#'goodness' and thus access to a ''''given. inherent'''' femininity. but from the opposite side

[cacaitos]

furthermore it's not like it's pointed out or whatever but gen's gotta be like the biggest person in the manga too, it's kinda apparent when next to idk chako, the same way reiji's actual size becomes more obvious next to lit every woman i think lol. becomes progressively unkempt and more like a looming, towering shadow over people... tbh now that i remembered that i pretty much ignored that plotline/scene was a thing bc it sounded idk. not derivative but the **'implied to be transfem/queer amab person goes psychoTM' scenes are so...? so i didnt quite liked that.. on the other hand if you wanna talk abt shitty women characters you got the groomer gang and i dont think gen is related or relevant to them; gen's story really is mostly tied to yuko's (rei's mom) and it is with her that i would leave the comparisson on. as some kinds of extremes of their own kinds of problems, problems that come long before them and had little say in but that they still reproduce on others etc.

[disastergay]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again--all polarized discourse can be divided into three categories:

identity vs. ideology (ace discourse, fascism, antisemitism, ableism, islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, antiblackness, etc.)

ideology vs. ideology (shipping/fiction discourse, radical feminism vs. inclusive feminism, liberalism vs. socialism, etc.)

identity vs. identity (kink at pride, TMA vs. TME discourse, white/cis passing discourse, etc.)

the reason this community keeps going around in circles, repeating the same talking points and regurgitating the same old rhetoric, is because very few of us actually take the time to stop and step back to examine the underlying causes; the reasons why these arguments keep popping up in the first place. 

(contd: me going on a long rant about online discourse and debate styles)

**disclaimer: I want to preface this by reminding you that most if not of these debates are manufactured in one way or another, and thus my acknowledgment of any discourse’s unfortunate existence should not be interpreted as me “picking a side” or agreeing that the buzzwords I’m using are “good and useful”

in identity vs. ideology debates, you have one group that’s made up of people who share a trait that is inherent for most if not all of them, and another group made up of people whose only connection is a common, underlying belief that the identity of people in the former group is inherently harmful in some way and thus needs/deserves to be excluded at best, or eradicated at worst. 

typically, the ideology side is bigoted and will try to convince you that the issue is two identities or ideologies being pitted against one another in an attempt to legitimize their bullshit, and put the marginalized community at a negotiative disadvantage. this is why the language surrounding ace discourse evolved to dividing people into “inclusionist” and “exclusionist” categories--to redirect the conversation away from a marginalized group and muddy the waters, making it more difficult for newbies and outsiders to figure out that “exclusionism” (in this context) is just a fancy word for “bigotry.”

in ideology vs. ideology debates, you have two distinct groups who only share their respective differing beliefs. each group believes the other is inherently harmful in some way, and needs/deserves to be excluded at best, or eradicated at worst. however, because neither one is directly marginalized or privileged for holding these ideas, there is less of a sense of urgency when it comes to these discussions. 

people involved in these debates will often try to convince you the other side has a cultlike ideology while their own side is actually being discriminated against based on identity, again, with the intention of legitimizing their ideology while also attempting to badmouth the opposition. sometimes there is a clear ‘correct’ ideology, other times there is not.

identity vs. identity is the most notorious and difficult to navigate of the three, as well as the easiest to spot, given it’s often blatantly absurd. you’ll see people spit out takes that are meant to pit two or more marginalized communities against each other, fueled by a) the belief that said communities cannot hope to coexist, or b) the desire, as a privileged outsider, to “troll” or “divide and conquer”. 

this discourse is the most insidious of all, because the other two very often masquerade as this one and vice versa--many TERFs who are less radicalized will try to convince you that, while trans people and women [read: cis women] are both undeniably disenfranchised by the patriarchy, there is “simply no hope” for both marginalized groups to safely exist and get access to life-saving resources. they will try to convince you that because said resources are high in demand and low in supply, women [read: cis women], who “clearly have it worse”, deserve said resources more, and fuck any trans person who is selfish enough to take said resources away from them.

though, there are some examples of actual and legitimate identity vs. identity discourse; namely “kink at pride” discourse. among members of the online LGBTQ+ community, there is a genuine belief that it is impossible for both kinksters and LGBTQ+ people to share safe spaces during pride events. 

people try to make this into an identity vs. ideology debate (puritans/homophobes vs. queer sex workers + flamboyant queers OR p*dophiles and other sexual predators vs. queer minors + queer survivors of trauma) or an ideology vs. ideology debate (what is consent really? where do we draw the line?), but these efforts don’t and can’t change the fact that both being kinky (inherently deviating from society’s sexual norms) and being LGBTQ+ (inherently deviating from cisheteronormative society) are both things people are marginalized for. despite having different needs, both communities do have a strong overlap, and thus the talking point of each community’s shared identity (as opposed to having a shared ideology) is inextricable from “kink at pride” discourse. 

you also see this with people who say “there is no good reason for someone who ever identifies as a man or masculine-aligned, under any circumstances, to enter a safe space meant solely for women and feminine-aligned people, let alone use their resources”, as if it’s ~impossible~ for someone to be both at once, let alone a closeted man/”masc-aligned” person who’s unable to access any "”proper”” resources without outing themself. regardless of your intentions, pitting two marginalized groups against each other is not an acceptable thing to do.

TL;DR: the first step to finding the heart of an argument--and dismantling any harmful or inaccurate beliefs circulating within said argument--is to identify what kind of argument it really is.