This might sound defensive but if you're attracted to a 100% binary trans man as a woman then that's straight regardless of what you say, because trans men are men full stop, maybe it's unintentional for you but there's a lot of trans men aren't really men or are women-lite shit going around, reanalyze yourself and your transphobia because that's straight up awful shit and I'm so sick of seeing this being spread around it's fucking conversion therapy shit disguised as something positive reanalyze why you want trans men to be with lesbians so badly when lesbians traditionally mean and is understood by wide society to be women liking women, like actually sit and think about that, maybe it's hard to admit that it's offense but good fucking god
You seem to be under the assumption that I am forcing the tran men who identify as Lesbians to be not fully men or women lite and you are very wrong?? I do not see a trans man as any less of a man for being a Lesbian. He is a Man and A Lesbian. They are both true. They are not conflicting labels just because of societies perceptions of a word that was forcefully adjusted after Lesbian separatism.
Yow however are the one assigning those people a sexuality based on how you see their relationships. Is a woman supposed to break up or change her entire sexuality because her partner came out and she didn't stop being attracted to him? What if she still primarily dates women after they breakup for unrelated reasons? Does she earn being a Lesbian back? Or maybe consider how many trans men are butches in the community who are Men and Lesbians and their femmes love them and are no less lesbian to any of their peers. What about those who are firmly Trans men and Trans Women at the same time? Do they stop being a lesbian on "Man days"? Do they earn it back on women days? You know, to make sure on "man days" they aren't viewed as Womenlite for being a lesbian by their own choice. Where's the line anon?
It sounds defensive because it is. You are not reading a word I've said about any of this and are shoving shit I don't believe into my inbox under the guise that you think I condone any of what the fuck you iust said.
I am a man and spend half my time fighting to be seen properly as one against transphobic Lesbians who insist I have to be a Girl Butch otherwise they have the right to dictate who I can date. I fucking know more than enough about people who want to change my gender to fit their transphobic views. I spend an entire portion of my blog fighting about transmasculine rights if you bothered to look around before you sent this accusatory ask.
Some Trans Men are Lesbians because THEY WANT TO BE. When I talk about Lesbian Trans Men I am talking about ME and THEM. If you cannot understand that then you are not having the same conversation as me.
Also the fucking Lesbiphobia of revoking someones right to be a Lesbian because you don't see it that way is disgusting. Who the fuck are you to think it's okay to tell somone they aren't who they say they are? we got a council that can kick us out of our little clubs since that's how you wanna treat these identities?
29 notes
·
View notes
not really enjoying tumblrs trend of comparing Thomas Andrews to Stockton Rush 😒Could you share how the two differ despite the fact they died by their own creations?
ive been trying to figure out how to tackle this ask for a few days now because theres so much to disentangle, but disentangle i will.
see, this comparison relies on common misinformation and misconceptions about titanic. its a ship thats been romanticised and mythologised for decades, and every portrayal of it from william randolph hearts yellow newspaper coverage to robin gardiners conspiracy theory to jim camerons film.
what im gonna list to disentangle this whole thing is by no means an exhaustive list of titanic misconceptions, only those relevant to this topic
-titanic was a cruise ship - titanic was an ocean liner not a cruise ship (ive detailed the differences in a different ask here)
-titanic was a brand new unique ship never seen before - not true, ocean liners had existed for decades. theres debate about which was the first, but many agree that its the ss great western which launched in 1843. titanic wasnt even the first launched in her class; that honour goes to the rms olympic.
-it was built with substandard materials and cut corners - this is one of those where theres potentially some truth, but its been misrepresented. theres some evidence that the rivets werent the best made, but the board of trade cleared the ship and she was built with the same materials and basically the same design as her sister ship, rms olympic which sailed for 24 years under the nickname "old reliable" and literally rammed a u-boat during ww1 when she was requisitioned as a troop ship. ultimately, the builders were not blamed in the wreck inquiry and the materials used were not substandard.
-it was built as said above due to the choices of j bruce ismay - yeah so this one obviously ties into the above. theres a lot of unreliable sources who seem to believe ismay oversaw the entire design and every cut corner was due to money. this simply isnt true and isnt how this sort of thing worked. white star had a contract with harland and wolff wherein they would build the ship agreed upon and when it was finished, it would be presented to white star and undergo sea trials, and during that time, white star could reject the ship if they considered it substandard. this is what happened to the ss city of rome. unles. the design itself was to be changed a la britannic after titanic sank (improving safety measures), white star could not interfere. ismay could not force them to use different materials.
-it was all ismays fault - okay, i could go on about this for a long time, but this ask isnt about ismay. the gist of it is that history has blamed ismay due to the influence of william randolph hearst (yeah, the guy from newsies and supported hitler) who hated ismay and blamed him entirely. actual evidence shows ismay helped a lot of people during the sinking itself.
-titanic was badly designed - ive kinda gone over this a little already, but again, titanic was not badly built. she was practically identical to olympic which was a fantastic ship. in the design, no risks were taken. most of the designs were enlarged versions of parts of previous successful ships. she was considered the safest ship on the sea. four of her water-tight compartments could be breached without her sinking which was a big fucking deal.
-thomas andrews was the sole designer - there was actually a team of designers that included andrews. he didnt even draw up the original plans; that was alexander carlisle.
-titanic sinking was a unique situation - yeah nah, boats sank a lot around that time. literally two years after, there was a similar disaster with the rms empress of ireland which goes entirely forgotten nowadays. in the same decade, you also had the sinking of lusitania in 1915, principe de asturias in 1916, volturno in 1913 and even thrown in princess sophia in 1918.
-the sinking was actually caused by a coal bunker fire - this is simply horseshit and im sure im gonna end up having to explain and debunk that one too
-the crew were taking unnecessary risks to win the blue riband - this myth is widespread because of the movie, but titanic was not trying to beat the record of the fastest ship from southampton to new york (thats what the blue riband) is; she physically couldnt. it was held by mauretania at that point with a record of 26.06 knots/48.26 km/hr. titanics top speed was 23 knots. white star as a line never focussed on speed and ismay never told the captain to speed up.
-she was "unsinkable" - this is a little harder to disentangle. the claim itself was "practically unsinkable", but the context of that was to do with how safe titanic was as mentioned above. also, the idea of an unsinkable ship was not quite to white star or harland and wolff; most of the shipping industry believed it.
-almost everything youve heard about the life boats - okay so here you need to throw out your preconceptions of what a life boat is because our modern conception does not match that from the early 1900s. to not get into all the details of life boat philosophy at the time (if you do wanna know, just send me an ask lmao), the main purpose of life boats at this time was ferrying passengers to a rescue ship. that was it. this attitude was informed by both the wrecks of the ss valencia and ss clallam, as well as the miraculous rescue of the rms republic. titanic did not have enough life boats for everyone because it was never expected for the passengers to be alone in the life boats for hours; it was not a design flaw, it was a feature.
-that fucking stupid ship swap myth and the idea that the crew were trying to sink the ship - i dont even want to get into why this is bullshit, plus ive also debunked it in another ask
i highlight all of the above to emphasise the fact that titanic was not a badly built ship. she was designed well, built well and sailed well. many experts agree that the way that she hit the iceberg was the only way she could have sank.
this is not the case with titan and stockton rush. in a previous post, ive gone over the design of the titan, the flaws in it and what experts in the field believe, so im not gonna go over it again, but rest assured, the titan imploded because of rush's actions and decisions.
titanic did not sink because of thomas andrews. its due to his design that anyone survived the titanic because she stayed afloat for over two hours which allowed the crew to launch all the life boats. thomas andrews himself helped many survivors during the sinking and evacuation.
he also was not a rich man using a gravesite as tourism; nepotism was certainly involved in his career but he spent ten years working his way up in the company, helping with the design of countless ships. he was mostly regarded as a good man who worked hard and recognised the hard work of others.
its honestly ludicrous to compare them because the disasters themselves are simply not comparable. the titanic did not sink because of the folly of rich men cutting corners; titan did.
thomas andrews, for any faults he had, knew what he was doing and built a good ship that was unlucky. almost every other ship he helped design didnt sink or if they did, most of them were due to ww1.
its just such a ridiculous comparison, and thats all it is. without the misconceptions and misinformation about titanic, the comparison simply falls apart. its built on a foundation that fundamentally misunderstands the titanic disaster.
if you want to talk about shipwrecks caused by stupid decisions made by rich men, go look up the last incarnation of hms captain or the gunilda or the fucking vasa if you want, you can literally go see that one. but dont besmirch the memory of a guy who, by all acounts, died a hero helping other survive.
83 notes
·
View notes
Hello hi it’s asimplearchivist again (I mixed up my main when I created my account just fyi) and I am having more thoughts about Dusknoir
Do you think that when he first came to the past from the future that he had a hard time measuring his strength? Having to rely on his strength and abilities to protect himself and to do Dialga’s bidding would mean he wouldn’t have ever had any reason to practice being gentle, right?
So what if the first few months of having to play the part of the gentleman and kindly explorer, shaking hands and interacting with others (picking them up when saving them, etc), he realizes how brusquely he touches them? Enough times if someone saying his grip is a little tight or he jostled them too much and such makes him realize he can’t just go full throttle because he’s a fully evolved and experienced and powerful Pokémon, these civilians don’t know what it means to survive in a wasteland where virtually everything is out to get you
…so, to conclude, how much gentleness does he learn by dealing with the hero and partner? I’m thinking of your riding on the shoulder and him carrying them around examples specifically but does he ever catch himself being harsh and they don’t even realize why (“haha, you’re crushing me! you don’t have to hold me so tight, you know, it won’t hurt me if I fall just from here!”) and he stops in dawning horror realizing that one day he’s going to have to hurt them in the end?
then he has to learn to be gentle all over again when he and the others return from the future—even more gentle and slow and careful this time—because now they’re afraid of him, knowing just how strong he is and exactly what he’s capable of doing to them?
now if you’ll excuse me I’m going to go sob in the corner, goodbye👋🏻🥹
(this was mainly inspired by the comic of aimilios trying to trust him again when he’s hurt but still being terrified and dusknoir just h u r t i n g bc he knows it’s fully justified…crying in the club rn)
also I was curious how Dusknoir reacts when they evolve? is he bursting at the seems with pride at watching them “grow up” or is it more of a somber affair with him feeling relief that they’ll be able to defend themselves better against bigger, stronger pokemon (like himself) who would try to hurt them?
Sorry for the rambling, I just have a lot of feels about this big softy and I wanted to share them!😊
Op… your mind… is SO POWERFUL.
THE IDEA?? OF DUSKNOIR KNOWING NOTHING BUT DO-OR-DIE SITUATIONS IN THE FUTURE; ONLY SERVING AS A WEAPON FOR PRIMAL DIALGA TO USE… To then having to learn how to be gentle..? Of course, to fulfill the “humble and kind explorer” facade… but mainly achieving it because of Hero and Partner.
…AND HIM SEEING HOW THEY GET SLIGHTLY HURT BY HIM WHEN HE’S NOT EVEN TRYING. A SMALL PART OF HIM JUST DREADS HOW THEY’LL FARE AGAINST HIM AT HIS BEST.
AND ON TOP OF THAT?? HIM HAVING TO RELEARN IT ALL *OVER AGAIN??* AND HAVING TO ACTUALLY WORK TWICE AS HARD BECAUSE HE BROKE THEIR TRUST ONCE ALREADY????? I KNOW IM PARROTING YOUR WORDS BUT OHHHH MY GOD. IM INSANE. IM INSANE.
———
[For me, I’ve personally headcannoned it as Dusknoir being aware of his own strength. He always calculates how gentle he should treat a certain Pokémon. So he ends up having to hold back a LOT. And no one notices.]
[…Expect for Ribbon’s and Aimilios, that is.]
[They always see the slight worry mixed with concentration in Dusknoir’s expression as he gauges just how much pressure he can use when handling them. And the two always thank him for doing so.]
[In which, Dusknoir assures them that it’s nothing. It’s not like he actually cares. He’s just doing it to gain their trust more. Nevermind the fact he reminds those two to be careful. Or come to him if they sustain any really bad injuries. Or how he’s extra gentle with them specifically. It’s nothing.]
(…Is this setup for them recognizing him holding back during his fight? Is it angst potential for when those two realize just how easily Dusknoir could’ve offed them all those times they were alone with him..? >:3 maybe.)
36 notes
·
View notes
hi!! i know u talk a lot about aromanticism a lot on here, but i don’t think i’ve ever seen u talk about aromantic anthy. would u mind discussing/elaborating on it or linking to a post where u do because i’m very curious!!
i got a similar ask half a year ago or something ridiculous like that on my main blog, but i’d like to really do justice to my url right now and explain it in more concrete terms.
i will say, it’s important to bear in mind that this reading of anthy’s character is very much informed by my own experiences, and a lot of those experiences are ones im not keen to talk in depth about. but you know. let’s make some nebulous gestures towards ideas of being traumatised, being autistic, struggling to meaningfully connect with others and honestly not really wanting to do such because of how they treat you.
like ive previously said, an aromantic perspective on the world would, i think, really benefit anthy. when youve lived your whole life experiencing violence at the hands of these patriarchal structures, of which romance is absolutely one, it’s kinda like. damn. im uncomfortable buying into those ideas.
anthy also has this lovely line in ep 19 where she says to utena ‘romance either happens or it doesn’t’ and it’s just sooooooo. so very interesting to me, actually, that anthy would say something so black and white about ‘romance’, a topic that anthy knows better than a lot of rgu characters is hopelessly confused and arbitrary and often enabling violence. and utena (fellow aromantic gaybo) says 'yeah, i know, but...'. these simplifications, these elisions. what is and isn't articulated. but what? maybe things are much more complicated than we'd like to think.
anyway enough of that tangent. one thing i as a trans and aromantic person always return to when discussing trans and aromantic readings of characters/texts more broadly is that there's no singular piece of evidence that can really cement these readings as Undeniable. it's like. okay. there's a critique of romance as a patriarchal structure in revolutionary girl utena. there's an ambiguity about anthy's feelings towards characters like utena, where there is clearly a queer connection but it takes shape in unconventional and complex ways. me, i'm aromantic, i see all of these pieces and i go oh well that's because she's an aromantic lesbian. you know, there's plenty of little moments i can evidence but those moments can be used to argue for an alloromantic lesbian anthy too. romance is a very arbitrary thing and i think everyone should take their own approach to it unapologetically. of course, mine is that it's hellish and i want nothing to do with it, but im just one guy. and im okay with that. i feel strongly about this reading and it is personal, and id be dishonest to say otherwise, but i do also find that it's well-evidenced in the text. as one of my lecturers once said, don't worry about authorial intent, it isn't real <3
11 notes
·
View notes
do 2 + 12 for le lorrain pls 🥺✌️ good morning
2. Favorite canon thing about this character?
That he's 100% one of the good guys but ALSO that he's allowed to be a bit of a jerk! I love that while he says he regrets what he did to Falconi, just a few hours earlier he's right there, literally taunting him about it and being a dick. We know he still lies to ladies for attention! Despite how well that went the one time! In that other ep his dad is literally asking for his help, and sure he wants to help, but he was actually still going to say no before Cartouche stopped him because he was more focused on keeping his identity as a Cartouchien secret.
He's a nice, smart guy, and he comes off as smooth so it's not as easy to notice, but you kinda get the impression that he hasn't completely lost the asshole vibes! And i think that makes for a fun character!
(special mention to the one bit where he walks next to Demachault and messes up his wig Just For Funsies, it's so gratuitous and i just think it's funny ok)
12. What's a headcanon you have for this character?
Bisexual le Lorrain REAL. I like the idea that those aren't feelings he ever really did anything about, because ultimately he likes flirting with ladies a whole lot and that's enough for him… but maybe he had some confused feelings for his bestie Cartouche for a little bit, and maybe that's part of what made him tag along when they first met.
In general i don't really consider that orientation as something that would've influenced the way he treated Falconi back when they were rivals; for the most part i like to think that he saw that relationship more as competition initially, and that things turned sour because he couldn't stand having someone he thought of as beneath him beating him at anything. Also i see him typically being more attracted to people who are outgoing, funny and talkative, and Falconi being generally none of those things wouldn’t have helped asdfjgk (the fun point being that maybe Falconi could've been a little bit more like that if he hadn't felt like people were constantly antagonizing him)
My other headcanon is that he’s a single child ans is absolutely a mama’s boy <3 She taught him music (canon!) and maybe spoiled him a little too much.
10 notes
·
View notes