans" spaces support nonbinary people. and, while trans itself is not a gender, if we add gender modality to the mix, then binary trans people don't exactly have massive societal support either. as a trans woman, does she consider her womanhood less valid than cis women's? basing the validity of a gender on societal support doesn't make any sense because there actually isn't a single monolithic society, and the societies that have historically recognised and celebrated more than two genders have been forcibly binarised by white european colonisers. did nonbinary gender become less valid over time and now it's slowly gaining validity as support for us is slowly growing? none of her logic in this makes sense. her rhetoric is inherently exorsexist and binarist, not just against xenogenders but basically against any nonbinary gender which she claims to support, and against cultural genders too.
the "societal support" argument completely falls apart because it means that every marginalised identity of any kind is inherently less valid and less real. she's revealing her bigotry here: it's not really about societal support, it's about which genders she arbitrarily decides are real and valid.
her second argument why xenogenders are not real was that any gender that exists outside of a triangle of male, female and genderless doesn't exist. you can only slide between those, like being hallway between male and genderless or in the middle of all three, but not outside. this is the classic gender trinary of male/female/agender and it's how i used to see gender as a baby enby.
firstly, gender isn't bound to whatever spectrum you personally decide is acceptable. there are many ways to be outside of that triangle besides xenogenderness. this logic basically says that the only valid way to be abinary is to be agender. not even abinary men or women exist in that logic, since the concept of abinary doesn't exist besides agenderness.
so, how can someone say she supports nonbinary people while saying a whole lot of us aren't real, even the ones who aren't xenogender, simply because she, as a binary person, thinks she has the right to decide what the gender spectrum looks like and whose gender is real and whose isn't?
all her points on why xenogenders aren't real also apply to multiple or all nonbinary genders. especially coming from a binary person, it reveals a huge ignorance to the nonbinary experience as well as a very narrow view of gender.
we're all in this together. clearly, exorsexists can't tell the difference between someone who is xenogender or someone who is, for example, ilyagender, or maybe even someone who happens to be within that gender triangle but within that have a gender that is not socially supported, like proxvir.
this is all the more reason for all of us nonbinary people to stick together and not draw lines in the sand about which nonbinary gender is valid and acceptable. if something harms one of us, they always end up harming all of us in some way. we're in this together.
47 notes
·
View notes
Text
[“A reminder I find helpful is that trauma, especially developmental trauma, often shapes our thinking into this polarity, this all/nothing, pink/blue, man/woman. When I view the rigidity of this binary through this lens, I can also be more compassionate towards myself and others when we get caught in its net.
All/nothing patterns are tough to break out of, after all. We can notice the rigidity of the gender binary in a range of ways: the gendering of chromosomes, body parts, behaviors, mannerisms, clothing, emotions, toys, experiences, and so on. All/nothing thinking patterns are those that view duality as the only option. For example: you are male or female, good or bad, with us or against us. Given that we live in a cloud of historical, intergenerational, cultural and social trauma when it comes to gender, it makes sense that we have internalized much of this thinking.
In fact, even when we get away from binary ideas of gender, we might still engage in all/nothing thinking patterns, if we are not careful. For example, some young people who identify as trans and/or nonbinary have internalized such a deep need to police gender that they might be afraid of being viewed as “trans trenders” (that is people who think they are trans because it’s “trendy”). Within this paradigm, you are trans or not (another all/nothing pattern). There is no exploring, playing or considering; there is simply, you are or you are not. Some trans and cis people alike question the validity of nonbinary genders, and then other trans and/or nonbinary people turn around and talk about “truscum,” that is, those trans people who align with a medicalized and pathologizing model of gender and believe that dysphoria is an essential trait for some people.
All/nothing patterns are insidious and, if we are not careful, we tend to reproduce the same discourses that oppressed us, creating and recreating boundaries around gender identities and experiences to make sure we know who is “in” and who is “out,” who is “with us” and who is “against us.” While these patterns are understandable, when people are hurt, in survival mode and trying to protect themselves, this is not conducive to healing or liberation. As long as there is policing of gender, any gender, there cannot truly be liberation. This is a really tough one for many of us who have been hurt by rigid gender binaries, and who might have come to our identities through hardship, risk and loss. It is so tempting to feel that now that we are “in,” whichever label, identity or experience that “in” might be, we get to police others and make sure that “fakers” and “trenders” are kept out.
We are simply afraid. Afraid that if we let anyone in who is not 100 percent certain, or in agreement with us, or just like us, we might get hurt. We are afraid that whatever we have built will be blown away. It is understandable. It is what everyone is afraid of. Trauma keeps us afraid of one another. Colonial and patriarchal ways of thinking divide us, and seduce us into believing that, if we behave in certain ways, we too could have power over our little domain, whatever that domain might be. However, these are all lies, lies that trauma tells us and that oppression thrives on. These dualities of Men are from Mars and Women from Venus, cis women against trans women, sex workers versus SWERFs (sex worker exclusive radical feminists) are all deeply rooted in historical, cultural and social trauma.
How can we, then, find another way? The idea of another way is key. If polarities are foundational to all/nothing patterns, our way to liberation can only be found in a third road. Building and nurturing flexibility in our individual and collective soma (bodies) is therefore key. Practicing saying and noticing the maybe, the pause between breathing in and breathing out, reflection, curiosity, slow, kind and consensual relationships are key to healing. We cannot heal from gendered trauma when we are still caught in rigid polarities, still invested in finding a perpetrator or savior so that we can stay in a victim place. Or so invested in being the irredeemable perpetrator that there is no hope for us. Once more, it starts with us, our own gender journey and dismantling internalized polarities first.
Once we engage with this work, we can then support those around us—be they clients, students, fellow community members and communities—to challenge those polarities within themselves and one another. This might all seem very idealistic, and it is. I truly believe we cannot move towards healing through violence. If we are to heal from gendered trauma it has to be through relationships: human, messy, complicated, infuriating, joyful, loving relationships. We cannot be in relationship when we are in opposition. We can be in a tug of war, push and pull at one another but, as long as we stay locked into these patterns, we can only view ourselves as victors and losers. In the meantime, the only victors seem to be systems of oppression.”]
alex iantaffi, from gender trauma: healing cultural, social, and historical gendered trauma, 2020
202 notes
·
View notes
Text
It really gets me upset when the trans man lesbian crowd spreads these soft positivity posts like “trans men have always had a place in the lesbian community uwu” with not a degree of awareness. It’s been shown statistically, that a majority of cis lesbians will proudly state they would prefer to date trans men over trans women. It’s been shown how trans men are accepted by cis lesbians and welcomed in lesbian spaces over trans women. And it isn’t because of beautiful beautiful solidarity, its because they see them as women and they see trans women as men. Trans men have been equated with masc lesbians for decades and continue to this day, especially by terfs who use butch lesbian and trans man as interchangeable words.
The absolute tone deafness I’ve seen in these discussions boggles the mind, like saying trans men grew up identifying as lesbians, being treated as women, being “socialized” as women, so they have a ‘right’ to lesbian spaces. As if it doesn’t subtlety imply that transfems have less of a right to be there then they do, as if it isn’t regurgitated terf “male/female socialization” rhetoric.
And when I point out these problematic elements I often get the trans men who argue for this stuff lecturing me about denying their agency and how they choose to be with lesbians. If yall want to date lesbians that’s fine, I literally cant stop you nor care to. It’s worth noting though, that there have been plenty of instances of trans men voluntarily dating straight men, yet we dont have this community push to validate straight men chasers and their trans boyfriends. For good reason, too.
I am not saying trans men need to be “kicked out” of lesbian spaces, I understand the solidarity between our communities. That solidarity will always exist. (And again I want to point out for the most part they are NOT being kicked out or excluded. Trans fems are) And I understand that “man” doesnt always mean man in a binary sense, some people are nonbinary men and women and things aren't always as clear cut. As a transmasc, nonbinary lesbian I understand that. This does not apply to you. I just want people to please take note of the transphobic, specifically transmisogynistic overtones that accompany a widespread push to have trans men as a group be considered as exceptions to lesbian attraction.
107 notes
·
View notes
Note
Here's my mini list about how to figure out if someone is a tryhard, and if you thereby should ignore them when it comes to recommending books. Obvs this is also paired with some sub conscious pattern recognition.
1) Cares too much about the author.
Making mention of the author if it's relevant is ok. But some people will put too much weight on what the authors is, and who they are and let that influence the review.
Also noticed especially with social media famous people where the author. So if the author's presented persona is brought into the review for no reason, it becomes a red flag. I don't often think there's any reason to really mention the author, unless it's a biography.
2) People who judge the author instead of the work. In some cases this can be valid, but in most cases the judgement of the author makes little sense in a review of the book. If you're reviewing a book, review the book.
3) Identity checklists in the review, especially if it's at the top, and they're counted as a positive, instead of a neutral fact.
Yes having a lot of diverse identities can be a pro, especially if the book has diversity as a theme, but it shouldn't be presented as a grocery list for you to check off. A lack of elaboration can make it feel like the reviewer really didn't actually care that much about the identities listed beyond "They exist, so that means the book is good."
3.5) Too much random focus on the identities of the characters, but with no actual elaboration of how this is presented in the story. Just because the book has a lot of identities doesn't mean they're done well, or that the story is good. You can mention a hundred times that the gay character is gay, but is the actual character any good? Is the story written competently?
This is something that I noticed can really mess up a review streak. You can have two books with wildly different levels writing competency, and they get the same type rating and review, because the reviewer didn't actually care about more than the checklist. So a 10/10 book is treated as equal to a 4/10 because of the identities presented.
4) Double standards for reviews.
Honestly pretty straight forward, are they excusing things for certain stories but condemning the exact same thing in another, for not actual reason? Are they biased against certain authors? Against certain demographics? Certain plot turns and arcs?
No one is free of a little bit of bias, but when it's too obvious it's just not good.
This point actually goes back to author identity and the character identities.
Author: A cishet author and a queer author can both write competent queer stories. If the only, and I mean ONLY reason the cishet author gets a worse grade is because of their identity, then that's a double standard. You're supposed to read the story on its own merits.
Checklist: Let's say you have an abusive character get their commuppance; if the reviewer thinks the abusive female character shouldn't have gotten punished, but are fine if a male character gets punished for the same crime.
I simplified those examples, and this point is mostly based on you noticing a pattern by the reviewer. If you actually are someone who follow reviewers, it'll at some point become something you notice.
--
24 notes
·
View notes
Text
Adoption analogy for trans gender identity
One of my favourite analogies for being transgender (and people should use this more in my opinion, I came up with it idk if anyone else did too) is adoption. (and I am aware that adoption in our society has some problematic issues in its current state, but that’s not the point, especially because humans throughout history and the world can and do adopt children).
When an adult adopts a child, and the child is happier and healthier because they have someone to care for them, and the parent and the child both like to refer to each other as mom/dad and son/daughter, would you deny the reality of this relationship or refuse to use the words mother/father son/daughter?
Some adoptions will be more visually obvious than others (like inter-ethnic), and this can lead to mean and invalidating comments and assumptions about the relationship.
In adoption situations, it’s clear that the medical implications (genetic diseases etc) are not the same as biological parents and children.
And some kids will at some point decide they want to call their adoptive parents “adoptive parents” and reconnect with their biological parents, and maybe have two sets of parents, and this is accepted, because parent can mean different things.
Everyone (idk i’ve never met an adoption hater) accepts that this is all valid and in a sense real, because who counts as a parent or son/daughter is just words, and even if they usually have a concrete biological basis, it would be quite disrespectful and unhelpful to refuse to use the words to include adoptive parent/child relationships.
As you can piece together I am sure, the visually obvious adoptees are analogous to visually obvious trans people, medical concerns are analogous, and different sets of parents is somewhat analogous to the somewhat nuanced way sex and gender all fit together (like someone can be male and nonbinary or whatever) and that whatever the adoptee kid says about their relationships is probably what others should accept, and just the whole thing is analogous! Especially it’s really the same type of thing: People accept the fact of adoption / gender as something that is socially and psychologically real despite lacking the biological basis that typically defines these things, largely because many of the important parts of what defines these words/concepts actually does apply to the situation, and importantly I would argue everyone is better off because of it! (better both because of the actual adoption / transition itself and because of the validating language and people being understanding of it).
You could argue that adoption reduces the resources available for real parents/children (parenting clinics, family therapy, family lawyers, etc.) You could argue that is degrades and distorts the meaning of what a child is (so that immigrant parents wanting their children to be reconnected with them might have less legal leverage, or that after someone dies it’s no longer enough to be a biological child to inheret their stuff if they have no will, because being a child no longer has any real definition). You could even argue that it perpetuates unhelpful stereotypes about parent/child relationships (for example I know someone that had an abusive mother and is lowkey triggered when people talk about maternal love, and it’s not helpful at all for people to assume that everyone’s parents are nice and caring and present or even existent/known because so many children’s parents are not, or that parents are responsible and have rightful authority over children, which is a dangerous idea for children that are abused by their parents). But are these realistic concerns? Why or why not? I’m not saying this is exactly the same as gender issues, but it has similarities for sure.
I think these ideas are interesting and important and I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I really think this is a great analogy, and shows how I wish the world would be about transgender people (accepting and validating, even legally, without suspicious concerns and without any delusions or misconceptions about what’s real or not).
Furthermore, if you want to really get into it, both the idea of being a parent and the idea of being a woman or man have an interesting similarity, due to both of them being being complex concepts that involve biology and social relations and stereotypical characteristics and all kind of stuff. Someone who is a father to a child that died before the child was born, and left nothing for the kid (wasn’t married lets say), is a parent, and so is an adoptive father, notice how there is absolutely no single fact that these two dads have in common except for the identification as a father. I think this is very similar to a very masculine cis woman that is consistently mistaken for a man, lives a very masculine life generally, lets say perhaps has had medical issues with her hormones throughout life, and has no real attachment her gender because she is a gender studies professor and knows about how its all bullshit (I knew a professor that was a lot like this), and a trans woman, who is technically male, but passes effortlessly as a quite feminine woman and has since being a little child gravitated strongly towards girlhood and said she’s a girl, and grown up to take hormones etc., although not yet done bottom surgery (you probably are aware of this, but there are many trans women that fit this description). There is not a single fact that makes these people both women other than their identification as women. Both are quite atypical, but both have good reason be called women.
This is why I think that gender is actually a circular definition. Men are men because they are considered men, women are women because they’re called women. Just like parents are parents because someone called them a parent. There are a million and one things that are typical of a man or woman or parent, but none are completely definitive (in my view), and that’s okay because they are just words and words are tools to understand the world. And likewise I think other complex concepts are probably like this too. Religions, languages, families, crimes, salads, idk! Trans women are women because we regard them as women.
#transgender#radical feminism#adoption#gender#feminism#philosophy#analogy#logic#anarchism#ethics#trans women#trans men#trans positivity#trans rights#women's rights
35 notes
·
View notes
Note
Ok but why is there always a reason. When it's about macro all of a sudden it's oh why should I care about the sob story of some bihettie who couldn't ever live through a day of real homophobia. When it's ppl like inosa or swagy or radgoose or countless others getting told disgusting things like that their bfs should kill them, it's laughed off too and it's like oh go back to your hettie world if you're so mad. When it's about catboy it's like oh why should I care if we make fun of the SA of some moid thats praxis actually. When it was ppl saying bi women are just like tims and they're weaponizing their rape it's oh why can't you bihets learn to read none of that matters. When there was a big burst of a bunch of people getting openly attacked by "blackpills" it was oh this is just so online why are the bihetties playing the victim. These ppl are just coming out to advance the position that they won't go after you no matter what you say about bihets. Like the refusal to condemn anything at all unambiguously is very much the point.
Honestly, I've come to the conclusion that people these days (esp young people) are not any more progressive than other generations... I honestly think their politics and values are possibly more conservative than 10-20 years ago - these are just my feelings as a low income bisexual woman who is pretty white passing but I've had friends of other races (esp older friends in their 30s-40s) talk about how they feel the same thing in regards to how ppl are regarding race now and there's tons of posts circulating about how people are more homophobic than 10-20 years ago and we just lost roe v wade, income disparity is worse and social services are cut, etc etc etc
I feel like people such as you described above are highly individualistic and don't really have principles in the traditional way like "x behavior is bad" like if we use examples specific to the recent state of radblr re: the treatment of bisexual users, they don't think that homophobia and misogyny are unacceptable behaviors, they think its perfectly fine to leverage homophobia and misogyny against groups they see as "other" and don't identity with in some way. There's always a reason why the people I have marked as "other" deserve their mistreatment and why my own actions and the actions of people belonging to the group I identify with are excused from scrutiny.
A lot of the time in spite of how they call themselves "radical" (feminist or leftist or whatever) they express behaviors and ideals which are sooo extremely in line with the cultural norm for treating people of marginalized groups.
Examples relevant to this convo: Gay and bi women talking about how they "don't fuck with" bi women because they are untrustworthy and flaky partners and "most of them are basically straight and will end up with men anyway" so they don't need LGB community support
Also, determining that a woman's intimate relationships overshadow all of her other actions, and feeling entitled to information about a woman's sexuality to determine how valid you think her words are and how much support from her community she deserves.
Also, telling a victim of sexual assault and homphobia his problems arent real and he should be quiet about them.
Also, you can't trust women with partners and especially children to take part in feminism because they're going to by default center their lives around their male partners and children, so they're going to at best half-ass things and probably just decide to focus on their families instead anyway, may as well exclude them and write them off.
But its okay because the women in the first example were gay and bi, even though they're saying the same things straight men say about bi women. The second example is okay because it's statements and demands made by other women a lot of whom are gay and bi, not men or gossip rags. The third example is okay because it's gay/bi women speaking to a man. The last example is okay because it's said by other women who call themselves feminists, and not a sexist boss, even if they have the same way of thinking and similar actions with similar results.
And on one hand I get it, these people are trying to pass along their own hurt a lot of the time and they are usually legitimately telling themselves and each other that they aren't doing anything worse than maybe hurting the feelings of individual strangers. But they're adults who are behaving in unacceptable ways, and honestly some behavior should just be unacceptable, like... we should be kind to each other if we want people to be kind to us. Beyond that though, the concept of "punching up" has rotted people's brains and is ruining our community solidarity, is honestly a huge class consciousness issue, and they are doing more tangible harm than they're admitting to themselves.
I see this way of thinking as way more of an obstacle for dismantling these power structures than activists being imperfect in their personal decisions. Like, structural opression does not exist in a vacuum and spring forth from nothing, it requires a culture mindset to continue. Like, the whole deal with structural opression is that the opressed groups "deserve" their structural oppression in some way like it's always "justified". While the power structures/axes of opression/classes DO serve social and economic functions, human beings are emotional beings and most people aren't evil, to get social animals to hurt each other you have to socialize them to do so... like as feminists I think we know that at least.
"It doesn't matter if you shave because you prefer it, it perpetuates the expectation for women to remove their body hair and you are indirectly socializing other women as part of society" but then, if you have a good reason you can excuse homophobia or misogyny and suddenly it doesn't contribute to any larger power structures or the socialization of those in your communities?
If you have conditions in which you support homophobic or misogynistic (or racist and so on) behavior then first of all, you're perpetuating the cultural mindset and socialization that allow the abusive power structures to exist in the first place which beings me to my second point... it will lead to them being used against you by people who deem YOU as "other" at some point, unless you're the most privileged person on earth and there's no axis of oppression someone could decide to flip on you if they feel you deserve it and we all just keep crabs-in-a-bucketing each other
It's in our own best interests to treat each other as well as possible, that is my belief. Anything else is cutting off the nose to spite the face, who benefits?
#ik your point was more targeted but ive been thinking about this a lot lately#and imo it applies to the homophobia towarda lesbians on radblr and the racism as well#and like i said its pretty much the same outaide as well which is why it makes me roll my eyes when they fixate so much on being “radical”#if anyone reads all of this ily lets get married#txt#i also think everyone is like this now for psyop reasons but im being so normal rn#like it's just convenient isn't it
43 notes
·
View notes
Note
as a lesbian who grew up in a really repressive conservative community, and had to deal with a lot of self-loathing on top of that, i am a big fan of your characterization of snafu. firstly, it reflects a lot of my internalized feelings that i have to fight against every day, even though im a lesbian rather than a gay male. the sentiment of guiltiness and dirtiness is something that many homosexuals like me can relate to. also what anon doesnt seem to understand is that just because snafu doesnt want to "dirty" eugene, doesnt actually mean that he thinks it's wrong, per se. it could even be that he doesn't want eugene himself to feel dirty even if snafu doesnt really think it is. that could also be the case (but if it isnt THATS OK TOO!!!) like idk if that makes any sense at all but human emotions arent rational. its perfectly logical in an illogical sense. and anon is talking nonsense especially when historical and social contexts are taken into account...
i would have a really hard time enjoying a lot of [chronologically canon] fanfic if the very real feelings and sentiments of the times were just brushed over. i actually LOVE fics that deal with heavy internalized and societal homophobia because that reflects my experiences, and the hurt/comfort is a pattern that my brain can see and understand as "it gets better". fics that are void of homophobia are totally valid and even great, but there's nothing wrong with acknowledging the historical reality. i would even argue that it's important.
anyways sorry to get all serious esp because i dont think this was ever meant to be That Deep. But i just wanted to say that i am/was one of those Self Loathing Homosexuals and anon is lacking some perspective perhaps.
(please read this it's breathtaking)
#this was so beautiful I didn't want to add anything#it's perfect the way it is anon#thank you for adding to this convo#you're welcome on my blog any time <3#asks
9 notes
·
View notes
Text
Vent
TW: mentions of bl0od, some cusswords, dysphoria
I was questioning my identity as a non-human, and I mightve figured that I most closely identified to being a vampirekin (potentially a fictokin? Idk if I spelled that right) or an alienkin. Also keep in mind that Im fifteen, so my vent could have a few grammatical mistakes.
I could be a therian as well but I realized that I could be 'choosing' to identify as one to find some community to relate to (since Im autistic and cant really socialize with people, especially with my peers in HS). I dont necessarily feel a connection with most animals, let alone nature, and I felt emotionally numb when I did quadrobics.
So there's probably a low chance of me actually having a connection to animals, therefore it wouldnt be best for me to identify as a therian. But at the same time, Ive shown the most important criteria of being a therian, such as dreaming, shifting, etc,. Specifically, Ive shifted into a bat (flying fox) in dreams and phantom shifts. This could have some correlation to being a vampirekin in a sort pf eay though, because in the dream I remember I was a vampire.
On the otherhand, Ive always had some connection with supernatural beings and aliens. I think I was around seven when I watched a vampire movie (hotel trannsylvania) and I quickly felt this weird connection with the vampires. I legit wanted to be a vampire, hell I even dreamt of becoming one multiple times (I still do, Ive tried lucid dreaming because of that). The problem was that I didnt have the urge to drink blood, I mean I've tried when I was 12-14 (Im 15 now) and in my edgy phase (so its either I did that because its cool or because it has something to do with my kintype). Idk, my guess is that I could have some non-human dysphoria (since I always wanted sharper canines), maybe a bit of a psychological connection to vampire kintype, and definitely an emotionally connection to vampire kins.
But theres another problem, because I noticed that the vampires that I had an emotional connection to most were only from the castlevania show. I am aware that multiple shows/movies/etc,. can potray vampires in various perspectives but if I only related to vampires from one specifc kind of show, then shouldnt that logically indicate that Im a fictokin? I've kinned multiple characters because I was able to relate to their personalities, backstories, development, etc,. (even though those specifc characters werent created to be relatable)
So my concerns are that;
I dont know if its possible to have multiple other-kin types. I mean it sorta makes sense, since there can be gray areas in a black and white concepts but still lmao-
Also, if my idenity as a therian and otherkin are both valid, Im afraid if I might be considered cringe or delusional. Like I've seen people react to cringe comps with people saying that they're (example): "lesbian, transgender, cat/wolf therian, fictokin" (Im just putting random identities as an example, no bigotry intended) and they did not take that lightly, because apparently those peopke are putting 'too many labels on themselves'. Because of that, Im afraid if I might be one of those people, since I also personally identify as a lot of stuff (trans male, pansexual, potentially otherkin/therian).
I'm not sure if I'm choosing to be a therian/otherkin, since I could be trying to fit myself into a specific community due to social isolation (which Ive struggled with my entire life). Im also scared if my identity could be a phase too tbh.
Honestly any advice is appreciated, I would also definitely like to know how yall figured out that you were non-humans <3
#vampirekin#therian community#therian culture#therian#species dysphoria#otherkin#fictokin#otherkin community
12 notes
·
View notes
Text
okay more thoughts on pride and prejudice as i begin chapter 39
1 i want to see lady catherine, mrs. bennet, and miss bingley in the same room together on a podcast panel debating things like marriage and childrearing etc but i dont think the world would be able to handle it
2 i’m interpreting mr. darcy as either being neurodivergent (possibly autistic) and/or having severe social anxiety — and this is really informing my entire perspective of his character (as a core theme to his character is being socially understood/misunderstood). however, i know its still very controversial to “diagnose” fictional characters and i don’t want to come off that way — but historical complications aside (the field of psychology didn’t exist back then how it does now) it’s really obvious to see that he’s not neurotypical, although i don’t know if this is an accepted thing in the austen world though!
3 i’m not buying that mr. darcy’s letter was only 2 pages long. 3 pages minimum with tiny handwriting maybe.
4 this entire novel really highlights the importance of social communication more than anything imo
5 mr. collins is fucking hilarious and his interactions with elizabeth are so accurate/relatable of what it’s like to deal with oblivious men as a female, esp. men who dont know how to take a hint — i was actually laughing out loud through his entire proposal sequence, especially at the line where it says elizabeth is trying hard not to laugh too. so familiar.
6 i wish we could see more of charles i actually like him — i also like colonel fitzwilliam and kind of wanted him to marry elizabeth - its kind of hilarious how casual the topic of marriage is with people you’ve just met & i really want to read more about regency history on marriage specifically now to figure out how much is embellished for satire purposes & how much is true to life
7 i have many thoughts on wickham but thats for a separate post
8 from what little i’ve read about p&p analysis/consensus so far, it seems mrs bennet and some other characters have already been torn to shreds over lit history to the point that its become more common to defend them & mrs bennet in particular, which i understand bc she’s supposed to be a satire on women of the time period but of course her concerns are valid and there are real economic reasons for her actions and societal norms that pertain to them. i’ve also read that it’s common for people to prefer mr bennet over his wife and to pit them against each other which can lead into misogyny & i can see this. however (im sure the bennet family ends up happy at the end, but at this point in the story) i think there are valid reasons for these interpretations which lead people to like mr bennet more than mrs bennet. after the ordeal with collins i really lost respect for mrs bennet for threatening to disown eliza & treating her so harshly, and i gained respect for mr bennet for sticking by eliza. i continuously defended mrs bennet and her behavior up until the collins proposal. i understand she’s desperate for eliza to marry so that she doesn’t become destitute etc. but mr collins simply isnt an ideal husband
9 eliza’s feelings on her friend marrying collins are so sad and relatable of how all of us feel when we watch a friend or loved one enter a shitty relationship and/or betray themselves or lose a part of their personality + the idea of having to mourn your friend especially upon growing up etc. but particularly as it relates to the lonely woman’s experience of finding one’s friends starting to center males & prioritize romance over friendship the older you get.
hope some of this is semi-intelligible - i save the grammar for my real essays - but felt like rambling
i think in my last post i was spelling “bennet” as “bennett” so i apologize for that lol - pls dont kill me janeites, i’m new here!!!
24 notes
·
View notes
Note
What's the stance on trans meds nowadays? I don't ID with them, but for me personally, being trans is a medical thing for me, because that's what helps me and my dysphroia the best to see it as such, but I don't apply that logic to everyone..some people don't see it that way and that's valid! But I'm curious if this is common? I know many don't have dysphoria and that's valid and common ans you don't need dysphoria to be trans. And having dysphoria is common too, but is it odd to view it for yourself personally as a medical thing, like being the hrt part of it? Idk if that makes me one but..Like I see myself as a biological male (I'm a trans man, and I don't agree with that bullshit of "I'm a bio woman living as a man, no, I AM a man and my "biology" is a "male! My hormones are that of a man, my body is male.) Idk just curious if others feel the same :)
Oh hell, Anon, I don’t even know, I’m so far past caring what anyone else thinks about that.
I find that there is a gulf between the lived experience of a dysphoric trans person like myself (or you!) and that of someone who’s happy with nothing more than social transition that could swallow Jupiter without getting moons in its teeth.
For me personally, I have felt like I’ve been in the wrong body since I was 4 years old at least. My parts were wrong, my voice was wrong, my height was wrong, my puberty was a traumatic clusterfuck of “oh gods no please no why,” and the expectations people had of me (very especially for sex) based on the shape of my body were all wrong. My dysphoria is/was a medical problem caused by a mismatch between my intrinsic identity and my physical form, and so it had a medical solution (HRT and multiple surgeries).
And for some others, that screaming, clawing wrongness just…isn’t there, I guess? Nor are they capable of comprehending what it’s like to have it, from all I’ve seen, any more than cis people can comprehend it.
Really I think you could subdivide the transgender umbrella into two main types: “my sex is wrong” and “my gender and sex are two discrete things and that’s fine.” Is one more or less trans than the other? Oh fuck, who gives a shit, the right wing wants all of us dead equally.
This split is only really a problem when it comes to a) matters of representation (a reeeaaal hot button topic for me) and b) the first camp’s ongoing battle to secure the right to medical transition on grounds of it being the appropriate treatment for our condition.
IDK man, the internet is full of buffoons and poltroons and I’m much too old to give credence to whatever the opinions of non-voting Chronically Online minors are, so your guess is as good as mine
12 notes
·
View notes
Note
People nowadays (especially in social media) totally misunderstood what does mean the word "pick me girl" and use it in a wrong way to judge women who just have "masculine" interests, when its real meaning is when a woman puts other women down only for male validation.
I'm scared of being called a pick me because I've got some "masculine" interests like science, football and videogames, at this point, I think they're just using it as an excuse to be sexist and misogynists.
People really use for anything women do that they don’t like. I do understand some women fake interests that are usually considered masculine to attract men, but people need to understand not every woman who has masculine interests isn’t doing it for attention.
There will be always someone ready to judge you for whatever you do unfortunately. I know it’s not so simple but the best thing to do is try to ignore the ones judging you.
9 notes
·
View notes
Text
oh this was an EXCELLENT article. summarizing discussions and takeaways from a 10-person large 200-level undergraduate discussion course at UIUC about transgender issues in fan fiction!
some fascinating fan meta about Loki i had no idea about:
I started the trans studies unit with the discussion of the recent TV series Loki (2021–), set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), instead of starting with fan fiction texts. There are several reasons that I chose Loki instead of other fandoms that represent trans people. First, Loki is depicted in canon as gender fluid, making his genderqueer identity valid to the fandom. One teaser of the series shows Loki's case file, and under the category of sex, the file notes Loki is fluid instead of male or female (Romano 2021)
Beckwith argues that even with the shapeshifting abilities, Loki in the MCU is not a gender-fluid character because "up till this point, Loki has never shapeshifted to express himself. He has shapeshifted to disguise himself, which is the exact opposite of self-expression." … [on the other hand, there was another argument made that] Loki's shapeshifting is an expression of "doing" mischief, which is a part of his identity, as he is titled the God of Mischief.
ahhh super interesting!
the question arises: do related fan fictions do a better job in using Loki as an icon for gender fluidity? … I asked students to read three fan fiction stories on AO3 centered around or related to trans representation [including busaikko's cross-dressing dudley fic (1.3k, G)].
lots of engagement by the students including reading the comments, lots of positive sentiments towards fanfiction, but some good caveats:
quite a few students were cautious about the general supernatural settings of fan fiction, which indicates their poignant perception of the differences between trans representation in fiction and real life and their effects. [Students also noted] that the supernatural element in fan fiction might also indicate a sense of escapism in its representation of queer and trans people. For example, one student pointed out that "supernaturalness is currently being used as an 'easy out' for representation. If the only people that are represented as queer are supernatural, that still makes it seem as if being queer is not 'normal.'" Another student also argued, "Fan fictions use supernaturalness and fantasy to perpetuate false or inaccurate queer representations.
i loved this especially!
one student chose to explore trans studies in Harry Potter fan fiction though she was not familiar with trans theories before this course. In a very well-written final essay, the student examined how the destabilization of the boundaries between common binaries, such as human versus nonhuman, male versus female, and magical versus nonmagical, in the original Harry Potter fandom inspired nonbinary gender interpretation of fan fiction through a transgender lens.
dirgewithoutmusic fic!!
---
there was also a substantial discussion on omegaverse - history, references, food for thought!
Despite its popularity, few academic projects have studied the Omegaverse extensively, besides Kristina Busse's (2013) article and Marianne Gunderson's (2017) and Milena Popova's (2018) dissertations. Nevertheless, we should acknowledge the potential for the Omegaverse to promote social justice, as it may question the fixated binary gender identities. I argue that the Omegaverse can act as an accessible and influential special case to discuss nonbinary gender identities in college classrooms.
one student argued, "ABO [Omegaverse] is strange to me because it covers the whole spectrum from 'porn with no plot' to 'extensive metaphor undoing gender roles.'
students were also very perceptive in discovering the hidden heteronormativity and heteropatriarchy behind the nonbinary gender settings, with one student saying, "ABO fan fictions tend to perpetuate heteronormativity by portraying all relationships (even queer relationships) as the stereotype of one 'masculine' and dominant person, and one 'feminine' and submissive person. This stereotype is harmful especially to the queer community because it forces the ideas of cisgender and straight relationships onto queer ones."
students also centered the topic of male Omegas and discussed why this group is even more sexualized and degraded than female Omegas in the Omegaverse and the implications behind this phenomenon. Students appropriated the male-gaze concept in feminist studies and argued that this phenomenon can be interpreted as the result of the cis gaze, as male Omegas are othered and viewed as the fetishized subjects of cis females' sexual imagination
24 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
wavesmp3
mi amor
mmesoph94
easygreen
chaseyourloves-blog
SEMI HIATUS
redxblueihateloveyou
Iha[te][lo]veyou