#you can still a feminist and believe in the validity of wanting children

[intersectionalpraxis]

I just emailed the United Nations Women's Office in Geneva, Amnesty International, Oxfam Canada, and Doctors Without Borders (MSF) about the lack of period care in Gaza. It is frustrating to see that international organizations have not set up a fund specifically to help Palestinian people who need this. Having one resource to help with this shortage, Motherbeing, is not enough for millions of people.

Period care is health care. I don't want anyone to tell me that emailing international organizations about this is either silly or not important because not having adequate access to this can cause serious health ramifications -from infections to illnesses and later reproductive health issues.

Pregnant women in Gaza are also continually suffering right now -of the thousands of women that were supposed to give birth over these past few months -they have not had safe and consistent access to care during their trimesters. I have spoken about this before -but we need to keep amplifying this issue as well.

Women's health in Gaza has been under under crisis for a while now, and we KNOW this is part of a zionist's larger agenda -to attack women and children especially because they see them as some of the greatest threats. So please do what you can -send those emails, call your representatives/MP's and demand a ceasefire. Demand more than adequate medical care -which includes period care -reach those in Gaza who need it.

Original post where Hind Khoudary is reporting:

To say I'm bitter-sweetly fortunate my TL has been full of feminists talking about Palestine -while at the same time I have seen a plethora publicly turn away, ignore, or remain silent on it because of money or greed or worry about their social or financial capital (celebrities and 'influencers' -we know who you are) -I'm just embarrassed for them.

When I first started my journey into feminism as a first year well over a decade ago (and as someone who used to be ignorant about so many things until I started my process of learning/unlearning/educating myself) -I am resoundingly grateful for that beginning. Being able dig into intersectional theory, listening to activists from all around the world about their struggles, passions, and efforts to liberation -and I still continue to do so.

Reading about the importance of decolonization in tandem with dismantling the heteropatriarchal capitalist machine -I always know the importance of solidarity and ally ship as a result of years of study -because the power IS with the people -and our voices do matter -the system, time and again, wants you to believe you don't. And for those feminists who aren't using their platforms or voices to encourage and demand a ceasefire -or any and all ends of systemic oppression -you have blood on your hands. Feminist and women's movements aren't meant to be something you cherry pick.

So do the bare minimum, or don't call yourselves feminists.

I also don't have a 'template' per-say, since I just wrote them out individually and edited them, but if anyone wants to me post something generic so they can make their own to send to these organizations please let me know.

#feminist #feminism #social justice #free palestine #palestine #free gaza #period care #menstrual cycle #periods #mentruation #public health #reproductive rights #reproductive health #healthcare #current events #womens issues #intersectional social justice #intersectionality #western imperialism #activism #united nations #un women #doctors without borders #gaza #gaza strip

[pillarsalt]

if this seems like a weird question feel free to ignore it! but.. if youve felt it, how do you deal with the guilt of "waking up" from transition and the narratives around it right now? i know logically in my mind that the current state of gender as a concept is a rehash/rebranding of old regressive standards, i know its not logical to do surgeries on young mentally ill and neurodivergent people who are in distress, i know that something cant be a social construct and biologically innate at the same time, and i know that the idea of "passing" or "transitioning to a woman" is misogynistic as hell, but i still feel bad for voicing or even thinking of any of it as wrong.

the majority of my friends are socially drowning in these concepts, and i cant even find any real lesbian friends, let alone someone who i might wanna date someday. i love them, but almost all of the same sex attracted women in my life hate themselves to some degree for being born women and try to seperate themselves from what they think womanhood is. it makes me feel hopeless as a detransitioned lesbian. any advice is appreciated :/

this got long so here's a cut:

I'm not a detransitioner myself, but I know there are many women on here and detrans lesbians specifically who would understand what you're going through. Anyone who'd like to reach out to anon in the notes is welcome to do so.

I do totally get what you mean about feeling guilty, even though your views are logically reasonable and feminist. Unfortunately that's by design: emotional manipulation and groupthink is how trans activism keeps people entrenched. No debate, anything that isn't immediately and entirely validating is simply evil, it's all black or white to them. There's no room for grey when just a little bit of poking and prodding can make your entire movement collapse in on itself.

I think it's quite common, I've heard it from many women, and myself included, that even after realizing the harms of gender ideology, we tend to examine ourselves and our beliefs over and over again because what if we really are evil fascists like they say we are? But every time, it turns out that no, we just care about women's rights to legal recognition and protection and equal opportunity, and patients' (especially children's) rights to responsible and ethical healthcare. Remember that when you feel you must be wrong because your opinion is currently in the minority. What's right is right, no matter how many or how few people believe it.

The other thing is, I've been watching this issue evolve for years now. I genuinely believe the tide is turning and people are seeing the misogyny inherent to this ideology. Most

In my personal life, most of my friends buy into gender ideology. A couple of them identify as nonbinary, although I'm not as close with them. It is a hard tightrope to walk. Honestly I don't get too emotionally attached, as much as I can help it, because I'm ready to lose them as friends if it comes to that. If they directly asked me my opinions I would share them, and I've always been prepared to. They never ask. I have a feeling most of them know I disagree with their views on gender but don't want to "have to" cancel/ostracize me, so the subject never comes up. Funnily enough, the friends with whom I do talk about my views openly are men. I think women, generally being socialized to care deeply about others' feelings and wellbeing, are more likely to have these feelings of guilt when going against the societally ~nice, kind, polite~ thing to do, so are more likely to stay close to the groupthink mentality of "we're good, they're bad, continue doing what we say is good and you can keep being good too". And when you see what happens socially to women who speak out against genderism, yeah it's terrifying to face that yourself.

All that to say, I get what you're feeling. It's lonely and isolating to think differently from the people around you but not feel safe to express it. Especially so for lesbians and bi women who want to date women but find that dating women now comes with the extra exhausting step of avoiding believers of gender nonsense everywhere you turn. But you are far, FAR from the only one. There are a ton of other women in your situation, they're looking for women like you. Don't give up. It's hard but it's worth it. I don't have experience with it myself, but I know of quite a few women who met on tumblr and ended up in long term irl relationships. There are also quite a few rad-related discord groups, some specifically for lesbians as well. Seriously, tumblr has become a great resource for connecting with other feminists. And even offline, there are far more women around you who think like you but are also too afraid of the backlash to speak out. Keep looking, don't give up.

#ask #i'll rb a pertinent drawing for you

[flower-zombie-rob]

Dearie you are the dense one for still pushing the lie that J.K. Rowling compared all transgenders to Death Eaters. If you bothered to actually listen to her, she compared the violent and autocratic behavior of people sending her death threats to the Death Eaters. You have some real nerve saying that radical feminists are thick-skulled when you cannot think critically and let your hatred of J.K. Rowling allow you to hear what you want to hear.

I would, once again, like to reitorate that in what context is conparing people to nazi allegorys correct in any circumstance?? If you give me an example of why this is an appropriate comparison in any context, ill listen, but as far as im aware a woman who spends her time actively hating transgender people and spreading false information about them comparing gay rights activists on twitter to fictional eugenicist murderers should be given this benefit of the doubt that you give her.

Also, she had done a plethera of things that her fans are ignoring and giving her this same benefit of the doubt idea of. She actively encourages the dead naming and outing of transgender children to their abusive households by supporting the british governments choices on that matter, in the past she has supported small businesses that sell anti-trans propaganda pins and merchandise, She has attempted to retcon her characters to be gay in an attelpt to be "progressive" while saying that there werewolf curse in her books(a thing that is pretty damn awful and that the antagonist werewolves try to spread among people) is an allegory for HIV(do i even have to explain what that is a bad thing to say??).

I call JK Rowling fans dense because they constantly choose to ignore and deny the fact that she makes her beliefs about transgender and gay people very clear constantly. People who hate her are not making things up, theyre taking what she says and the ways that she says and recieving it in the way that JK means it.

She did not compare all transgenders to death eaters. That is not what I said. Read some more and get that comprehention up "dearie." I said what was accurate, which was that she described lgbt rights activists who attack her as death eaters which are allegories for nazis and that is something she has openly said in the past. She could have said people who attacked her and she could have said people who sent her death threats but she did not. She chose the word's "trans rights activists" and "lgbt rights activists" to describe the people who attack her which actively antagonises all people within that bubble who fight for their rights and disagree with her points.

As with normal jk Rowling fans you believe that every valid criticism of hers is someone spreading a rumour because they simply don't like her but I think you fail to realise why people don't like her.

People do not hate jk Rowling because she fights for womens rights. People hate JK because she is attempting to tear down the trans and gay rights that people have fought for their entire lives for and she is a middle aged straight cis white woman using her massive fanbase to do so. If you really This have the reading comprehension that you are assuming you do in this ask I would please inform you to go and educate yourself on the ways the ways that JK Rowling's actions strongly affect not only trans youth but queer and even poc ans jewish youth today. Also, please stop reading JK rowlings twitter as your source for feminism information, people don't write genderist theory essays every day so you can ignore all reason and listen to JK rowlings version of feminism.

Thank you.

Also for someone who claims to be a radical feminist you certainly aren't against the idea of addressing someone is dearie in a patronising sense, a traditionally feminine patronism uzed against women by older men regularly. Thank you for making me uncomfortable too!

Also also, for someone so passionate about this "dearie" youre very shy in telling me your blog name and url with anon on. Almost like you dont want people to know youre a radfem. Almost like youre ashamed of it. How quaint. I on the other hand am not in any way afraid or ashamed of disliking JK and working to tear down the lies and rumours she spreads about an ultimately marginalised community of people who are attacked from all corners by the influence of people like her.

If you follow me, god help me, please unfollow because i dont want a supporter of a woman who refuses to even acknowledge and be held accountable for her transgender discrimination anywhere near my blog, which is a safe space for all. Please promptly and ploitely get off my blog, thank you.

#im so done discussing jk rowling #it just makes me so unhappy #so can you leave me alone please? #and not call me dearie that made my skin crawl

[will-o-the-witch]

If this is not uncomfortable to answer to , may I ask what's your view on Lilith?

I see a lot of opinions being shared left and right by people on tumblr and while I don't support appropriation, nor I have any interest in her as a religious/ mythological figure, your post about her sparked some curiosity inside me in terms of her being viewed solely as a monstrous entity.

I honestly don't take any myth or story about deities, spirits and so on as being 100% true. These stories are still written by humans based on their experiences, the way their mind works, their bias etc. The child killer Lilith can absolutely be a way trough people tried to explain why their children were dying, considering that during those times we had no advanced medicine and diseases were much more harder to treat and prevent.

This is pure genuine curiosity, do Jewish people approach Lilith? Are they truly that scared of her? Do almost everyone believe she is the reason why children were dying in the past ?

I frankly believe that no religious/ spiritual text holds the absolute truth of all that exists or the truth of the being/ race of beings that it is talked about in it. Humans always tried to explain (especially in the past ) why things happen by involving divine/ unseen forces, when most of the times it was just a normal phenomena that was way too hard for them to understand so boom a monster/ god must have been the cause.

If someone had a bad experience with a specific entity or they don't like what that entity represents, of course they'll paint them as a monstrous creature.

Jewish people and Jewish beliefs aren't a monolith, so there's no real answer to your question. People have a wide range of opinions about her and how much they "put stock" into her stories. The way you've described it here sounds like you imagine most people take all of this extremely literally, though, as if we missed out on learning about SIDS alongside everyone else. I'd encourage you to think of it less as a literal-fictional either-or binary and examine how the myths and the science feed into each other!

More to the point maybe though, the interpretation of her as ANYTHING other than purely malevolent is very modern. Doesn't mean valid or invalid, but it's VERY important to remember she maintained this reputation for thousands of years and it miiiight be a bad idea (even from a scholarly perspective) to assume everybody got it wrong bc they just didn't like her until the last 50-60 years. To many people, that's like putting a pretty pink bow on a wild boar.

You're not going to find ANY traditional Jewish folklore/practices that treat her as anything other than malevolent. (If you DO manage to find one from before say 1950, I will eat my kippah.) This has been her role for literally thousands of years. I'm fine when Jewish folks participate in feminist discussions about her and reinterpret the works within this context with regards to how she's played a role in our cultures, but I DONT like when gentiles then co-op these discussions to go "Yeah she was ALWAYS a feminist #icon, (((they))) just got it wrong because they're just a bunch of backwards chauvinists 💕"

From what I've seen most of the backlash about people romanticized her comes from people just wanting to adopt the feelgoody vibes from the latter. The one where she's totally #unproblematic and anything troubling can be explained away, ignoring her massive amount of historical context/90% of everything ever written about her.

SOME Jews will work with her, but most of the ones I know stay far the hell away from her. There's no such thing as a Universal Truth, but people earn their reputations for a reason.

[incognitoradicale]

honestly the thing is no matter what I will ultimately do, whether it is detransitioning (and to what extent) or not, whether I will call myself just feminist,radfem, marxfem or whatever is something I can not foresee,just as I never saw myself 5 years ago in the position I am now. Maybe I will have gone back to using my birth name and will have changed legal documents and whatnot. Maybe I will stay as I am now - but acknowledge my femaleness nonetheless.

What I do think right now is that the trans movement as a whole is at a massive crossroads and needs a reality check and not just mindless validation at the cost of hurting women but realism.

I personally do believe that sex dysphoria does exist and transition can, I want to emphasize the word CAN, canbe a valid treatment. But to deny any of the facts of sex based oppression that women face and to be like 'dont question the science' validation cult bs while the science is still being evaluated and is subject to change is stupid and the fact that even that can already get you labeled transphobic and whatnot aggravates me. I personally do not think children should access medical treatment and lockdown coming outs have especially shown me how there needs to be a system to make sure people really explore and don't just make hasty decisions (as someone from Germany it was shocking for me to read how easily Americans can access hrt or surgeries while also intentionally being kept in the dark about its effects,here it is slowly being loosened which I dislike but it is much more rigorous here). I think prisons and sports are extremely important subjects, and not just sidelines. I think it is important to center women's feelings in these aspects and not keep them unsafe just to validate some feelsies.

To suppress any conversation,any debate on the topic of transgender because of fears of "hurt" (speaking from personal experience here, in the local left scene there was a debate of exactly that) to see if there is a way to find common ground instead of just hurling insults (which funnily enough,those who accused the speaker of transphobia did,they just hurled insults and accusations)

Ultimately,in an ideal society that we have not yet achieved, the patriarchy and as one of the forms of it gender (which I understand a system of oppression of women) does not exist. Bodies will be appreciated in their natural form. But the thing is,we are not there yet. The world is yet subject to change and I have a feeling the next few years will be crucial.

I don't know if I will look back at this in the future and think "Jesus was I naive". I am still growing and learning.

What I am thinking right now is "Jesus fuck please sleep"

#little vent for ma brain #i love how i went from stupid vent to writing half a fucking essay.

[homeiswherethewitchcraftis]

I clicked ur blog initially b/c I saw you rebloging some aesthetic pictures and that ur blog was witchy. Read some of ur post and I see ur a tradwife. most of you guys I’ve seen online have been pretty hateful, (extremists, far-right, and usually a terf) so I normally just ignore the stuff I see but I was curious if you could explain to me how you view this stuff since you don’t seem to be the things I’ve listed above for the most part. /gen

(Not trying to be rude just curious)

Well thank you for asking instead of just sending hate/ threats like most people who come to my blog thinking it's just trees and witchcraft and are "disappointed " to realize I hold opinions the disagree with lol.

I am not a tradwife, I am tradfem I no longer consider myself a traditional wife because I unfortunately have gotten a divorce in the last year. I still discuss tradwives, traditional gender roles and the lifestyle because it is important to me.

While there may be hateful people in trad circles they (like in most groups) are the minority. Most people who consider themselves trad just want to live as traditionally as possible they believe in traditional gender roles and often simple living. Many traditional people want to return to more sustainable lifestyles things like homesteading or just growing a "victory garden " etc. Many trad women feel we face to much pressure to leave our children and work outside the home even when not needed and that this pressure is detrimental to women, children and communities.

As for myself I believe traditional gender roles are based on natural roles. I have been pressured and bullied for this and for wanting to stay home with my kids. I'm not going to speak for everyone who uses these labels just myself and what I've seen from these communities both on and offline.

Most Trad people are right leaning politically unfortunately in today's political climate being moderately right leaning is considered "extremists " so forgive me if I do not take that claim very seriously.

Additionally there is an array of different political opinions and beliefs that are considered right leaning. Not all Trad people would consider themselves conservative some like my self are libertarian for example.

As for the claim that Trad women are terfs that makes no sense. Terf stands for trans exclusionary Radical feminist, most Trad women aren't feminists especially not Radical feminists. Again this is not a claim I take seriously simply because it is used to describe any criticism of a trans individual or of trans activism.

Personally I have no issues with trans individuals who are decent people I may disagree with them but I don't hate them and at the end of the day grown adults can do what they want with their bodies.

I have plenty of issues with trans activism and the response to it I our society .

The idea that small children can decide to be the opposite gender is insane to me considering kids at those ages still pretend to be dogs and dragons. This has also led to parents losing custody and false claims of abuse against parents who do not affirm these kids feelings which is a major issue. Schools going against parents and even pushing children and teens towards lgbt labels especially trans labels is an issue.

There is no safe way to stop puberty the harm caused by puberty blockers is long lasting and not openly discussed due to the nature of trans activism. Also it's not discrimination to not sleep with or want to sleep with a trans person. Women don't need to feel safe have males in their female only spaces. And most importantly Valid criticisms and genuine concerns are not hate.

I hope I've addressed your questions and I hope you feel free to ask more message me for clarification or to discuss further I am happy to do so However I may not get to your messages or asks quickly as I am working and dealing with the after math of hurricane Ian. ected please help out your neighbors.

[phoenixlionme]

Fav Tropes and Why

All Loving Hero - Many people in the fandoms and IRL think someone who believes in kindness and love is “weak”. I call BS on that statement. It’s easy to believe being cruel and/or edgy is “mature” but it’s not. Willingly choosing to be good in a world where others tell you to stop is the pinnacle of strength and resilience.

Amazon Chaser - Seeing a (usually male) character be smitten with a female’s character battle prowess and/or fiery attitude is *chef’s kiss*.

Babies Ever After - What can I say? I love seeing my favorite OTPs having a child and/or children together. It makes me think back to the beginning and progress of their love.

Badass Family - The family that kicks ass together is the family that will ALWAYS worm their way into my heart.

Beware The Nice Ones - Seeing a normally nice and gentle character go APESHIT when pushed too far will never get old.

Big Brother (Big Sister) Instinct - Protective siblings for the win.

Bittersweet Ending - Sometimes you want a straight up happy ending but life doesn’t happen like that. In reality, the best you can get is half happy and half sad. It’s bittersweet for a reason.

Childhood Friend Romance - It’s just a sweet concept. Two people who have known each other all their lives, falling for each other, and then forming a romance is absolutely wonderful. Marrying your best friend and true love at the same time? PEAK ROMANCE.

Cool Big Sis (Bro) - Having caring, loving, encouraging older sibling figures is PEAK SEROTONIN.

Dark And Troubled Past - Hearing a person’s troubled life can better humanize them to the audience. Me included.

Feminist Fantasy - In short, this trope is about a fantasy and/or scifi story featuring a female protagonist and/or large female cast. And many of people’s favorite shows/movies fall into this category.

Handicapped Badass - I believe I was introduced to this trope when I was graced with ultimate presence of THE best earthbender of ATLA/Tlok, one of THE well-written characters in history (animated or live-action), and one my ultimate fav characters: Toph Bei Fong. She was a blind girl but she was able to use what people perceived as a weakness to be her greatest strength.

Hard Truth Aesop - Something needed in a lot of media. Sometimes the moral of a story isn’t as straightforward as meany would like it to be. It makes life more complicated and nuanced.

Interspecies Romance - I think my liking of this trope aka “Monster Boyfriend/Girlfriend/Romance” started with one of my favorite disney movies: The Beauty and The Beast (the OG one). Seeing a huge, monstrous being (who is ironically still quite good looking) having a tender and loving romance with their human lover is peak romance. Like Guillermo del Toro, I am all for monster romances.

Mama Bear - The woman who birthed you for roughly 9 months, is ready to go through all hell to protect you. Good parenting.

Papa Wolf - Similar to the Mama Bear trope, a dad going beast mode to protect his child/children is good parenting at its’ finest.

Platonic Life Partners - Despite popular belied, it IS possible for male and females friends to be and stay just like that: FRIENDS. And it’s not “lesser” than

The Reason You Suck Speech - Whether they’re the hero or villain, a rant meant to call them out on their shortcoming and how said shortcoming keep hurting the goal and/or other people is great. It makes either the hero grow or makes the villain get their final comeuppance.

Took A Level In Badass - Watching the progress of how a wimpy, unskilled character transform into a badass is freakin’ awesome. Either they become badass in skill, personality, and/or both are all equally awesome.

Watched It For the Representation - I don’t care what some pretentious, attention0-seeking jerks say...Hearing another person reveal how empowering and validating it felt seeing someone similar to them (i.e., race, sexuality, body type, etc.) is great to see.

#tropes #fav #links

[fakeboitherottengirl]

People are too obsessed with the idea of a pure community like u can tell me every bad thing radfems ever did and every time a feminist got in bed with the far right or the thousands of anti choice “women’s groups” that pretend to be legit feminist organizations or any time a female in power did something corrupt or about every feminist girl u knew in college who went on to hook up with a cop on Tinder and you’re still not going to change my core belief that a woman is an adult human female because that belief doesn’t come from my investment in the community, it come from taking logical stock of things. I literally disowned the radfem community at large over a year ago due mainly to the rampant ableism/eugenics support and their views on art censorship and media consumption, I don’t believe what I believe because the people I’ve claimed as my tribe believe it, I believe it bc it makes an iota of sense as opposed to these weird pseudo religious ideas of gender-souls magically trapped in the wrong body. But I’ve lived as a trans person, and as a non-binary person, and even though I now accept the female label I’m gender non conforming and dysphoric and don’t really pass as cis for either gender due to an intersex condition, it’s not like I made these observations and conclusions from the outside, the biggest thing that drove me into leaning more rad than liberal was the fact that trans men get sacrificed on the alter of trans women’s validation by being forced into male spaces where we are in danger. I was involved in some shady business at that point and going to jail was a real possibility and I thought to myself “do I want to be housed in a male prison” and that was what cracked the egg of detransition, along with the Jenner fiasco and all the offensive things Jenner said about womanhood and the radfem community’s encouragement that it was alright to just be a masculine female I didn’t need to be changed or fixed or chop my tits off (although I now have lifelong diminished lung capacity and back problems from years of binding both “safe” and “unsafe”) like I’m not “trans exclusive” I identified as some form of trans for most of my life I have dysphoria, even living as female I’m still more trans than the green haired pixie cut kids who think u don’t even need gender dysphoria to be trans, if somebody was looking to beat up a trans person they wouldn’t not beat me up when I said “ackshully I’m GNC” like I’m not living some life of happy cis privilege and while my theory leans more rad than lib I don’t claim the radfem community so I’m not trans exclusive and I’m not a radfem but I’m a “terf” because I don’t want children chemically castrated because they want to play with a certain toy or wear their hair a certain way and think womanhood is a biological fact instead of a feeling. The fact that I think trans people should be indulged and allowed to live their lives with safety and dignity doesn’t matter, I literally hate them and want them dead because I disagree that medical transition is the best choice for every trans person in every case and suggest that maybe we should do better than treating the mental illness of dysphoria with cosmetic surgery (which don’t think for a SECOND that the medical industrial complex isn’t absolutely LOVING this progressive new way to make and keep lifelong patients). Like are you arguing in bad faith or do you really think “I’m going to kill a tranny faggot” and “I believe there are situations where birth sex matters” are the same thing being said by the same people?

[genderisareligion]

www.tumblr.com/thepaininurneck/718782773061713921/

It is honestly incredible how either extremely unaware, or intentionally obtuse these people can get about what Radical Feminists actually believe and *why* they believe it. They can't get bothered to look up why we state with statistical and scientific points that any system meant to comodify, monetizise, objectify and sexualize women and children is wrong and shouldn't exist nor have inmense power, no matter how much it may make some very few ones "feel good" individually when it still cause more pain and suffering to the mayority regardless.

But then again, it is honestly very rich to expect any kind of nuance about women and children rights and oppression from the almost cultish community/ideology whose main fundament it's that as long as you don't physically hurt with your very own hands women, children, animal, and even homosexuals. Then your fixation, endorsement and promotion of Rape, VAW, Child abuse, homosexual fetishization, zoophilia, bdsm and all kinds of abusive porn it's okay and valid and even inherently "Queer" ://

What I've decided to call "Hussie's Law" strikes again, the worst opinions you've ever read on here will always be from behind a Homestuck icon...

How the fuck are we authoritarians? Lol what are we doing to "actively take away rights that others choose for themselves" - seriously, I've never seen a group of people that misunderstands what the fuck critical thinking is this hard. They think any criticism towards an ideology they subscribe to means that critic wants to control their every move or wants them dead. The drama....

Where are the laws radical feminists have enacted against others? On the reproductive front or in general? Like deadass this is also a read, like since the second wave ended we haven't gained much legally for a number of reasons that aren't all our fault don't get me wrong. Been on radblr a decade and always seen us be aggressively pro abortion but we're not enough of a force that Roe still fell.

Surrogacy is CRITCIZED by radical feminists for the patriarchal roots of the practice but criticism does not equal force and I personally would be against laws banning it at this point same way I don't think banning cosmetic surgery should be okay even though I'm wildly critical of the patriachal roots of that practice.

"Tattoos"??? They actively mistake us with trad women and don't realize how stupid it is to then immediately turn around and claim to hate us for being dick repulsed lesbians.

#shadow.txt #ask.txt

[kiefbowl]

here's something I believe that I think some people who follow me are not going to like to hear: TERFs are a moral panic, and it's going to end like a moral panic.

like 99.99% of moral panics just sort of fizzle out and then a select fringe of people still hold onto those beliefs. like there are still people living in the satanic panic heyday in their minds even today, but the normies moved on and what’s more don’t even remember participating. not to be a big bummer but that’s what’s going to happen with a lot of the terf/trans rhetoric. like those who have gone all in with trans rhetoric about sex is mutable and girl brain and w/e will probably hold on to those beliefs but get savvy about talking about it when tides shift. people who care now about feminism and homophobia are going to still care in 10 years. but people who are uncritical about the things they read about "terfs" and accept wholesale any trans activism b/c it feels liberal enough are just going to move on eventually and when news comes out about the wrongs of child transition and the regret people have about their transitions etc etc, they're not going to come out and say sorry to you. they won't remember sending you an anon when they were 14, or they won't remember the dumb comment fights they got into on stupid facebook posts about jkr or bathrooms or whatever. they're going to go "huh, wonder why no one was talking about that then, oh well. I always knew something was fishy" and then move on.

no one talks seriously about the occult anymore except extremist christians and yet some people still believe in suppressed memory and DID despite the lack of scientific evidence, and the connection between the two are not well understood by the general public because the abuse of power psychiatry took on it's patients during and because of the satanic panic has been swept under the rug.

as a feminist targeted by this moral panic, you really just have to be convicted in your own beliefs and try your best to live them out and stop expecting validation one way or the other from people. no one is going to apologize to "terfs" in 10 years. feminism has been the target of moral panics each and every new "wave." people are invested in hating feminism because they hate women. the people who still believe in women rushing the street burning their bras despite that never happening don't believe it because they have evidence, they believe it because they want to confirm the bias they already have. people have a bias about women anyway, so they are ready to believe that there are a group of women who are somehow simultaneously both the hairy man hating lesbians and 1950s housewives who just hate hate hate trans people and made up discourse to exclude them from feminist resources of which no one can define because people don't want to look further than that and don't care it doesn't make sense, they just go "see? I knew feminism has been secretly ran by bad, crazy women all these years. yes, rights for women, but do we have to be so angry and mean about it? chill out women!!" and in 10 year when Time magazine releases an award winning article about the "lost children" of transgenderism that barely mentions anything feminists did or said, people are just going to go "wow, who could have thought" and make literally 0 connection to terfs. you could probably say to them "remember terfs?" and they would be like "wow that was wild, yeah!! they were crazy feminists glad they died out" despite that not being even remotely close to what has happened since terfs aren't real and the things feminists believe won't fundamentally change in the future. they aren't keeping tabs on feminists, they're only keeping tabs on their twitter feed.

#posted unedited lmao #idc and don't really want this to blow up #it's more for the gender crit baby fems following me

[tyrannuspitch]

Jumping off @kidrat​ ’s recent post on JKR, British transphobia, and transphobia against transmasculine people, after getting a bit carried away and too long to add as a comment:

A major, relatively undiscussed event in JKR’s descent into full terfery was this tweet:

[image id: a screenshot of a tweet from JK Rowling reading: “’People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”

Rowling attaches a link to an article titled: “Opinion: Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate” /end id]

This can seem like a pretty mundane TERF talking point, just quibbling over language for the sake of it, but I think it’s worth discussing, especially in combination with the idea that cis women like JKR see transmasculine transition as a threat to their womanhood. (Recite it with horror: ”If I were young now, I might’ve transitioned...”)

A lot of people, pro- or anti-transphobe, will make this discussion about whether the term “woman” should include trans women or not, and how cis women are hostile to the inclusion of trans women. And that’s absolutely true. But the actual language cis women target is very frequently being changed for the benefit of trans men, not trans women, and most of them know this.

Cis people are used to having their identities constantly reaffirmed and grounded in their bodies. A lot of cis women, specifically, understand their social and physical identities as women as being defined by pain: misogynistic oppression is equated to the pains of menstruation or childbirth, and both are seen as the domain of cis women. They’re something cis women can bond over and build a “sisterhood” around, and the more socially aware among them can recognise that cis women’s pain being taken less seriously by medicine is not unrelated to their oppression. However, in the absence of any trans perspectives, these conversations can also easily become very territorial and very bioessentialist.

Therefore... for many cis women, seeing “female bodies” described in gender neutral language feels like stripping their pain of its meaning, and they can become very defensive and angry.

And the consequences for transmasculine people can be extremely dangerous.

Not only do transmasculine people have an equal right to cis women to define our bodies as our own... Using inclusive language in healthcare is about more than just emotional validation.

The status quo in healthcare is already non-inclusive. When seeking medical help, trans people can expect to be misgendered and to have to explain how our bodies work to the doctors. We risk harassment, pressure to detransition, pressure to sterilise ourselves, or just being outright turned away. And the conversation around pregnancy and abortion in particular is heaving with cisnormativity - both feminist and anti-feminist cis women constantly talk about pregnancy as a quintessentially female experience which men could never understand.

Using gender-neutral language is the most basic step possible to try and make transmasculine people safer in healthcare, by removing the idea that these are “women’s spaces”, that men needing these services is impossible, and that safety depends on ideas like “we’re all women here”. Not institutionally subjecting us to misgendering and removing the excuse to outright deny us treatment is, again, one of the most basic steps that can be taken. It doesn’t mean we’re allowed comfort, dignity or full autonomy, just that one major threat is being addressed. The backlash against this from cis women is defending their poorly developed senses of self... at the cost of most basic dignity and safety for transmasculine people.

Ironically, though transphobic cis women feel like decoupling “women’s experiences” from womanhood is decoupling them from gendered oppression, transmasculine people experience even more marginalisation than cis women. Our rates of suicide and assault are even higher. Our health is even less researched than cis women’s. Our bodies are even more strictly controlled. Cis women wanting to define our bodies on their terms is a significant part of that. They hold the things we need hostage as “women’s rights”, “women’s health”, “women’s discussions” and “support for violence against women”, and demand we (re-)closet ourselves or lose all of their solidarity.

Fundamentally, the problem is that transphobic cis women are possessive over their experiences and anyone who shares them. Because of their binary understanding of gender, they’re uncomfortable with another group sharing many of their experiences but defining themselves differently. They’re uncomfortable with transmasculine people identifying “with the enemy” instead of “with their sisters”, and they’re even more uncomfortable with the idea that there are men in the world who they oppress, and not the other way around. “Oppression is for women; you can’t call yourself a man and still claim women’s experiences. Pregnancy is for women; if you want to be a man so badly why haven’t already you done something about having a woman’s body? How dare you abandon the sisterhood while inhabiting one of our bodies?”

Which brings me back to the TERF line about how “If I were young now, I might have transitioned.”

I’m not saying Rowling doesn’t actually feel any personal connection to that narrative - but it is a standard line, and it’s standard for a reason. Transphobic cis women really believe that there is nothing trans men go through that cis women don’t. They equate our dysphoria to internalised misogyny, eating disorders, sexual abuse or other things they see as “female trauma”. They equate our desire to transition to a desire to escape. They want to “help us accept ourselves” and “save us” from threats to their sense of identity. The fact is, this is all projection. They refuse to consider that we really have a different internal experience from them.

There’s also a marked tendency among less overtly transphobic cis women, even self-proclaimed trans allies, to make transphobia towards trans men about cis women.

Violence against trans men is chronically misreported and redefined as “violence against women”. In activist spaces, we’re frequently told that any trauma we have with misogyny is “misdirected” and therefore “not really about us”. If we were women, we would’ve been “experiencing misogyny”, but men can’t do that, so we should shut up and stop “talking over women”. (Despite the surface difference of whether they claim to affirm our gender, this is extremely similar to how TERFs tell us that everything we experience is “just misogyny”, but that transmasculine identity is a delusion that strips us of the ability to understand gender or the right to talk about it.)

I have personally witnessed an actual N*zi writing an article about how trans men are “destroying the white race” by transitioning and therefore becoming unfit to carry children, and because the N*zi had misgendered trans men in his article, every response I saw to it was about “men controlling women’s bodies”.

All a transphobe has to do is misgender us, and the conversation about our own oppression is once again about someone else.

Transphobes will misgender us as a form of violence, and cis feminist “allies” will perpetuate our misgendering for rhetorical convenience. Yes, there is room to analyse how trans men are treated by people who see us as women - but applying a simple “men oppressing women” dynamic that erases our maleness while refusing to even name transphobia or cissexism is not that. Trans men’s oppression is not identical to cis women’s, and forcing us to articulate it in ways that would include cis women in it means we cannot discuss the differences.

It may seem like I’ve strayed a long way from the original topic, and I kind of have, but the central reason for all of these things is the same:

Trans men challenge cis women’s self-concept. We force them to actually consider what manhood and womanhood are and to re-analyse their relationship to oppression, beyond a simple binary patriarchy. 

TERFs will tell you themselves that the acknowledgement of trans people, including trans men, is an “existential threat” that is “erasing womanhood” - not just our own, but cis women’s too. They hate the idea that biology doesn’t determine gender, and that gender does not have a strict binary relationship to oppression. They’re resentful of the idea that they could just “become men”, threatened by the assertion that doing so is not an escape, and completely indignant at the idea that their cis womanhood could give them any kind of power. They are, fundamentally, desperate not to have to face the questions we force them to consider, so they erase us, deflect from us, and talk over us at every opportunity.

Trans men are constantly redefined against our wills for the benefit of cis womanhood.

TL;DR:

Cis women find transmasculine identity threatening, because we share experiences that they see as foundational to their womanhood

The fact that transphobes target inclusive language in healthcare specifically is not a mistake - They do not want us to be able to transition safely

Cis women are uncomfortable acknowledging transphobia, so they make discussion of trans men’s oppression about “womanhood” instead

This can manifest as fully denying that trans men experience our own oppression, or as pretending trans men’s experiences are identical to cis women’s in every way

#transphobia #transmasculinity #transandrophobia #this could maybe do with one more proofread but i've spent way too long on this so whatever!

[aggressive-positivity-network]

So I (A white cisgender heterosexual woman who likes pumpkin spice lattes and Animal Crossing, so yeah) grew up in a very, VERY LGBTQ+-phobic household, and that translated into me having basically no knowledge on the LGBTQ+ community. Could you do me a massive favor and just lay out straight the words and phrases and generally help a dumbass out?

Oooh, no problem! And believe me, you aren’t a dumbass. I knew next to nothing for a while, and I grew up in a very supportive household. I just didn’t have the means to learn about it.

Here’s a phrasebook for some common phrases you might hear:

TERF: Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist; they believe that trans women should not be included in their fight for gender equality, and that because trans woman “used to be men” they shouldn’t be allowed in women safe spaces because they might rape someone. Sooo yeah. Keep away from them. They are pretty nasty and misguided. Also known as radfems.

Pansexual: Attracted sexually to anyone of any gender identity.

Panromantic: Attracted romantically to anyone of any gender identity

Bisexual: Attracted sexually to two or more genders.

Biromantic: Attracted romantically to two or more genders

Pan/Bi Discourse: Some people think pansexual and bisexual should become one or the other because they’re very similar to each other, but whether you identify as either of them is a personal choice, and you shouldn’t let anyone dictate your identity - ever. You can even be both at the same time, if you choose to identify that way! Honestly, it isn’t that big of a deal which one you choose, as long as you feel comfortable between them!

Demisexual/Demiromantic: Needs to form a strong emotional bond with someone before pursuing a romantic or sexual relationship. They probably wouldn’t enjoy speed-dating or sleeping with someone they just met. They might not experience sexual attraction for someone unless they knew the person very well.

Asexual: Does not feel sexual attraction for anyone; however, they still might like to have sex, may be neutral about sex, or might even be repulsed by it. Most people confuse this with chastity (not choosing to have sex, usually for religious reasons) or abstinence (choosing not to have sex until married). However, they still might get horny, or want to pleasure themselves. The usual difference is having it with another person. If they see a hot guy, for example, the immediate thought may be, “Wow they’re attractive,” rather than, “Have my babies.”

Aromantic: Does not feel romantic attraction for anyone; this may mean that usual romantic relationships don’t appeal to the person, or that shows of romance (flowers, dates, etc.) doesn’t appeal to them. However, they can still have very strong platonic relationships, and still do enjoy sex, but might not develop crushes or want to go on a date with someone. They might marry platonically, or marry romantically on certain terms.

Grey/Graysexual: Anyone who is in that “gray” space between being asexual and being sexual. They might like the idea of sex, but hate the product. They might have fantasies they’d like to live out in the bedroom, but not actual sex. They might like sex, but under certain conditions. People have their own names for the different facets of graysexuality, but are all under this umbrella.

Grey/Grayromantic: Anyone in that “gray” space between romantic and aromantic. They might like huge shows of romance in novels, but wouldn’t be a fan of it happening to them. They might have a crush on a person, but would never be in a relationship with them, even if asked. Graysexuality also has different names for different facets, but it’s still all under this umbrella.

Queer: Usually used as a temporary or even permanent label for when someone is still trying to figure things out. They know that there is something inside of them that’s different - but they’re not quite sure yet.

Non-binary: People who are neither male nor female, and are outside the gender spectrum. A few have androgynous (gender-neutral) styles or body types, but no matter what they wear or what they look like, they are still non-binary!

Trans: Someone who was born gender, but knows in their heart that they are another. Someone may be born a boy, but always feel like a girl, vice versa, or both genders may change to non-binary, bigender, genderqueer, or genderfluid. Being trans simply means you are making the physical and/or mental transition from one gender or another.

Transmasc: A trans person that presents as masculine, with both clothes and manner.

Transfemme: A trans person that presents as feminine, with both clothes and gender.

Bigender: Someone who identifies as male sometimes and female sometimes.

Genderfluid: Someone who drifts from one end of the binary spectrum (male on one side, female on the other) and may have several sets of pronouns. They may feel more feminine one day, more masculine another, and somewhere in between later that week.

AMAB: Assigned Male At Birth; this has no bearing on current gender identity, but it’s medically useful and can help trans people talk about themselves before they transition.

AFAB: Assigned Female At Birth; this has no bearing on current gender identity, but it’s medically useful and can help trans people talk about themselves before they transition.

Two-Spirit: A Native American who identifies as the traditional third gender, with both a masculine and a feminine spirit inside of them. It’s a pretty new term, and not all Indigenous people choose to label themselves or others that way.

Femme: A woman who dresses and acts in a traditionally feminine way.

Butch: A woman who dresses and acts in a traditionally masculine way.

Beard: Describes a partner in a relationship that exists for the purpose of keeping someone’s true sexual attraction status a secret. A gay man might have a relationship with a woman, who would be considered his beard.

Queerplatonic Relationship: A relationship that is a mixture of the traditional platonic relationship and the traditional romantic relationship. People included in this relationship can raise children and own a house together, but most likely won’t participate in sexual and/or romantic activities.

Polyamorous Relationship: A relationship that includes three or more people at any given time. This may look like a couple having an open relationship, where they can date others as they please, or it may be a set few people that stay together. Two people can be attracted to one other person, three people can all be attracted to each other, two couples can have sexual or romantic relations with each other’s partner - there are infinite combinations, and, as long as it’s healthy, they’re all valid!

I hope this helps! This is not an exhaustive list, but these are pretty much the basics and a little bit more. If you have any specific term you’d like me to define, I’d be more than happy to! Also, if I got any wrong, please feel free to correct me, and I’ll edit the post as soon as I can!

Also, who’s your favorite Animal Crossing character? I like Blathers a lot! Nerds and professors have my entire heart.

#lgbtpeople #lgbtq rights #lgbtq positivity #lgbtq+ #lgbtqiia+ #lgbt representation #lgbtq community #lgbtq #lgbtqplus #send asks #send anons #lovely anons

[marisandini-chu-blog]

Bruce Wayne is a Simp for Bad Bitch

OmG I can’t believe I’m writing the obvious but the idea is in my head and I need a place to word vomit. 

Okay, so it occurred to me that Bruce has a more serious and intense relationship canonically with three women, as far as I know; Andrea Beaumont, Talia Al’ghul, and Selina Kyle. All of whom are the epitome of Bad Bitch with the capital B. (Yes, I’m ignoring Rachel Dawes from Nolanverse. The only thing I like about it is the Iconic Joker. No batman movie is good enough without the Batfam.) 

Why do I raise this point, you might ask? Well, that’s because I want to rant that Bruce, my boy, my man, my childhood comfort character is actually a SIMP?!?!

Like... I’m just... urgh.... okay... I am very vocal for a healthy relationship with commitment and based on mutual love and respect. So the fact that Bruce has only bad, iffy, or casual relationships really want to tear my hair out. And why my heart don’t want to ship with any of them, even though BatCat is one of my favorite pairing! 

I am a WonderBat shipper because I love watching them in JLAU as a kid and even though I’m not slash shipper unless it’s canon, SuperBat made much more sense to me. Heck even a threesome with the Trinity would have been healthier relationship rather than whatever Bruce had with the three of them and here’s why: 

You might not have heard of Andrea, but she’s canon from the Timmverse movie called Batman and the Mask of Phantasm which is A REALLY GREAT MOVIE. Totally recommend. One of the best Batman movie at all times (Yes, I say Batman movies not Batman Animated movies). Has great plot twist and good pacing. so Spoiler Alert! Andrea was Bruce’s fiancé, making her possibly Bruce’s first love, before his journey and possibly could have stop him from becoming Batman (I would say he’s a simp in this case, but he would have had a much more happier, healthy household so it’s not bad thing) if she hadn’t disappear for being a Mob Boss’ Daughter!!! 

I repeat, a mob boss’ daughter. 

And she came back only to be a mask avenging assassin that went toe-to-toe with Batman.

And she could have choose to stay with Bruce but she didn’t because she choose vengeance over him. Like.... Bats, you should stop with the “I am Vengeance” routine you’ve got going on because she does it better than you ngl. 

So she left and I cried at the end of that movie because trauma wasn’t enough, you put heartbreak after heartbreak to my boy. Thanks DC. 

Then there’s Fucking Talia Al’ghul which is a no brainer why she’s not Bad but BAD. Like, Talia groom Jason, supervise Damian’s harsh, brutal, and abusive training, control Damian through the implant spine to kill Dick, orders Damian execution before regretting it, DRUG BRUCE when CONCEIVING DAMIAN!!! And that’s only the top of my head. 

And if you want to blame it on Morrison’s writing, THAT’S FINE. We’ve bitched about Tom King’s writing enough to know it’s valid. 

But, BUT, bUt... it needs to be address that even before Morrison, Talia CHOOSE to stay in the League of Assassin. People can tell me that she’s a complex character that’s loyal to her father but love Bruce and that her upbringing makes her complicated or whatever. Nuh-uh. You don’t get to make Talia helpless when it suited you. Talia is a fucking Bad Bitch (TM). She’s been taught to do whatever the fuck she wants according to her belief and ideal. At some point, Talia knew she wanted to be in position of power in the League rather than staying with Bruce. 

But it’s canon that Talia, if I remember correctly, doesn’t like Gotham or Bruce’s mission. She thinks being a hero is beneath them or whatever. And doesn’t understand why Gotham is special to Bruce. So yeah, you might not agree how Morrisons write her. But do not fucking tell me she’s not a character who will not be willing to do what she thinks it’s necessary to get what she wants, including training her son as an assassin. I mean, she likes being the Demon’s Daughter in the league. She may not agree with her father but Talia wants to give Damien what she wants. Power.  

Talia loves Bruce. That’s a fact. He’s probably the only person that makes her feel like she’s a person instead of the Demon’s Daughter. Bruce has a knack for that. To make people want to be better, even just a little. Talia could have chosen him, if she wanted to. The fact that she helps him so much when fighting against her father numerous times is proof enough. 

I'm highly suspecting the reason she stays is because she knows Bruce would always forgive her (SIMP ALERT) unlike her father who would straight up stab her if she ever betrays him.

I’m not saying there’s no love for her son, I’m just saying if she even looks at the batfam funny than I will raise my flamethrower on that bitch’s face. Because you can’t rely on Bruce on that. That man would give bullshit excuse for her or want to handle her himself because your “history” with her makes you entitled.  

Aaaah, don’t you just love it when there’s a great villain you can hate on so much?

I'm not saying she can't be a good person. Pre-morisson made Talia more of an anti-hero. But I do like Talia "I'mma cut a bitch" al'ghul. It's just... I like ruthless Bad Bitch like her. Though preferably she could have balance it with more of her maternal side through Damian.

Okay, I’m getting off tangent. Now comes to my favorite girl. Catwoman. Selina Kyle. The famous ship of all Bruce’s relationship sans SuperBat. 

I... am conflicted the most about this. 

See, Selina is one of the few people who understands Bruce. Who was there when he needed a shoulder to rely on. Someone who doesn’t take Bruce’s shit, and one of the constant person in Bruce’s life. 

But not... constant enough. Which is a theme of her, even in her fursona... I, I mean PERSONA, PERSONA!!! 

Anyway, I love seeing these two broken people. One handles it with violence and vigilantism, the other through thieving with a Robinhood-esque thing going on. So of course they get each other. It always helps that they try to make each other better. Selina taught Bruce to be okay of being selfish of wanting to be happy, and Bruce believed there’s good in her that makes her feel she’s not a hopeless case, y’know? It’s even canon that in one universe, they’re married and have daughter, Helena Wayne. So... yeah? Happy end! (Until they died but that’s non issue here at the moment.) 

Then Tom King (Urgh, him again) wrote Bat proposing to Cat, and by the time they’re about to be married. Selina left him at the altar. 

So yeah. 

But then they get metaphysically? Figuratively? married after the Flashpoint which they turn Thomas Wayne into a villain (At least make him from alternate universe instead of timeline!!!) and kill Alfred (WhYYYYYY?! Bruce suffered enough why do you go kill both his fathers dammit!!! Let the goddamn butler rest in peace). And basically Selina and Bruce promise each other forever. Which is sweet. BatCat Forever, am I right??? 

Yeah, here’s the problem. (And I’m just nitpicking here, okay). For all Tom King’s character assassination of Bruce, he did Selina right in one thing. Which is the fact she doesn’t like being tied down by anything.

If Talia puts importance in power. Selina puts importance in freedom and her self-independence. 

I remember as a kid watching BTAS, that Selina didn’t want a relationship with batman if it meant changing who she is. So when Selina left the altar, I wasn’t surprise at the news. Then she actually agreed to marry him, only this time, she didn’t need a judge or a paper to make the marriage legit, y’know. And I thought, yeah that’s so her. 

But the thing is Bruce. Accepts. Her. Every. Single. Time. 

Without a single thought. She asked, “Do you still want to get married?” and he asked “When?” 

Even though it’s not the first that Cat leaves him hanging. 

Tell me he’s not a simp for that. 

It’s great that he accepts her for everything she is. But I’m conflicted because Selina stays static. She stays with the cat theme in the fact she doesn’t want to held back by anything. She takes what she wants. She loves who she loves. And no one was gonna change her. But then where’s the character growth? 

Is it regressive of me to think Selina should be ‘tied down’ or express commitment when she never has been tied down before even though she loves Bruce? 

Is it not-feminist of me to think Selina has to change herself for a man? 

I just don’t like the fact Bruce and Selina enables their masked persona. Their relationship is strongly base on their cat-and-mouse chase. They nicknamed each other “Bat” and “Cat” for God’s sake. Even though yes, it’s canon that “Batman” and “Catwoman” is their real selves and their civilian life is their masks. Heck, she didn’t go for the altar because she believed (though manipulated) that making Bruce happy would make Batman insufficient, or losing him entirely (Thank Tom King for that). 

That would be true, and stay true if not for one thing. Which is some thing what Bruce has that Selina doesn’t: 

The Batfam.

Bruce’s real identity isn’t just the Batman anymore. He has to be a single father with growing children he never plan to adopt but did anyway because they needed each other. He can’t use his batman persona to be a father at his house, but he will when training them to be his partner. His family became the strength to Bruce’s fight for Justice. 

Bruce is the Batman, but he’s not everything who he is. Selina is supposed to be part of the batfamily yet sadly, I haven’t read or watch anything that has her interact with them in a positive way or actually bond with them. Heck, when Alfred inform the proposal to the batfam they were shocked and thought it was a bad idea even (And they’ve known her for almost half their life by the way.) 

The fact that Tom King implied Bruce was never happy or wasn’t happy enough without marrying Cat when his Batfam should be the source of his pride and joy?! Apparently family means nothing to Batman. Woah DC, what a great message you’re sending here. 

I guess that’s why, I was a bit iffy when Selina “marriage” with Bruce isn’t official. Because she commits to the man but she doesn’t say she’ll commit to the family (though I suppose it could be imply or I just forget stuff). The batkids are grown up enough that they don’t really need a maternal figure, but that doesn’t mean they don’t need more emotionally available people in the family. And that I haven’t seen much of her taking effort to bond with the people that’s the most important to Bruce. 

It just makes her want to commit to Batman instead of Bruce Wayne, in my eyes I guess. 

So yeah, that’s why Wonderbat and Superbat makes more sense to me. Because they’ll make an effort to be THERE for the family and they’ll be just generally be a healthier relationships because, again, emotionally available so they might talk when they have a problem instead of running off the altar when you think a Happy Batman is Bad Batman. But no, DC have to make Bruce is a simp and his life edgy. 

Anyway, I might be wrong in some things because, you know. Canon becomes a blur to me after a while. 

#batcat #batfam #batfamily #batman #bruce wayne #talia al ghul #andrea beaumont #bruce wayne is a simp #rant #rant post #word vomit #superbat #wonderbat #dc comics #headcanon #selina kyle #catwoman #tom king #fuck tom king #tom king rant

[khali-shabd]

Gender Theory

Readers, let us begin with a simple question- what is gender?

The Biological Theory Of Gender, and a majority of society, would say that gender is defined by biological sex, namely hormones and chromosomes. If you release estrogen and have XX chromosomes, you are female, and if you release testosterone and have XY chromosomes, you are male. However, this is an extremely flawed vision of gender for two reasons: one, that whatever proof of hormones altering gendered behaviour has been found only in lab rats1, which possibly will not exhibit the same extreme change in behaviour if the hormones were administered to them naturally in their own environment- and rats are not human- we have far too many differences as species for this study to be considered valid for homosapiens as well. And two, chromosomes are not strictly XX or XY- around 1 percent of the world population is intersex (and a similar percentage is redheaded, so its not inherently ‘anomalous’ or ‘unnatural’) , which means that they can have chromosomal variations such as XXY, X, XXXY etc, all of whom develop differently as compared to people with the traditional chromosome combinations. 

Further, there are far more things that define ‘biological sex’, namely:

chromosomes

gonads

sex hormones

internal reproductive anatomy (such as the uterus)

external genitalia.

Out of these, in humans, genitalia and internal reproductive anatomy can be changed without there being a significant change in gendered behavior. Sex hormones, when administered to bodies change secondary sex characteristics more than any sort of behavior; with the exception of testosterone increasing sex drive and sometimes increasing ‘ego’. Every single part of this definition of binary biological sex is challenged by the existence of intersex people, henceforth proving that sex is not binary and never has been, unfounding the existence of a sex-based gender binary in itself. Further, transgender individuals have a completely different gender identity as compared to their biological sex, and it has been scientifically proved that this is because their brains develop in the same way the brains of the children of the gender they identify with do. That essentially means that the brain of a transgender woman develops similarly to the brain of a cisgender woman, and the brain of a transgender man develops in the same way the brain of a cisgender man develops. All in all, there are far too many differences in the experience of biological sex to confine it to a binary, hence unfounding the theory that gender is based on biological sex.

Then how do we define gender?

There are a number of theories, but the most logical one at the moment would be Judith Butler’s Theory of Gender Performativity. Butler says that gender, as an abstract concept in itself, is nothing more than a performance. We ‘perform’ our gender by carrying out actions that we associate with it. They further say that this does not mean that it’s something we can stop altogether, rather something we’ve ingrained so deeply within us that it becomes a part of our identity, and it's the part of it we call gender identity. Gender, hence, is created by its own performance. Butler also implies that we do not base gender on sex, rather we define sex along the lines of established lines of binary gener, i.e. male and female- despite the fact that more than 10% of the population does not fall into this binary sex, and has some variation in their biological sex that does not ‘fit’ into either category. Gender in itself is so culturally constructed by western society that anyone who does not perform their assigned gender ‘correctly’ is punished- this applies to not only queer individuals but even men who do not ascribe to or criticise predefined ideals of masculinity. They are made social pariahs and excluded as outcasts, leaving them to find and create their own communities and safe spaces. This is shown in the way society ostracises queer-presenting individuals, makes fun of ‘soft’ men, and forcefully tries to ‘fix’ intersex children whose variations in biological sex cause no harm to them. I quote:

“Because there is neither an ‘essence’ that gender expresses or externalizes nor an objective ideal to which gender aspires; because gender is not a fact, the various acts of gender create the idea of gender, and without those acts, there would be no gender at all. Gender is, thus, a construction that regularly conceals its genesis. The tacit collective agreement to perform, produce, and sustain discrete and polar genders as cultural fictions is obscured by the credibility of its own production. The authors of gender become entranced by their own fictions whereby the construction compels one’s belief in its necessity and naturalness.”

One of the criticisms of Butler’s theories is that it does not seem to apply to transgender individuals, whose innate gender identity is not the one that they have been assigned to perform at birth; whose brains develop the same way that their cisgender counterparts’ brains do from birth. Butler themselves have responded to this, saying:

“I do know that some people believe that I see gender as a “choice” rather than as an essential and firmly fixed sense of self. My view is actually not that. No matter whether one feels one’s gendered and sexed reality to be firmly fixed or less so, every person should have the right to determine the legal and linguistic terms of their embodied lives. So whether one wants to be free to live out a “hard-wired” sense of sex or a more fluid sense of gender, is less important than the right to be free to live it out, without discrimination, harassment, injury, pathologization or criminalization – and with full institutional and community support.”

Later on, Butler goes on to say that the main point of their theory is that identity is constructed, which means that it allows us to change how we view it as a concept. It leaves room for us to subvert gender roles, challenging the status quo on what it means to identify as someone of a particular gender, and re-structuring society such that we rally for change not along gender lines, rather on the basis of what’s right.

Further, if we combine the work of the psychologist Sigmund Freud with Butler’s theories, the latter does actually apply to transgender individuals. Freudian theory states that we internalize concepts of gender based on our parental figures at birth. That is, if you are born female, you begin to look towards the person who closest resembles your gender identity; which in this case would be your mother, to be your role model for your behavior as to how women are meant to act. Your mother would be your guide to how you perform your gender. If she crosses her legs, you cross your legs. If she dresses in a particular way, you would too, until you were exposed to the exterior world and allowed to develop your own sense of style. As such, you create your own gender identity within your mind, and perform that identity the way you have been taught to by your maternal figure. When you are transgender, you view yourself as innately as the gender you identify with, hence you base your gender identity off the parental figure of that particular gender. This means, if you are female to male trans, you would base your gender identity on your father, and accordingly perform your gender in that way.

Now the question arises: How do we create gender identity outside of gender roles? How do we identify anywhere on the gender spectrum while abandoning the performance that comes with that identity? Why is it important?

Well, the answer isn’t simple. For its importance, I allude, once again, to gender performativity theory- Butler even uses some evolutionary stances to support her views, saying that gender performance stems from gender roles which stem from the fundamental differences between the prominent male and female sex at the very beginning of evolution. Now that 'evolutionary' behaviors don't matter at this stage of societal, cultural, and psychological development, it renders gender roles and hence the performance of gender redundant. However, we still perpetuate these ideas regardless of their importance, or rather their lack of such. And in this process, we end up defining and segregating far too much on the basis of gender- from small things like friendships to even the feminist movement, which is majorly perpetuated and held up by people who identify as female. Other groups like men end up purposely excluding themselves from a movement that can benefit them as well(through deconstructing and eradicating ideas of toxic masculinity) just because of how strongly it is divided on the basis of gender lines. And as for how we create gender identity outside of gender roles; it takes a lot of work, at first, to unlearn all the biases you have internalized about what it means to be a certain gender. You have to actively work towards deconstructing what gender and gender identity means to you, and how much of it comes from societally misguided stances about the ‘role’ of a gender is. It may mean ridding yourselves of the school of thought that women belong in the kitchen and men belong in workplaces or even identifying and removing hidden biases such as those of toxic masculinity and/or toxic femininity. Lastly, it takes an understanding that often, gender expression is not the same as gender identity; and also that most gender expression is how people show how they feel the most comfortable viewing themselves. Once you’ve managed to deconstruct your biases, it’s just a matter of how you feel comfortable viewing and expressing yourself; and what label, among the myriad, you identify with the most. That would be your unique self-expression and identity.

#gender theory #gender #trans #trangender #lgbtq #judith butler #writing #essay #article #write #writers on tumblr #gender identity #theory #sociology #psychology

[annebrontesrequiem]

Femininity and Bridgerton

So 27 days ago a lovely anon said that they’d be glad to hear my thoughts on femininity and Bridgerton, and since I’m now finally free from school I decided to stop playing Genshin Impact and binging Disney movies and actually do something.

This is going to probably be very long (spoilers it’s 1,800 words long), so more under the cut.

So, a few things. Firstly I am specifically talking about Bridgerton, as the way that femininity is portrayed in media is a very complex and arduous topic. Secondly this is obviously just my opinion and you can absolutely disagree, even tell me if you do I love listening to different perspectives. Thirdly I’m talking about a show that is very heteronormative (the painter and Benedict aside as I’m focusing mostly on Daphne in this post), and presents a very specific part of straight, cis, upper class femininity. So keep that in mind as well. Also as I’m going to be talking about patriarchy, femininity, and masculinity I know that there might be a few TERFs that crawl out of the woodwork and just… don’t. This isn’t for you and while I’m at it please go read some actual feminist texts. Also I know that this is a period piece but I will be addressing that don’t worry.

Also I am going to be talking about that one scene so trigger warning I’m going to be talking about sexual assault.

Also full Bridgerton season one spoilers.

----

So, all that set up out of the way, let’s talk about femininity in the Bridgerton series.

A good deal of Bridgerton focuses on the ways in which women are often confined by their role as women in society, as well as how they subvert that role for their own gains. This is used well in some cases, such as when the Viscountess uses the network that is forged between servants and women of the upper class to subvert Daphne’s marriage to Nigel Berbrooke. Being a period piece with a (mostly) diverse cast it also allows for women of color, specifically black women, to be portrayed in a very feminine light, where in society at large they are usually not allowed to inhabit such a space. However in attempting to subvert the status that women often occupied in Regency England the show accidentally reinforces views of femininity and its value.

Let’s talk about Eloise and Daphne. Eloise is very outspoken about the difficulties that comes with being a woman in society, wishing to break out of the confines of femininity. Daphne, on the other hand, wishes to stay within the traditional woman’s sphere, get married, have children, run a household. And while in text these two women often debate the meaning of their position as women, each making very valid points about their status and how they’re confined by it, the framing makes it seem that Eloise’s position is ultimately the “better” one.

Full disclosure, Eloise is my favorite Bridgerton character. I love her outspokenness, her determination to make something out of her life, the fact that she attempts to make the oppression of the society around her explicit. However I think the way she is framed as this, for lack of a better term, “girlboss” in the making is often reductive. The show seems to have this idea that Daphne is in some ways inferior in goal to Eloise. That is, Eloise’s value isn’t that she is an ambitious person whose status as a woman hampers said ambition, but rather that she is in some ways morally and intellectually superior to Daphne by rejecting her femininity and repressing qualities that are considered less masculine and thus lesser.s It presents this idea of women’s empowerment wherein one is only empowered if they deliberately step out of traditional femininity, either in appearance or in life path, rather than confronting a society that sees femininity as inferior. Daphne’s wish to continue in the traditional sphere of womanhood is somehow lesser, and she only becomes truly empowered later in the series when she becomes more aggressive (we’ll talk about that later).

That Eloise has her own book where she presumably falls in love and gets married makes this all the more confusing. Does she then lose her intellect and her status as an empowering woman? The messages feel very mixed. In portraying Eloise as enlightened for actively resisting the woman’s sphere and Daphne as needing to learn to be more “assertive” to gain said enlightenment, the show accidentally presents femininity as inherently passive, inferior to the assertion that is more traditionally masculine. This is something that modern period dramas often fall into. Empowered women are only empowered by attempting to transcend their femininity, to become more masculine. The bottom line isn’t to present women and femininity as equal in all ways to men and masculinity, but femininity is something reductive that must be shed to truly become equal.

Since we’re talking about Daphne I want to examine her character arc within this lens as well. Daphne is adamant that she wants a love-match. She is also very aware of the importance of presentation, as well as the importance of reputation. This is a very solid foundation, as is a way where Bridgerton taps into the complexity of the role of women in regency society in a good way. However as the show goes on this complexity seems to fade in favor of making Daphne, again I’m sorry, a “girlboss”. This is made explicit in the scene in which Daphne violates Simon’s consent, as well as the way in which this act is framed.

Now you can tell immediately from the framing of the scene in which Daphne violates Simon’s consent what this is supposed to be interpretated as. From the music to the triumphant looks on Daphne’s face, this is supposed to be a moment in which Daphne has finally gained control of her life. And yet in doing this, and in presenting this whole scene as a result of Simon’s “betrayal” – and thus something his has to take the blame for – the show is making a value judgement. Daphne can only become strong by becoming “assertive” (ie aggressive) to the point of violating someone’s consent.

The topic of rape culture is a very long and arduous one which I will not be diving into, but I do wish to point to the fact that men are supposed to be aggressive, both sexually and otherwise. Men are the ones who always “want it”, who are uncontrollable, and who are willing to be aggressive to get what they want. This toxic idea of sex and masculinity is what I felt Daphne dipped into during this scene, and instead of presenting it as horrifying or a betrayal on Daphne part, it is presented as the climax of her character arc. I believe a showrunner once said that it was imperative to the “education” of Daphne Bridgerton. Thus is Daphne’s strength no longer her determination to be happy within the sphere she has been placed in by patriarchy, but her willingness to take back her life, no matter the cost. And yes this could’ve been a message about how men are also assaulted, but that is not at all what the showrunners wanted you to get out of this scene.

Lastly I want to touch on the men in the Bridgerton universe, because the devaluation of femininity also affects men no less than it does women. All the men in the Bridgerton universe are either bad people or rakes. Name me one (1) man in the Bridgerton universe who is presented as feminine, either in appearance or personality. And no femininity is not the same as being gay, the painter is not feminine. To be a man worthy of screen time or romance in the Bridgerton universe one must be as traditionally masculine as possible, and ready to make that your defining character trait.

Now I know that this is a large romance novel issue, as someone who has read three of the Outlander books I am unfortunately aware of how romance novels fall into this derivative state. But just because something is common that doesn’t mean it is any less worthy of criticism. The argument that it’s simply being “period accurate” is also something I don’t accept. Yes the regency era was incredibly patriarchal, but that does not mean that the women within it were helpless and could only break out of that helplessness by rejecting their own femininity. Jane Austen is a classic example, but I will also point to women such as Elizabeth Gaskell, the Bronte Sisters, and George Eliot in terms of English women who were highly intelligent and worthy of acclaim despite still associating themselves with their status as women in society. For a broader historical view I’d also like to present Catherine the Great and Empress Josephine who, despite being viewed in an often very derivative manner by the men around them, rose to great prominence and power.

In the end this is a larger societal issue and not one that my post will magically fix. But I will say this: we need to stop telling women and girls that the only way to get rid of patriarchy is to reject femininity. In doing so we say that masculinity is indeed the better trait, that by repressing one’s emotions and one’s femininity one can attain equality. We also need to stop telling men that the only way to ensure their own value to be aggressive, to tap into that toxic masculinity which we spoon feed them from birth. This hurts everyone, men, women, non-binary people. It makes the world a worse place and only when we stop trying to wiggle our way out of femininity and actually acknowledge its status as equal to masculinity will we achieve this.

I believe Bridgerton wanted to do that, wanted to present the complexities and anxieties of women living in a patriarchal world and the way in which they can subvert that world to their advantage. However it falls into the same trap it seems to be attempting to get out of, and at the end of the day one is left with a sense of vapidness. Though I may like Bridgerton (so much so that I binge watched the series twice and am even considering reading the books) I think that we need to acknowledge its flaws, because only then will we be able to move forward and make media that is more enjoyable, more nuanced, and ultimately better in terms of expectations and norms.

Like I said this is a very complicated topic, but I hope I got my point across well. Thank you if you read all the way through this and I hope you have a lovely day!

#bridgerton #wow this is fucking long #I hope I explained the eloise part well it's hard to verbalize #but yeah we need to talk about pop culture's view on feminism and women's empowerment #mine

[rametarin]

I didn’t want to reblog another long post, so I’ll just say my own thing here.

Gatekeeping fandom is good, ackshully.

Especially since we have a certain pattern of person, call them, “SJWs” if you want, that deliberately creep into a fandom with their values and shamelessly, deliberately, use it as a platform. They CONSCIOUSLY do this. They DELIBERATELY do this.

And then they have the audacity to see false positives and imagine dog whistles everywhere of things outside THEIR orthodoxy in the fandom being -isms, or -gnies. Accusing the people already there of being “out of date” and “toxic”, when it’s neither toxic nor uninclusive- it just isn’t rearranging itself to accommodate Intersectional Feminism or giving Intersectional Feminists voluntary control over everything from how something works to how it’s defined.

That to them is tantamount to being Nazis. And that’s kind of how you can tell they’re the same sort of daft, disingenuous fucks that wrap up socialist or ancom shit in supposed social progress. And if they could they’re reshape EVERYTHING to match their sensibilities, because their sensibilities are, “our way or you die.”

If you spend enough time peeking through academic papers and colleges you even learn there’s a thing many of them do. Which is, “Queering,” characters on purpose, to make them unpalatable or untouchable to cis/het people. That’s culturally like raising a flag on something to annex it and landgrab it.

And if you say, “hands off, this character isn’t gay?” They pivot and declare you’re just a homophobe whom is afraid of change, tell other people that and then talk in the broad bruckstroke about, “society is really so homophobic/afraid of new ideas. :c”

These people don’t even want to be part of that fandom for the sake of being in the fandom. They just want it because they want the fandom to perpetuate their values and parrot their beliefs and spread it to everybody else that wants to participate in that fandom. Do you like this popular thing? Okay, you can have popular thing, but only if you hug this Courtney Love doll and buy it and pet it and love it as part of the package deal!

And as part and parcel of the demanding to not just define the fundamentals and parameters of a fandom, they also demand to reinterpret the history of said fandom based on how out of orthodoxy to their values they find it to their own beliefs. So, was the hobby primarily done by white men in the past? Then naturally they’ll automatically paint it with a broad brush and say, “this hobby was very unwelcoming to non-whites and women in the past because of icky homophobic and misogynistic men!” Regardless of how many authors were beloved by the fandom that were female, regardless of how many women were equal fandom members before- they weren’t the Intersectional Feminist types of fans, so clearly they were “closer to the Daughters of the Confederacy than real people,” right? That’s how that works, apparently.

So yes. We had a taste of this in the 90s, but the feminists/radfems at the time weren’t trying to infiltrate the fandom and take it over to be about feminism. They were shaming boys and other girls for liking the big booby comic book girls as sexist and objectification and trying to get comic fans to abandon comics in order to pressure the companies economically into changing.

“These comics are written and drawn by MEN! MAAAAALE GAAAAAAAAAZE!!! Sexualized girls are only okay when WOMEN are drawing them and writing them for the authenticity!” And there were not many women that either liked comic books or wanted to BE in them, so they’d maintain that impossible standard to try and coerce the boys to FIND women for the sake of having a woman on staff, just to assauge their, “icky boys aren’t allowed to do this without me declaring it wrong” qualm.

And true to form for Progressives, give an inch and within a short period of time they just want more, and declare what was offered before was just to mollify or patronize them. “Oh so women can tidy up and do the low work. Why no female CEOs in the company yet? Why not Editor in Chief?”

But the way the Intersectionals do it is new. Rather than just stay outside the fandom because “yuck it offends my sensibilities, it shouldn’t exist,” they try and appropriate the fandom and then contribute rules and policies for it.

We saw this in the years leading up to Gamergate. The Subverters infiltrated video game journos, got incestuous and buddy-buddy with both Triple A industry people and independent game creators and traded favors, financial, sexual and other, for good reviews. Folks like Anita Sarkesian trying to make a name for themselves by already being insiders and getting plugged by the conspirators to LOOK like she was anything more than a plant for that cause, using other peoples video game playing footage in her critique videos, styling herself a holistic “girl gamer” and waxing poetic about “those awful neckbearded dudebros questioning my gamer cred! Tch!”

And so that romantic boogyman became a thing that they perpetuated. “The gatekeeping, woman hating, manbaby Gamer.” Where they then added in racism and male chauvinism and traditionalism and transphobia because you know you can’t just leave it at “misogynist.” Not, “in this society.”

Gamers protesting and demanding that game journalist magazines state their relationships to the creators for full disclosure got them retaliating asymmetrically, though. The FBI investigated all those, “threatening and trolling social media messages” that supposedly got Zoe Quinn and Sarkesian to leave their houses, “for fear of an attack,” and they got nothing. A few of them were caught doxxing themselves on purpose on 4chan. Quinn herself being part of the SomethingAwful’s Crash Override forums, where they’d do shit like this to troll and harass people for fun. They KNOW how to false flag and make it look like a bunch of angry dudebros did it.

Statistically the number of harassing egg names was far lower than the messages either girl received that was NOT harassment or threats, merely replies they didn’t agree with or didn’t appreciate. And yet they still ran around screaming about “all those misogynistic dudebro gamers” that were “harassing and doxing them.” And that boogyman became the party line. That Gaming and Gamers were full of toxic, misogynistic, racist manbabies SOooOoOooOO intimidated by, “women finally in what they feel are THEIR spaces,” that they’d try to run them out.

That’s how they interpreted it and that’s how the history books they write will repeat it.

They try and make a great big public show about “entering this toxic space” to flip it and civilize it, but what they’re really trying to do is officially own it. As a fandom, as a space and as a culture. And that entails being able to say what goes, what’s acceptable and what’s not, and set the tone and culture for that space. Meaning, to be able to gatekeep the product.

Rather than just decry the product, they decide they’re just going to mutate the product by slow assimilation, until the product doesn’t even resemble the original product anymore. They do this shit with comic books, videogames, and now they’re working on doing it to beloeved novels and their fandoms. It’s like forcibly marrying them to terrible people, so you can never have a fandom WITHOUT those people in your space trying to insist their interpretations of things are original canon, ever again.

And the sickest part is, these people DO NOT stop at fiction. That’s why this shit is called Cultural Marxism. Because it’s not much different from the way communists and socialist guerillas act and operate when it comes to land, resources and industry. They take over public spaces and forums and use a combination of instittional corruption, terrorism and violence and vandalism in order to destroy or silence competition.

They’ve even infiltrated the Linux community and taken over most of that, via Linus Torvalds’ daughter. You can’t have ANYTHING around these people, because they just sit and wait and conspire to come in and make even a simple community mural to revolve around whatever social issue and specifically their philosophy’s take on it being THE only valid take on it that everybody else must now interact with, good or bad, but they can’t ignore it anymore.

This is, also, partially why they hate it when fandoms are gatekept by singularly powerful individuals. Like say, authors of their own works. They don’t like singular owners of enterprise and property, because it prevents the mob from taking them and then dictating TO the creator, “this is the PEOPLES property now. WE decide, as the most powerful clique, what is true and real with it and what isn’t.”

Because like what happened with Frank Oz of Jim Henson Studios. An activist gay writer declared that Bert and Ernie’s relationship was “canon gay,” because he wrote them as canon gay lovers. There was a great big information cascade as all these affiliated journo companies published articles about how “happy they were to see Sesame Street and the Children’s Television Workshop as representing LGBT people in public!”

Frank Oz spoke up, set the record straight, “These characters were made by me and a friend and were meant to depict a platonic male-male relationship. They aren’t gay but I’m glad you could identify with them.”

That poor old man caught so much shit. They called him a homophobe, said he was, “stealing Bert and Ernie from them,” that he should just shut up and “let people have this.”

No. Fucking no. These people are fucking conspirators, believe wholly in dominating and taking shit over by moving their people into a thing until they have the warm bodies and the institutional authority to crowd out oppositional voices, then have the audacity to SCREEEAAAAAAM bloody murder about the dangers of anybody else organizing to contest them because, “The Nazis are gathering to attack us poor innocent minorities!!” Counting on the ignorance and unsuspecting nature of people to not know such a thing is fake or the totality of the situation.

That’s why they’ll keep this shit on the downlow and call anybody that accuses them of doing shit like this a liar or a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. Demanding evidence, in bad faith, knowing there’s little to no way to PROVE any of this UNTIL they’ve done it, and then declaring you to be invalid since you can’t prove the conspiracy.

Because if you can’t prove it with evidence, they’ll simply say you’re a Nazi trying to smear “good people.”