tlhod’s Gender Situation as written in 1968 (published in 1969) was about a man from Earth who goes to another planet inhabited by alternate-bio ambisexual humans who are completely like Earth humans in every other respect. The man from Earth at first expects them to be like men in a way that’s recognizable to him, and that expectation causes him some struggles in relating to them, but he then comes to accept them on their own terms.
An updated look at that Gender Situation might be about a nonbinary person from Earth who goes to another planet inhabited by alternate-bio ambisexual humans who are completely like Earth humans in every other respect. The nonbinary person from Earth at first expects them to be like nonbinary people in a way that’s recognizable to them, and that expectation causes them some struggles in relating to them, but they then come to accept them on their own terms.
Mutatis mutandis since “nonbinary” is a way, way broader category than “man” (hello multigenders I love you) but people who have never heard of gender are going to have a different, for lack of a better word, thing going on than someone who is familiar with a gender binary and has rejected it.
(I also think having a normal earth queer person interact with members of a fantasy gender/lack of gender would be interesting. Real deal meets metaphor. It’s like if an actual trans woman met Jadzia Dax.)
153 notes
·
View notes
idk if this is a hot take but ive seen so many have decided kinito's a trans guy and i love that
but let me raise you my headcanon............
he's a trans dude in the sense that while he was assigned male when created he never really. had a gender? as a computer program? he just was? so when more information about trans people and more trans people became open online he saw it and went. wait... what am i, then?
and decided he sorta resonated with something between nonbinary and trans guys from what he saw online. if he were to draw himself anthro he'd give himself top scars because he just thinks that's a marking all transmasc people have <3
48 notes
·
View notes
going back and watching ofmd s1 now after most of s2 has aired provides SUCH context to why Izzy acted the way he did. S2 puts SO much more weight on Blackbeard's 'i havent tried dying i should try that next' statements that he makes in S1E04, and it gives a reality of how horrible Blackbeard can be. I think Blackbeards erratic behaviour and mild suicidal ideation can be dismissed when watching s1 for the first time, which makes Izzy's reaction feel disproportionate, but I think the reality is Izzy has been watching Blackbeard steadily decline and make decisions that actively go against the survival of himself and the crew. Stede and the revenge are part of an emerging pattern for him!!
s2 just really makes it so much easier to empathise with Izzy and the decisions he makes have more weight and sense behind him. His actions aren't really out of feeling antagonistic or jealous or w/e, he has been watching Blackbeard spiral out of control, and Izzy's own life spiraling with him! AOUGH it just makes Izzy less of a mindless antagonist and much more of a character who is desperate for some semblance of control and normalcy again !!!
104 notes
·
View notes
is there a reason you use different pronouns for ravage? you go back and forth a lot. why?
bigender ravage is real to me, nonnie. with your help, it can be real to other people, too.
uhhh there isn't really a big meta reason why i use she/her and he/him for idw rav? if you're hoping for a detailed analysis, i don't have one atm. ravage is just sometimes a femme using she/her, sometimes a mech using he/him, and then sometimes a femme using he/him and a mech using she/her to me. that's it!
35 notes
·
View notes
shoutout to the guy in my chem class who i’m in a little study group with who i guess took the time to look at my profile on discord and figured out my pronouns (i didn’t bother announcing them to the group because i didn’t want the hassle)
my guy has only gendered me correctly, both out loud when we’re talking in office hours and in text in the study group group chat.
56 notes
·
View notes
i’ve been thinking a lot about what is so unique and appealing about 80s robin jay’s moral standing that got completely lost in plot later on. and i think a huge part of it is that in a genre so focused on crime-fighting, his motivations and approach don’t focus on the category of crime at all. in fact, he doesn’t seem to believe in any moral dogma; and it’s not motivated by nihilism, but rather his open-heartedness and relational ethical outlook.
we first meet (post-crisis) jay when he is stealing. when confronted about his actions by bruce he’s confident that he didn’t do anything wrong – he’s not apologetic, he doesn’t seem to think that he has morally failed on any account. later on, when confronted by batman again, jay says that he’s no “crook.” at this point, the reader might assume that jay has no concept of wrong-doing, or that stealing is just not one of the deeds that he considers wrong-doing. yet, later on we see jay so intent on stopping ma gunn and her students, refusing to be implicit in their actions. there are, of course, lots of reasons for which we can assume he was against stealing in this specific instance (an authority figure being involved, the target, the motivations, the school itself being an abusive environment etc.), but what we gather is that jay has an extremely strong sense of justice and is committed to moral duty. that's all typical for characters in superhero comics, isn't it? however, what remains distinctive is that this moral duty is not dictated by any dogma – he trusts his moral instincts. this attitude – his distrust toward power structures, confidence in his moral compass, and situational approach, is something that is maintained throughout his robin run. it is also evident in how he evaluates other people – we never see him condemning his parents, for example, and that includes willis, who was a petty criminal. i think from there arises the potential for a rift between bruce and jay that could be, have jay lived, far more utilised in batman comics than it was within his short robin run.
after all, while bruce’s approach is often called a ‘philosophy of love and care,’ he doesn’t ascribe to the ethics of care [eoc] (as defined in modern scholarship btw) in the same way that jay does. ethics of care ‘deny that morality consists in obedience to a universal law’ and focus on the ideals of caring for other people and non-institutionalized justice. bruce, while obviously caring, is still bound by his belief in the legal system and deontological norms. he is benevolent, but he is also ultimately morally committed to the idea of a legal system and thus frames criminals as failing to meet these moral (legal-adjacent) standards (even when he recognizes it is a result of their circumstances). in other words, he might think that a criminal is a good person despite leading a life of crime. meanwhile, for jay there is no despite; jay doesn't think that engaging in crime says anything about a person's moral personality at all. morality, for him, is more of an emotional practice, grounded in empathy and the question of what he can do for people ‘here and now.’ he doesn’t ascribe to maxims nor utilitarian calculations. for jay, in morality, there’s no place for impartiality that bruce believes in; moral decisions are embedded within a net of interpersonal relationships and social structures that cannot be generalised like the law or even a “moral code” does it. it’s all about responsiveness.
to sum up, jay's moral compass is relative and passionate in a way that doesn't fit batman's philosophy. this is mostly because bruce wants to avoid the sort of arbitrariness that seems to guide eoc. also, both for vigilantism, and jay, eoc poses a challenge in the sense that it doesn't create a certain 'intellectualised' distance from both the victims and the perpetrators; there's no proximity in the judgment; it's emotional.
all of this is of course hardly relevant post-2004. there might be minimal space for accommodating some of it within the canon progression (for example, the fact that eoc typically emphasises the responsibility that comes with pre-existing familial relationships and allows for prioritizing them, as well as the flexibility regarding moral deliberations), but the utilitarian framework and the question of stopping the crime vs controlling the underworld is not something that can be easily reconciled with jay’s previous lack of interest in labeling crime.
217 notes
·
View notes