#...what i am saying is that framing it as the only trans experience that matters or that others are 'wrong' for their own experiences...

[uncanny-tranny]

Some trans men might have a knee-jerk reaction and say that nonbinary people and trans women (as an identity) have privilege and societal leverage over them.

Some trans women might have a knee-jerk reaction and say that nonbinary people and trans men (as an identity) have privilege and societal leverage over them.

Some nonbinary people might have a knee-jerk reaction and say that binary trans men and trans women (as an identity) have privilege and societal leverage over them.

While additional privileges will impact how you might be treated as a trans person, what all this tends to miss is that if you are trans, society doesn't want you in the public eye. Your options are (to please transphobic society specifically) to either slink into the deepest, darkest recesses of society or die. There are no trans people who benefit from this framework. There is no trans identity you could have that will please transphobic society.

This doesn't mean that there aren't other privileges you can have as a trans person because there certainly are - this means that transness will not save you when it comes to transphobia. This means that we absolutely cannot give into the impulse to feel like our experience with transness is the only one that matters, or worse, that other trans people have privilege because they're trans in ways we are not.

[funhouse-mirror-barbie]

My problem with Sallie May—a discussion of representation:

There’s been some discourse around Sallie May lately that’s gotten me thinking more about her. Not really as a character, but what her purpose is in the narrative and how she’s treated by the fandom and the show’s creators.

Sallie May is an interesting case study in representation without depth, and I wanted to talk a little more about what that means.

OPINION DISCLAIMER—I’m gonna be talking about how I personally view lgbtq+ and queer representation and what I consider to be well-rounded representation vs. empty or shallow representation.

Also. I am only one member of the queer community—I don’t speak for all lgbtq+ people, and I am DEFINITELY NOT trying to talk over other’s experiences. My opinions are my own, and if you agree with me, cool! And if you don’t agree with me, that’s great too!!

Also also. I don’t think I should have to say this but, this is NOT a personal attack on ANYONE involved w/i the production and creation of Helluva Boss. This is my own analysis, b/c I like to talk about media and the ways we interact with and interpret it.

So, with all of that out of the way, if you’re interested in my analysis, let’s talk about Sallie May!! (TLDR @ end of post)

First do want to make it clear that my issue is not actually with her like…existing. Or with her general characterization. Mostly because, even with Hell’s Belles, she still doesn’t really have a very strong characterization to begin with, and isn’t a fully-fleshed out character.

In her initial appearance she was a bit-character, bordering on just being a straight up background character. She had three lines in her debut (and to date, ONLY) appearance in the show proper.

Until Hell’s Belles we knew next to nothing about her other than that she likes violence and also that she has a neighborhood body count? Which. I don’t know if they were trying to imply that she’s a serial killer, I doubt that was the intent. Or maybe they were. I can’t know.

Regardless, I honestly believe they didn’t really think the implications of that writing decision through at all. There’s a very real and very harmful “trans serial killer/murderer” trope in media, and while the impact is definitely lessened by the vast majority of HB characters being violent murderers—it still feels weird having the only trans character we’ve seen at this point be literally INTRODUCED to the audience by the fact that she’s a murderer, and to then be given NO further information on her.

Luckily, we DID get more information about Sallie, even if it was still very little and surface level. In Hell’s Belles we learn that Sallie May and Millie used to be a lot closer, and that Sallie May felt left behind when Millie moved to the big city.

In the short, Sallie May expresses her frustration with having to pick up the slack around their family’s ranch, and that she’s been lonely without Millie there. Millie and Sally have a little heart to heart and are able to make up, and the short ends.

This is a nice little piece of backstory, and does give us slightly more insight into Sallie May and what her life is like, but because the episode is a short, we still really don’t get to know her as a person.

Like Millie, Sallie May doesn’t have any real depth. We only know starter information about her, like that she cares about her family, and that she’s violent.

But unlike Millie, Sallie May is a minor character. She has (at the time of my writing this) appeared in ONE episode of the actual show, and one short. She is a minor character, and the ONLY transgender character in the show with a name and lines.

So. Okay. Why does literally any of that matter??? Who cares if Sallie May is an under-developed minor background character??

Well, in my opinion, it matters because the show-runners frame and treat Sallie May as if she is a main character, without actually writing her—or any trans character for that matter—as a main character.

This really rubs me the wrong way, because it comes across as tokenism.

In my opinion since she was introduced, Sallie May has become a token transgender character—an excuse for the HB writers to not write or develop more transgender, nonbinary, and gender diverse characters and stories, because they already have one.

I worry that, if anyone rightfully points out that HB is severely lacking in gender-diverse characters and storylines, the creators and fandom will point to Sallie May as “proof” that they do have representation.

If HB is as radically queer and LGBTQ+ friendly as it claims to be, why do we only have ONE named trans character in the show’s 5 years of existence?

Due to all of the above, I find I can’t agree with people who praise the show for its representation, because of how stunted it is. I just don’t think I, or anyone, should have to read sources outside of the narrative to learn important parts of a character’s identity.

I feel this very deeply as a lesbian and nonbinary person—I understand that most of the women characters in Helluva Boss are sapphic, but I ONLY know that because of the HB Pride Print that came out just this year. I have not actually gotten to SEE any of these character’s sexualities fully represented, and it’s because of this that I struggle to see myself represented in HB in any way.

I do need to clarify that what I am NOT SAYING is that no one can feel represented by Sallie May, or that if they do, they’ve been tricked somehow by writers into thinking they got more representation than they actually did.

Sallie May is a very popular character, and because of that I honestly would like to see more of her. I want to see more of her because she’s the only trans character on the show, and I want her to be properly developed.

I talked previously about how I enjoyed Hell’s Belles, but wished we had gotten to see more of Sallie and Millie’s relationship in the actual show. Their relationship has a lot of potential to show the unique ways in which siblings interact and navigate conflict, but we only got to see a few seconds of them interacting in Sallie’s debut. The short gives us an idea of what Sallie’s personality is like, but it’s so brief that I still don’t feel like we really KNOW her on a deeper level.

To me, three lines + one short with a brief backstory doesn’t feel like the sort of amazing representation that fans of the show laud Helluva Boss for.

As a series that often boasts about its queer and trans rep and inclusivity, I can’t help but feel like Sallie May should either have been a main character from the very beginning, or that she shouldn’t have been trotted out like some sort of bastion of trans representation, when the only indication she is trans is her horns/white roots.

And yes. As a genderqueer gay I KNOW that it can be extremely tiring to have all of our stories revolve around our struggles and ONLY be about being LGBTQ+. I also want to see a variety of stories about queer people like me going on adventures and getting to do things that don’t revolve around our struggles. But I also want to still actually see myself represented.

Not just know outside the story that, “oh that character is nonbinary, but it will not be mentioned in the narrative in any way and will not ever be important in the context of this character I’m supposed to see myself in.”

Madeline Maye talked about this specifically in her critique of Helluva Boss, and her pointing this out was kind of what made me realize that, yeah. Anyone watching Helluva Boss for the first time would probably have NO IDEA that Sallie Mae is a transgender woman.

It also made me realize that the only reason I knew that Sallie May was trans was because her VA, Morgana Ignis, who is also a trans woman, tweeted about it, and the official Helluva Boss Twitter retweeted it.

The original tweet is hidden now (Ignis has since left Twitter—idk why, I genuinely hope it wasn’t due to harassment—that’s never okay) but I was able to confirm that this was the case based on the HB wiki, and the official HB’s retweet still being up:

The only confirmation we’ve ever had that Sallie May is transgender has been outside of the show—either from social media Q&As and the show’s wiki or merch—

Sallie May has a LOT of merch. Like a lot, this isn’t even all of it. And yes, SOME of the merch is from the recently released “Hell’s Belles” short, but the vast majority of it is from the 3 years since her initial introduction.

The vast majority of it is also highly sexualized, and highlights Sallie’s penis through her swimsuit. Now, I’m aware that Morgana Ignis requested this, and I honestly don’t have too much of an opinion on it. I’m not a trans woman, and I’ve seen multiple opinions from trans women on this design choice for Sally’s merch. I’ve seen some trans women say that they liked and felt represented by this choice, and some say that they felt objectified and that it made them dysphoric. This is one of those situations where I don’t think everyone can be pleased—like I said at the beginning of this post, LGBTQ+ people are as diverse in their opinions as we are in our identities and self-expression, and I think everyone’s feelings regarding Sallie’s portrayals in the merch are valid.

I bring it up because, other than the wiki explaining that Sallie May has “male horns”, this is the only other way to confirm that Sally is trans, as it is never acknowledged in the story. I bring it up because I don’t think merch should be the only way an LGBTQ character’s identity is validated.

I assume that all of Sallie Mae’s merch is because of her popularity, but I also can’t help but wonder if this has contributed to the impression that Sallie is a main character, when, in the narrative so far, she is still a minor one.

I don’t believe that when she was originally created to be a “token trans” character, but since her introduction, there have not been any main characters that are transgender, nonbinary, or genderqueer.

We’ve only had one other trans character with a speaking role—this imp:

Who is FTM. He seems to know Blitz from a while back, and talks Blitz into staying at the party. Then he watches him drunkenly make out with random people with another (I assume) trans imp who is probably MTF:

(Also—as an aside, this scene kinda bothers me?? I don’t THINK this was the intention at all, but having a VERY CLEARLY drunk off of his ass Blitz, who can’t meaningfully consent at this time, being watched, and almost like…leered at by two of the only visibly trans characters in the show…it feels gross. Like why are two of the only other confirmed trans characters voyeuristically watching a drunk man who can’t consent making out? It would be one thing if we had a story full of different trans characters who acted in all sorts of different ways, but at this time these two are 2/3rds of the show’s ENTIRE trans rep. With the other 1/3rd being introduced to us as a serial killer. Like. Guys. What is it that you’re trying to say?)

Apparently Sallie May’s VA has stated the below on Social Media, and stated that there’s a lot more coming for Sallie May in the future. And that’s great!!! I really really want to believe that.

But I look at the above and can’t help but wonder…if this is the case, why did it take three years for her to get another appearance? In just a short? Why wasn’t she given more focus and importance from the very beginning, in her introductory episode? If her original appearance wasn’t representative of her and Millie’s relationship then why did they even write it that way???

I want to believe all of the above—that Sallie May actually WILL get to become a main character. But I look at the way she’s been barely portrayed, and the way that she’s basically been used to just sell merch, and it makes me sad.

I would love to see more of her, more of any trans characters that aren’t 2 second background characters, but I honestly have a hard time believing we ever will when the episodes take as long as the do to come out, and the when the episodes focus so heavily on shipping pre-existing pairings.

As a lesbian, I would love to see Sallie May get a girlfriend, but given Spindlehorse’s track record with lackluster sapphic pairings and representation, I don’t have much hope of seeing that either.

I just. If you managed to get all the way through this heinously long post, thank you for reading. If you didn’t, that’s very fair (lol) and I’ve got the tldr for you here—

TLDR:

—My issue with Sallie May is not actually with Sallie May at all. It’s with the fact that we don’t get enough of Sallie May, or any trans characters, for that matter.

—You can, of course, feel represented by any character, but I think it’s important to ask yourself how you are being represented, and if you are actually being represented.

—Not every queer/trans/lgbt story has to explicitly be about being queer. The stories in which we are represented should be as diverse and vibrant as all the members of our community. But, I still want to actually be able to tell and to see that the characters are lgbtq+. If a character is a lesbian or sapphic, I want to see her show an interest in other women. If a character is transgender I want to see that acknowledged by the narrative, whether it’s the character mentioning their transition or just saying they’re trans. I want to SEE myself and other queer identities. Not just know that they’re there.

[sexhaver]

Howdy friend! I feel like that meme with doctor eggman that just walked in on rouge and shadow having a spirited discussion on something I have no pretext about. But it sounds important and I do wanna educate myself if there's a lacking somewhere, genuinely. From what I understood from scrolling down to a screenshot poll and other screens, it's trying to figure out if people are automatically taking frat boys (the classic stereotype kind, btw, genuinely players) in good faith by queer-ifying them because they have been fortunately unfortunate enough to not have the life experience of being used by this type of person that will take their good faith and hurt them?

Because I do think that there *could* be a cishet aro man out there, if it's defined very explicitly as: a man (born with a penis and identifies as he/him) and likes women (including trans women) and is aromantic. Face value wise, that is.

Because the question wasn't if the hypothetical man was superstraight (and don't count trans people at all) or just pussy-seeking (i.e. looking to have sex with ciswomen and trans men who haven't had bottom surgery, is explicitly Not transphobic). Or if this hypothetical man wasn't also, say, a "friend" met at a party/tinder/hookup/through mutuals/etc that is really just an acquaintance with little of substance genuinely known...or if this man was actually what one would consider a genuine friend. Or if this hypothetical man was poly (and/or if you were poly honestly, this feels like this is being framed in a mono mindset, which is okay! But poly adds extra details to account for). Also if he was out as aro.

The point is, I am aware of cheating. I am aware of using terms to get around cheating. Or trying to justify it. But aromantizim by itself isn't cheating. Poly by itself isn't cheating. FwB by itself, or hooking up by itself, or sex work by itself, isn't cheating- if there is informed consent on both sides with all affected parties, which includes all other partners. Wanting to sleep around isn't a crime, regardless of who or where or what gender.

I know there's plenty of men that aren't allies, that are homophobic or transphobic or sexist, but that wasn't the question. You aren't making that distinction or posing a scenario, just a screenshot without any added distinction other that the consent (after it was asked for by voters). It's taking the assumption that practicing genuine safe sex ( not that bullshit abstinence thing schools and "god fearing Christians" teach), is limited to only cishetero men... And not something to practice with everyone.

It shouldn't matter my gender or background or beliefs or sexuality, since these are simply opinions and all opinions come with grains of salt, but I know if I don't add context of me being the one giving these opinions, I'll be discredited.

I'm a cis-women (so very petrifiyingly aware of that Fear/wariness of being approached at night by strangers, or followed. I don't like ANYONE strange coming up to me, regardless of gender, a woman can stab me as much as a man can rape me, but I feel like I know the mindset extreme examples being presented here so there were go).

I'm demi-omnisexualromantic. Everyone's free game once I get to know them on a genuine emotional level. We HAVE to be besties (or we have to never ever see each other again if I'm gonna sleep with you and you're not a friend, oh gOD WHAT IF I FART OR THEY'RE A SERIAL KILLER OH GOD).

I'm poly. The first thing is with my girlfriend and our paramour, since we are the "oringal polycule" is had a sit down discussion about what we agreed upon what being in a relationship is like (we happen to be romantically and sexually attracted to each other btw). It was Poly from the start and Open from the start. We are all okay and open to each other going out to bdsm clubs or kink parties or sleeping around, or if asking out cute people..... BUT we have to ask permission/inform the other partners in our polycule. There's nothing to hide and they consent. They can say no, and that's okay!! Because then!! We can have an open and honest discussion as to why (lonely, conflicting plans, insecurity, safety worries, etc). Also also, anyone new that's meant to become a fwb or a pet needs to know about and meet our polycule, and it's a one-no situation here. If *anyone* is uncomfortable, nothing goes forward.

Sex is nice, sex is great if you're a freak like me and into that sorta thing; and sexual safety awareness and stranger danger awareness and informed consent awareness is MAJORLY IMPORTANT AND CRITICAL AND EVERYONE SHOULD BE TAUGHT THIS IN SCHOOL OH GOD but in my humble opinion the execution has spiraled into something messy with rampant misunderstanding and accidental invalidation of aro-spec men, poly people, and our allies,,, as well as anyone trying to be open-minded even if they dont understand.

Telling people that they're naive and ignorant isn't going to teach them a lesson you appear to feel strongly that they need to learn, it only shames and makes them not likely to actually follow the good advice (?) that's being presented in a not-clear format.

And it also earns you a buncha people getting angry because they don't understand the question actually being asked because the context wasn't clarified or what the actual answer is in a no patronizing manner/delivery,, and I'm sure you're feeling very much harassed and exhausted for answers that have little to nothing to do with your actual question, and I'm really sorry for that because I've been there and I hate this for you because it's exhausting and dispiriting to find people who never got taught how to keep themselves safe... But I'm also happy that they haven't had to learn it the hard way *yet* and that I can still help, or even that the people I was so stressed over not having the lesson... Actually DO know the answer but just misunderstood the question or that I just asked it confusingly!!

Anyway, sorry for the extremely long ask, double sorry if I misunderstood anything you were trying to say or explained anything that you already know. But if you could clarify in your own words and time, I would be very grateful! If not, that's still okay and I hope you take care of yourself out there, friend! Also, I'm on anon less because I'm ashamed of my opinion, and more because I don't want anyone else randomly messaging me back because they don't like me for my views online and I happen to really like this account dghjfedhjfdsjk

oh my god i thought there was a character limit on anons. what am i even being asked here? i literally just woke up and opened my inbox and made this face

[rerinko]

On the History of the Term Compulsory Heterosexuality

The history of the term compet started in a 1980 essay written by feminist lesbian author Adrienne Rich entitled “Compulsory Heterosexuality and the Lesbian experience��. In this essay I believe she lays out a lot of amazing points and really puts in the groundwork for the term compulsory heterosexuality. It has been over 40 years since her original essay was written and while I think a lot of points still stand the time, some I have a hard time agreeing with.

One of the main contentions I have with Adrienne Rich’s is how she frames lesbianism. I do agree that lesbianism is inherently anti patriarchy because we are the only sexuality to not center men in any way. To some extent I can understand the argument that lesbianism is inherently political. The same way I believe my existence as a Jewish is also a political statement. After thousands of years of genocide we then Jewish people are still here. The same can be said about any group that has experienced genocide. But I don't identify as Jewish as a political statement. I AM Jewish and that is the political stamens. She also believes we shouldn't use the term “lesbianism” as a stigmatized clinical term. Nevertheless I disagree with the notion that you can also identify as a lesbian as a political statement. As of late there have been many movements to decenter men. The main one coming to mind as of late is the 4B movement. The 4B movement started in Korea and the 4Bs are the 4 things they agree to never do with men. Bi or 비 means no in this context.

비섹스 Biseksu - No sex with men

비출산 Bichulsan - No having kids with men

비연애 Biyeonae - No dating men

비혼 Bihon - No marrying men

You can choose not to center men in your life while still being straight or bisexual. My identity as a lesbian and my lack of attraction to men exists outside of the patriarchy. I find it really demeaning and belittling to the lesbian experience to say people who are attracted to men can choose to be a lesbian or adopt that title because of lifestyle choices they made. This idea of the lesbian continuum where every woman experiences or that lesbianism is an extension of feminism I can't agree with. I feel like we do all share a sisterhood as a result of being victims of the patriarchy but I don't believe that is lesbianism or the correct term to refer to that. She says that people can exist on the lesbian continuum without wanting to ever touch another woman’s genitals and I don't believe that's what being a lesbian is. Straight and bisexual women do exist and what good is there in erasing their identities?

I also hate the idea that heterosexuality isn't natural. Obviously the idea that everyone is naturally heterosexual is wrong but the same way being gay is natural being straight is natural. Wanting connection and a community, romantic connection even sex is natural. I feel like this unintentionally feeds into shaming women about their sexuality and slut shaming. I agree that heterosexuality Isn't inherent to all women but it is of some and that’s okay. As a lesbian I feel proud when I see women talking about how much they love or are attracted to men sexually. For so long women were expected to be pure, to never think about things like sex and now we're finally at a stage where women are accepting their sexualities even if they are straight. At the same time I'm proud of any straight women who takes part in movements like 4B who chooses to actively decenter men in their life but that doesn't make them a lesbian. Women's sexuality has always been about men. They're supposed to be sexual when they're told and pure when they're told. Women choosing to take their sexuality into their own hands and doing what they actually want to do no matter what that is, is progress.

The 4B movement is not perfect, it is riddled with TERFS (Trans exclusionary radical feminist). I think a lot of feminist movements are inherently flawed because they focus on one subset of people. Intersectional feminism is amazing because it gives space to every single intersection of identities. As I've gotten older I've realized that I think a lot of people need to realize that not everything is for them and not everything is about them. I am an Ashkenazi Jewish lesbian. I can only relate to people who share those same traits and most people who do share one trait with me don't share all of them. You are not going to relate to everyone's experience or oppression but you can still hold space for them and let them speak. You are not going to relate to everyone's feelings or what they want to do in life but you can still respect them.

A key flaw I find in a lot of radical feminist movements is they care too much about things people do that have no direct impact on them. How does a trans woman existing affect a cis woman negatively in any way? Another extension of this is the discussions I see around plastic surgery. Why are we so quick to blame women for trying to fit in and live in a society that can be so harsh? So many women will victim shame other women in the guise of feminism. If a woman chooses to be a stay at home Mom logically we can understand no decision can be made in a bubble outside of patriarchy but we can still respect her decision if that’s what makes her happy. Choice feminism is not being freed from the patriarchy nor am I trying to say it's good but shaming women for making choices that don't negatively impact anyone else isn't any better. Shaming women for trying to survive in a society that wants us perfect or dead is counterproductive. I got into an argument with someone on TikTok and they were saying that by shaving our bodies we're trying to resemble children and therefore it's appealing to pedophiles. In addition it's imposed by the patriarchy and we wouldn't do it without societal pressure. Before I tackle the parts about patriarchy I want to talk about the pedophilic aspect. First of all I find it weird to say that people who are attracted to grown women are pedophilic because they're shaved. Pedophiles aren't attracted to adult women and adult women don't instantly look like children because they shave their vulva. Women like Belle Delphine who do actively try to appeal to pedophiles don't just shave their vulva. They wear children's clothes, diapers, wear fake braces, suck on teethers and make baby noises. You should never conflate that with a grown woman shaving. I am autistic and since I started growing body hair I have compulsively shaved. I have very very bad sensory issues and the feeling of my body hair rubbing on fabrics, even me rubbing my legs together and feeling body hair makes me literally shiver. When I brought this up to her she responded with a few points. The first was “why did sensory issues not exist 50 years ago.” I explained that 50 years ago many people did not know the vocabulary to properly explain their experience. The idea that women can even have autism has only recently been accepted. She also asked me why the hair I had sensory issues only applied to the hair below my eyes. It doesn't apply to hair just below my eyes. I can't have bangs because I don't like the feeling and I'm currently in the process of growing them out. Sometimes I style bangs for pictures or videos but so quickly I usually pin my bangs back and put my hair up in a clip. If I wear a hood I have to always put my hair up because I don't like how hair under clothing feels. That’s actually the reason why I usually never wear hoods or hats. Her response to this was to tell me to get help. I say this all to make the point that your experience is not everyone else's. Just because you've never heard of something before doesn't mean it doesn't exist and it doesn't happen.

I hate this idea that “because it hurts my feelings it's bad” not everything is about you. If someone loses weight it's not because they hate all fat people. If someone gets a nose job it's not because they think all people with a nose similar to theirs are ugly. Most insecurities are personal and when they make these choices they aren't thinking about other people and what they look like, they're thinking about themselves only. If you see someone change something about themselves and you get mad at it it's probably because you have an insecurity of your own you need to work on. This also applies to people who bully people. If you go out of your way to bully someone for being fat and ugly you're probably projecting how you feel onto them. Secure people don't feel the need to belittle people who probably already have a hard time in society.

Women are so diverse and have such a diverse set of experiences yet one we all have is the impact

of the patriarchy. Yet some women will shame other women for actually being impacted by the patriarchy. Shaming people because they don't live the exact same lifestyle you do is just so wrong. To move forward and dismantle the patriarchy we need to target the men and sometimes the women who actively perpetuate and keep the patriarchy alive. The woman who took ozempic isn't your enemy, it's the men who told her she needed to be skinny to be attractive. 40 years after “Compulsory Heterosexuality and the Lesbian Experience” was published a lot of issues brought up in the essay are still sadly prominently issues. Sexual violence, forced marriges, discrimination against women in job fields, access to birth control and abortion and how they get judged based on their looks and there's only one way to be a woman and only one way to dress and present yourself as a woman. I find it very sad how in 40 years people pretend there has been so much progress but in reality nothing has changed. I also agree with the fact that compulsory heterosexuality is only something women (people raised as women) can experience due to the fact throughout history women have to have a husband to get anywhere or be anyone. I think a lot of gay men will conflate compulsory heterosexuality with adapting to live in a just heteronormative society but in fact it's about adapting to live in a heteronormative and misogynistic patriarchal society which Adrienne Rich explained really well. Men have freedom, women only have the freedom men give them. Women have been consistently limited by who they marry. Because the heteronormative society is also a misogynistic society where women are second class to men. Saying compulsory heterosexuality is a lesbian only experience isn't to undermine the experience of gay men but to highlight the experience of lesbian women.

[testudoaubrei-blog]

do you really think queer rep doesnt matter because that seems like the opposite of a lot of things you have stated before.

Short answer, no, I don't think that queer rep is irrelevant or even unimportant. It's more that, I think that the question 'is this good representation?' isn't the best way to go about artistic and cultural criticism from a queer perspective. Instead, I think there are better questions we can ask that get at the same things but encourage deeper and more meaningful encounters with art and more critical appraisals of mass culture.

So when people examine something to see if it is 'good rep' I think there are two questions contained here. First, is what is represented queer at all? IE is X character of Y identity? Secondly, is the way this character is represented good?

I think this framing of the questions encourages or at least, doesn't discourage somehat reductive answers. For 'is this representation at all?' if we are asking that characters represent us, this framing encourages us to look for explicit identities. Characters saying that they are bi, or trans, etc. Often one encounters online the idea that non-explicit identification doesn't count. Which is valid when we are talking about queerbaiting or cowardly narratives that play up gay subtext but never make it text. But what about allegory, or fantasy or hell, old fashioned ambiguity? Queerness is often about the liminal spaces between sexualities and genders, or understandings of gender and sexuality orthagonal to stroaght society. If we ask 'am I represented by this character?' we might close ourselves off to subtler ways of encountering queerness in art. For instance, in Nona the Ninth there are no characters that walk around and tell people 'I am trans' and only one character that uses they/them pronouns. But the book is full of characters that are in the wrong body (yes, when used in our world this is a reductive framing but I think it works here), and Pyrrha in particular is depicted as dysphoric. The experience of these characters is reflective of the trans experience (see also, the Matrix and Ghost in the Shell). I think Nona is a far more trans book than many more conventional stories that have trans characters. On the other hand, I have seen folks online seem happy with like, pride flag color coding in characters that have no narrative impact, like a gay version of 'spot the reference'. Some examples of this make me feel like that girl power scene in avengers endgame. It feels both pandering and unearned on the part of the corporate behemoth producing the media we watch. Again, I think this isn't just people not thinking deeply but that it reflects a flaw in the underlying question.

Even more fraught is the question of whether representation is 'good' or not. Generally 'good' is taken to mean several things, which are defined negatively - IE good rep is simply rep that is not bad. The thrre main ways rep can be bad, by most definitions, is if a character is stereotypical (in a negative way), villainous or if theor story has a tragic end. As far as I can tell, the two forces driving these definitions are establishment gay groups like GLAAD and fans. And a lot of concerns by both parties are valid! The Hayes Code basically mandated that implicitly gay characters had to be villains who came to bad ends, and characters were coded as queer through negative stereotypes. But this negative idea of avoiding bad representation also doesn't guide our analysis into very deep places. How often have we seen this idea of good rep turned into a demand that queer characters be virtuous heroes who love happily ever after? And this makes sense. GLAAD is worried about making us look good for the straights, and fans of all kinds want fanservice.

Put another way, a problem with framing queer art and queerness in pop culture in terms of representation is that this is a kind of atomistic way of looking at a narrative and its characters. It breaks the cast into individual people and those people into a list of traits and the story into character arcs (but mostly a list of outcomes). It does not view the work as a whole and so doesn't touch on themes or style or anything like that.

So are there better questions we can ask? Yeah I think so. What of we ask ourselves 'is this an authentically queer story?' Or on a more personal level 'does this reflect the queer experience?' Or in a more open ended way 'what does this work have to say to queer people about who we are and how we love our lives?' or 'what part of our lives is reflected in this?' I think these questions encourage a more interesting line of inquiry.

[its-ya-boi-kai]

My queer identity

Transition part 9:

As is tradition of many (I want to be really bold and say all, but that's an enormous assumption made by yours truly) of us trans people, I'm reflecting on my sexual and overarching queer identity as I transition.

Expanding my social circle has made this a really interesting process. Having more queer peers to talk to, I get to see so many different identities and lifestyles. It makes it easier to not force myself into boxes of gender and sexuality. I can form my identity based on my own comfort and what resonates with me as an individual.

My sexual identity, while I don't feel like has necessarily changed, the lens through which I view it has changed. For most of my teen/adult life I've identified as bisexual. I've dated and fooled around with a lot of (cis) men and a few (cis) women (while I was young and closeted). In the past year or so I've found I definitely align with demisexuality. My sexual attraction to someone comes AFTER I get to know them (and like them) as a person, and how much we have in common as people. My partner will always also have to be my best friend because my brain doesn't allow for the two to be different.

But that doesn't cover everything. I'm finding myself also identifying as a gay man specifically. "Gay man" feels like an important part of my identity. Does gender actually matter to me? I'm not sure. To be honest, I think I just don't want to date cis/het people. Queerness is more the core of my sexual attraction and I think that goes along with my demisexuality. I will relate more deeply to queer people, simply because we share a similar experience, than I will with cis/het people. My preferences do lean more towards men, and identifying as a gay man gives me gender euphoria, so I am using that label for now. And while I prefer men, I wouldn't let gender stop me from dating a person. But they would definitely have to be queer in some form.

I'm definitely T4T. A large part of this is also my demisexuality. I will more closely emotionally relate to a non-cis partner, than I will a cis partner. My current partner is gender fluid (they/them) and it's made a HUGE difference in my confidence and ability to explore myself. I was previously with a cishet man (before I came out) and the dysphoria problems that would occur for me in a relationship like that would just be too much. Having a non cis partner makes it so much easier to explore my gender without feeling pressure to meet certain expectations or social norms. I don't have to feel self conscious as I'm going through my changes. I don't have to worry about still being seen "as a man" when I'm at home, and I need to take my binder off. I'm seen as a man, without doubt or question, no matter how I present, or how I act, or how my body looks, ect. They've also been exploring their own queer identity with me. We came out to each other on a date we went on in the city. We've both been present for most of our queer development, and have been supporting each other. Having a no expectations no pressure safe setting to explore gender freely has been really fun for both of us.

Having only been on T for a few months, I'm viewing my transition as an exciting journey of self exploration. At first I had it framed as "I can't wait to minimize my dysphoria" which is true, it ABSOLUTELY does. But testosterone takes time, getting funds for top surgery takes time, physical transitioning just takes so much time. My entire life has felt like a waiting game for "things to get better" even outside of transitioning. All it's ever done is exhaust me, so I'm trying to view things differently. I saw someone on tiktok say he is a man and wants to be "male adjacent". He wants to be very very close to cis male, right next to it in fact. But he doesn't want to BE "cis". He wants a male body form that he can build his gender identity off of and I absolutely LOVE that viewpoint. I don't have a goal of "being cis" or even passing as such.

I'm trying to enjoy this time of self discovery, as an adventure I get to take myself on. In the past, trying to work myself out was painful and confusing. It always felt like I was missing a really important piece of myself, and I couldn't figure out what. I thought a person would fill that, made that mistake over and over for years. But since I've been transitioning, I feel whole for the first time ever. I feel whole, ON MY OWN. I've never felt that way before. And that feeling alone, is enough for me to want to really savor these euphoric moments, and enjoy that I get to finally feel at peace with myself.

Being on testosterone has made all of this positive change possible. Even without my top surgery, I feel SO MUCH BETTER mentally and emotionally. And it's honestly the reason I'm able to feel so grateful for my life and feel so positive about my future. My mental health has improved so much and I am so grateful that I'm in an environment where I can do all this.

[Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3] [Part 4] [Part 5] [Part 6] [Part 7] [Part 8] [Part 9]

[velocitic]

something on my mind lately that i'm not sure entirely how to phrase is like - this is mostly targeted at white trans influencer types, but i find something very grating on the kind of body negativity posting i see in relation to dealing with body dysmorphia. now, body dysmorphia/dysphoria are something that anyone can experience, and not everyone does, and it's different for different people. however, i take issue with the content made around learning how to "pass" by hiding your body, and specifically the language used for it. primarily i see this around "wide hips", and i do see the need and/or want for clothing tips that help people feel comfortable in their bodies, and i don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong with this content's primary goal. however, as trans owned/focused fashion brands are becoming more in number, i'm finding that the representatives i am seeing for these brands are overwhelmingly white, skinny, transmasc individuals. and the language used to market their products is one that is, i think, meant to be addressing dysphoria, but it comes across to me as a narrowly defined negative view. as someone with a larger chest and a larger/stockier frame, all of the tips about "hiding" my wider hips can do nothing tangible for my appearance. you cannot hide genuinely large/noticeable features of your body; trust me, i've tried for years to do so, and sometimes i still try in vain to wear the straight jeans and the special cut tee shirts, and it just leaves me feeling worse because i am not the target audience of these tips. i am not skinny. i also do not think i subscribe to this belief that wide hips are a "dead giveaway" that will prevent you from passing; i think that (and other such beliefs) honestly is rooted in bioessentialist beliefs that i wish we would all unpack and be a lot better off without.

it is not to say that skinny trans people's issues with their bodies are not valid or not okay to talk about. but i do think that rebranding body negativity into the language of progressive thought is unfair and cruel whether it is shaving razor ads telling women that they are beautiful no matter what but that doesn't mean stop shaving, or if it is a skinny, flat chested, white trans person telling me that all trans people are wonderful but more importantly how much their wide hips bother them - and how a product can "fix" both of these issues.

and how am i meant to feel about this whole thing, anyway? if this skinny person's hips are too wide, then what the hell is wrong with me? there is inherent comparison in self hate. putting yourself down will only lead to holding bias against those who are "worse" than you (whether you're aware of it or not) & broadcasting to all the other people with the feature you hate about yourself are surely also ugly or inferior in the same way you believe yourself to be. i don't think body dysmorphia should not be talked about. i do think that talking about it in the language of product placement and brand marketing is doomed from the start. when a skinny person says that their hips are too wide, their jaw is too soft, they hate their nose and with a chest like theirs they'll never pass, i earnestly have no idea what to possibly say, because in their self hate they have entirely vilified me. i am short and stocky with muscle and my jaw is soft and i have acne and wide hips and a large chest. how am i meant to feel safe with those who believe my features to be their worst nightmare? how can i build community with you when i can imagine how you preen in the mirror over your 110 lb build and how awful it is?

this is what is meant when we talk about self love as a form of resistance. you cannot expect to be a safe person as long as you hate yourself for being human.

[odinsblog]

While I applaud the intent behind these posts, and I truly believe it’s a conversation that white people dO need to have with other white people, I gotta say that this is a very privileged, cis/het white point of view.

What the, “We could all become bigots” framing misses, as usual, is the deeply rooted societal power imbalances.

I’m Black. Me and every single Black person in America (or the UK) could become “bigoted” tomorrow, and almost nothing of consequence would change for white people. There wouldn’t be a sudden increase in white people being unfairly arrested by Black police officers. There would not be an increase of unarmed white people being gunned down by Black police officers. There would not be any increase of whites being unfairly imprisoned by disproportionately Black juries, and white people wouldn’t suddenly cease having the best job, educational and housing opportunities.

Do you understand the difference?? It’s POWER. The power to inflict your “bigotry” on others, and the absolute certainty of dire consequences for non-white people who might try to use what little collective INSTITUTIONAL power we have to be “bigoted” towards white people.

If every jailed person in America suddenly became “bigoted” against white people and decided to vote for the most anti-white bigot you can think of, absolutely nothing would change in America. Because unfortunately, prisoners cannot vote and they therefore have no political power. My point is, WHO gets radicalized matters. It’s not a trivial point.

And I used quotes around the word bigotry because, in my experience, white people tend to use that word when what they really mean is racism, or more often and more to the point, white supremacy. But deftly using the word “bigotry” has a way of trivializing and universalizing something that definitely is not trivial or universal.

So while I suppose it’s technically true that any one of us could become a bigot, please understand what Malcolm X meant when he said, “When white America catches a cold, Black America catches pneumonia.” There is a reason his saying does not work the other way around: because the color of your skin makes a difference in who’s “bigotry” can cause material harm, and who’s cannot.

I am neither gay nor trans, but I believe that I could very easily make many of the same arguments for gay people and trans people: if every trans person in America suddenly became “bigoted” against straight cis/het people, next to nothing would change for heterosexuals. There wouldn’t be any plethora of laws made outlawing heterosexual relationships, and there wouldn’t be any laws placing restrictions on when it is or is not permitted to be heterosexual. Again, because there is an inherent power difference in who can inflict their bigotry on whom.

It is super rare for me to comment on posts like this, because honestly, I don’t like it when someone does it to me, and it’s easier to ignore them and just keep scrolling.

But I’ve seen sO much of this kind of, “Well we’re ALL just a little bit racist,” or “Anyone can be bigoted” and it simply misses the point—who has power—by a mile.

Minimizing JK Rowling as being almost some harmless cis white woman, who could be any one of us, is just so…! Whew boy.

I am definitely not giving white men a pass, but cis white women have co-signed on to some of thee most dangerous and harmful forms of racism, sexism transphobia and homophobia in Western history. Cis white women’s tears and fears have preceded many a lynching. Because—beating this dead horse for the last time, I promise—their white tears & fears have POWER that others simply do. not. Rowling’s views are dangerous specifically because she has the disproportionate power to effect a change in actual laws; she knows and influences real live (disproportionately white/cis/het) lawmakers.

So I realize that it was not the ONLY point being made here, but no, this should definitely not be a, “we could ALL become radicalized” nor an, “it could happen to any of us” conversation. It matters WHO gets radicalized, and who has been reliably radicalized in the past. You just gotta take race (whiteness) and lived history into account in these conversations.

Lost followers after reblogging that whole thing about JKR being radicalized over the years, and that disturbs me.

Like if you think saying that people can be radicalized and manipulated into hate is somehow justifying it, yikes. And if you think that people are somehow just good or evil and that you are not at risk of buying into propaganda, have I got some very red flag news about that!

Idk if its because I am an older Millennial maybe (most who unfollowed were younger) but I watched a ton of that generation slide from one of the most progressive to the far right before my every eyes. Hell, my dad fought alongside his black friends in the Detroit race riots and now he watches Fox News 24/7 and talks about the border wall. Yet still claims he could never be racist because of how he used to be. He doesn’t even realize what he has become.

JKR isn’t a deluded old woman or innately evil, but in fact THE prime example of how well-meaning ignorance and privilege can be weaponized and encouraged down a pipeline, until it turns into a force of hate, and should be a cautionary tale about why educating and being open about these issues are necessary. Because there are those out there who will use those divisions and ignorance to their own ends. And just digging in our heels and saying “that could never be me!” is the very thing that puts you more at risk. I’ve lost so many loved ones down that pipeline and it is more slippery than most realize.

Stay alert, stay compassionate, stay humble, and make sure you move through life guided by reason rather than reaction. I love y’all and don’t want to see your passion twisted to get used against the world.

[intergalactic-chameleon]

rambling train of thought

oddly vulnerable for me 2 admit but i admire transmasc ppl a lot and think they r cool and wanna be their friend. transfemmes too. just trans ppl in general i fucking guess lmfao. but transmascs in particular bc i really admire the particular way that they practice / express masculinity

on a related note, this is why i know im somewhere on the trans spectrum bc i admire trans ppl too much to not be one myself, yknow. still frustrating tho bc i feel like everyone sees me as a cis girl and i just wanna be like Hey Um ACTUALLY I Have A Rich Inner Life… I’ll Have You Know… just bc im a girl doesnt mean that’s all i am, i dont relate to a lot things typically prescribed to women, im super duper queer, etc etc

also lots weird back and forth in my head between identifying as a woman purposefully but also on a variation of technicalities. and also wanting to look like a boy, but a very Specific vision of one that i have in my head, and also lacking the want or need to “pass.” very confusing to say the least.

i got a binder recently and i remember thinking to myself “am i getting anything out of this.” part of that definitely has to do with the style of binder i got, which doesnt do that much when u got big tits like i do (i need to get a tank binder sometime). but ive been trying to understand how i feel about my chest, and my body at large. basically, i dont hate my body. i dont. i dont even rly experience gender dysphoria atp. often, i even love my body. it’s attractive. but my body makes me feel frustrated because i feel like i only have so much control over what it looks like. esp bc i dont rly want breast reduction/removal or hormones. i see an attractive man/masc and experience a mixture of reactions. attraction. lust. jealousy. a tinge of sadness. agitation.

again, i really dont hate my body. i just wish i could do more with its silhouette and shape it to my liking with ease. im rly short (4’10”), have big boobs, small frame, curvy figure, long hair… all these things i enjoy or at least am okay with, but put em all together and that’s all anyone can ever see: a woman. and being a woman is cool, and i identify with it. but no matter what it never feels like enough for me. i break out of that box as much as i can because i cant stand being so limited. like if i can so easily be a woman, why cant i so easily be a man (so to speak)? i most aspire to be a fag, tbqh. in my own way that is.

idk if any of this made sense lol

[liquidstar]

I feel as if many people, myself included, have been having problems with the way “critical thinking” is conducted in fandom circles more and more. Which I’d say is a good thing, because it means we’re thinking critically. But still the issues with the faux-critical mentality and with the way we consume media through that fandom group mentality are incredibly widespread at this point, despite being very flawed, and there are still plenty of people who follow it blindly, ironically.

I sort of felt like I had to examine my personal feelings on it and I ended up writing a whole novel, which I’ll put under the cut, and I do welcome other people’s voices in the matter, because while I’m being as nuanced as I can here I obviously am still writing from personal experience and may overlook some things from my limited perspective. But by and large I think I’ve dissected the phenomena as best I can from what I’ve been seeing going on in fandom circles from a safe but observable distance.

Right off the bat I want to say, I think it's incredibly good and necessary to be critical of media and understand when you should stop consuming it, but that line can be a bit circumstantial sometimes for different people. There are a lot of anime that I used to watch as a teenager that I can’t enjoy anymore, because I got more and more uncomfortable overtime with the sexualization of young characters, partly because as I was getting older I was really starting to realize how big of an issue it was, and I certainly think more critically now than I did when I was 14. Of course I don’t assume everyone who still watches certain series is a pedophile, and I do think there are plenty of fans that understand this. However I still stay away from those circles and that’s a personal choice.

I don’t think a person is morally superior based on where they draw the line and their own boundaries with this type of stuff, what’s more important is your understanding of the problem and response to it. There are series I watch that have a lot of the same issues around sexualization of the young characters in the cast, but they’re relatively toned down and I can still enjoy the aspects of the series I actually like without it feeling as uncomfortable and extreme. Others will not be able to, and their issues with it are legitimate and ones that I still ultimately agree with, but they’re still free to dislike the series for it, after all our stance on the issue itself is the same so why would I resent them for it?

Different people are bound to have different lines they draw for how far certain things can go in media before they’re uncomfortable watching it and it doesn’t make it a moral failing of the person who can put up with more if they’re still capable of understanding why it’s bad to begin with and able to not let it effect them. But I don’t think that sentiment necessarily contradicts the idea that some things really are too far gone for this to apply, the above examples aren’t the same thing as a series centered solely around lolicon ecchi and it doesn’t take a lot of deep analysis to understand why. It’s not about a personal line anymore when it comes to things that are outright propaganda or predatory with harmful ideals woven into the message of the story itself. Critical thinking means knowing the difference between these, and no one can hold your hand through it. And simply slapping “I’m critical of my interests” on your bio isn’t a get out of jail free card, it’s always evident when someone isn’t truly thinking about the impact of the media they consume through the way they consume it.

I think the issue is that when people apply “Critical thinking” they don’t actually analyze the story and its intent, messages, themes, morals, and all that. Instead they approach it completely diegetically, it’s basically the thermian argument, the issue stems from thinking about the story and characters as if they’re real people and judging their actions through that perspective, rather than something from a writer trying to deliver a narrative by using the story and characters as tools. Like how people get upset about characters behaving “problematically” without realizing that it’s an intentional aspect of the story, that the character needs to cause problems for there to be conflict. What they should be looking at instead is what their behavior represents in the real world.

You do not need to apply real-world morals to fictional characters, you need to apply them to the narrative. The story exists in the real world, the characters and events within it do not. Fictional murderers themselves do not hurt anyone, no one is actually dying at their hands, but their actions hold weight in the narrative which itself can harm real people. If the character only murders gay people then it reflects on whatever the themes and messages of the story are, and it’s a major issue if it's framed as if they’re morally justified, or as if this is a noble action. And it’s a huge red flag if people stan this character, even if the story itself actually presents their actions as reprehensible. Or cases where the murderers themselves are some kind of awful stereotype, like Buffalo Bill who presents a violent and dangerous stereotype of trans women, making the character a transmisogynistic caricature (Intentional or otherwise) that has caused a lot of harm to the perception of trans women. When people say “Fiction affects reality” this is what they mean. They do not mean “People will see a pretend bad guy and become bad” they mean “Ideals represented in fiction will be pulled from the real world and reflected back onto it.”

However, stories shouldn’t have to spoon-feed you the lesson as if you’re watching a children’s cartoon, stories often have nuances and you have to actively analyze the themes of it all to understand it’s core messages. Oftentimes it can be intentionally murky and hard to parse especially if the subject matter itself is complicated. But you can’t simply read things on the surface and think you understand everything about them, without understanding the symbolism or subtext you can leave a series like Revolutionary Girl Utena thinking the titular Utena is heterosexual and was only ever in love with her prince. Things won’t always be face-value or clear-cut and you will be forced to come to your own conclusions sometimes too.

That’s why the whole fandom-based groupthink mentality about “critical thinking” doesn’t work, because it’s not critical. It’s simply looking into the crowd, seeing people say a show is problematic, and then dropping it without truly understanding why. It’s performative, consuming the best media isn’t activism and it doesn’t make you a better person. Listening to the voices of people whom the issues directly concerns will help you form an opinion, and to understand the issues from a more knowledgeable perspective beyond your own. All that means nothing if you just sweep it under the rug because you want to look infallible in your morality. That’s not being critical, it’s just being scared to analyze yourself, as well as what you engage with. You just don’t want to think about those things and you’re afraid of being less than perfect so you pretend it never happened.

And though I’m making this post, it’s not mine or anyone else’s job to hold your hand through all this and tell you “Oh this show is okay, but this show isn't, and this book is bad etc etc etc”. Because you actually have to think for yourself, you know, critically. Examples I’ve listed aren’t rules of thumb, they’re just examples and things will vary depending on the story and circumstance. You have to look at shit on a case-by-case basis instead of relying on spotting tropes without thinking about how they’re implemented and what they mean. That’s why it’s analysis, you have to use it to understand what the narrative is communicating to its audience, explicitly or implicitly, intentionally or incidentally, and understand how this reflects the real world and what kind of impact it can have on it. 

A big problem with fandom is it has made interests synonymous with personality traits, as if every series we consume is a core part of our being, and everything we see in it reflects our viewpoints as well. So when people are told that a show they watched is problematic, they react very extremely, because they see it as basically the same thing as saying they themselves are problematic (It’s not). Everyone sees themselves as good people, they don’t want to be bad people, so this scares them and they either start hiding any evidence that they ever liked it, or they double down and start defending it despite all its flaws, often providing those aforementioned thermian arguments (“She dresses that way because of her powers!”).

That’s how you get people who call children’s cartoons “irredeemable media” and people who plaster “fiction=/= reality!” all over their blogs, both are basically trying to save face either by denying that they could ever consume anything problematic or denying that the problematic aspects exist all together. And absolutely no one is actually addressing the core issues anymore, save for those affected by them who pointed them out to begin with, only for their original point to become muffled in the discourse. No one is thinking critically because they’re more concerned with us-vs-them group mentality, both sides try to out-perform the other while the actual issue gets ignored or is used as nothing more than a gacha with no true understanding or sympathy behind it.

One of the other issues that comes from this is the fact that pretty much everyone thinks they’re the only person capable of being critical of their interests. That’s how you get those interactions where one person goes “OK [Media] fan” and another person replies “Bro you literally like [Other Media]”, because both parties think they’re the only ones capable of consuming a problematic piece of media and not becoming problematic themselves, anyone else who enjoys it is clearly incapable of being as big brained as them. It’s understandable because we know ourselves and trust ourselves more than strangers, and I’m not saying there can’t be certain fandoms who’s fans you don’t wanna interact with, but when we presume that we know better than everyone else we stop listening to other people all together. It’s good to trust your own judgement, it’s bad to assume no one else has the capacity to think for themselves either though.

The insistence that all media that you personally like is without moral failing and completely pure comes with the belief that all media that you personally dislike has to be morally bad in some way. As if you can’t just dislike a series because you find it annoying or it just doesn’t appeal to you, it has to be problematic, and you have to justify your dislike of it through that perspective. You have to believe that your view on whatever media it is is the objectively correct one, so you’ll likely pick apart all it’s flaws to prove you’re on the right side, but there’s no analysis of context or intent. Keep in mind this doesn’t necessarily mean those critiques are unfounded or invalid, but in cases like this they’re often skewed in one direction based on personal opinion. It’s just as flawed as ignoring all the faults in the stuff you like, it’s biased and subjective analysis that misses a lot of context in both cases, it’s not a good mindset to have about consuming media. It’s just another result of tying media consumption with identity and personal morals. The faux-critical mentality is an attempt to separate the two in a way that implies they’re a packaged deal to begin with, making it sort of impossible to truly do so in any meaningful way.

As far as I know this whole phenomena started with “Steven Universe Critical” in, like, 2016, and that’s where this mentality around “critical thinking” originated. It started out with just a few people correctly pointing out very legitimate issues with the series, but over time it grew into just a trend where people would make cutesy kin blogs with urls like critical-[character] or [character]crit to go with the fad as it divulged into Nostalgia Critic level critique. Of course there was backlash to this and criticism of the criticism, but no actual conversation to be had. Just people trying to out-do each other by acting as the most virtuous one in the room, and soon enough the fad became a huge echo-chamber that encouraged more and more outrageous takes for every little thing. The series itself was a children’s cartoon so it stands to reason that a lot of the fans were young teens, so this behavior isn’t too surprising and I do believe a lot of them did think they were doing the right thing, especially since it was encouraged. But that doesn’t erase the fact that there were actual real issues and concerns brought up about the series that got treated with very little sympathy and were instead drowning out people’s voices. Though those from a few years back may have grown up since and know better (Hopefully), the mentality stuck around and influenced the norm for how fandoms and fandom people conduct any sort of critique on media. 

That’s a shame to me, because the pedestal people place fandom onto has completely disrupted our perception on how to engage with media in a normal way. Not everything should be consumed with fandom in mind, not everything is a coffee-shop au with no conflict, not everything is a children’s cartoon with the morals spoon-fed to you. Fandom has grown past the years of uncritical praise of a series, it’s much more mainstream now with a lot more voices in it beyond your small community on some forum, and people are allowed to use those voices. Just because it may not be as pleasant for you now because you don’t get to just turn your brain off and ignore all the flaws doesn’t mean you can put on your rose-tinted nostalgia goggles and pretend that fandom is actually all that is good in the world, to the point where you place it above the comfort and safety of others (Oftentimes children). Being uncritical of fandom itself is just as bad as being uncritical of what you consume to begin with. 

At the end of the day it all just boils down to the ability to truly think for yourself but with sympathy and compassion for other people in mind, while also understanding that not everyone will come to the same conclusion as you and people are allowed to resent your interests. That doesn’t necessarily mean they hate you personally, you should be acknowledging the same issues after all. You can’t ignore aspects of it that aren’t convenient to your conclusion, you have to actually be critical and understand the issues to be able to form it. 

I think that all we need is to not rely on fandom to tell us what to do, but still listen to the voices of others, take them into account to form our opinion too, boost their voices instead of drowning them out in the minutiae of internet discourse about which character is too much of an asshole to like. Think about what the characters and story represent non-diegetically instead of treating them like real people and events, rather a story with an intent and message to share through its story and characters, and whatever those reflect from the real world. That’s how fiction affects reality, because it exists in reality and reflects reality through its own lens. The story itself is real, with a real impact on you and many others, so think about the impact and why it all matters. Just… Think. Listen to others but think for yourself, that’s all.

[sasukesun]

Hello! This is a genuine question. What’s going on with the bi vs. pan situation? I’ve always referred to myself as panromantic because I don’t care what gender the person I fall in love with identifies, and I’m ace. I always thought pansexual is pretty much that but with the sex. I’d love to educate myself further. Thank you for your time !!

i’m not the most adequate person to answer you this, since there are a lot of blogs with way more knowledge in this matter than i am, i do read stuff as a hobby, but i’ll try to answer it anyway. if you want to, maybe you should check my lgbt tag because there are a lot of posts about this subject there and people that will express my thoughts even better than i do (you should check their blogs too).

pansexuality was born out of a misconception of what bisexuality is, with biphobic and transphobic ideas behind it by saying pan people, unlike bisexuals, were “attracted to men, women and trans people”, immediately framing bisexuality as restrictive, regressive, not inclusive enough and pansexuality as progressive and inclusive, when, in fact, all the sexualities have always included trans people. also, trans people don’t fall under a separate attraction, saying “men, women and trans people” as if they aren’t real men or women is transphobic and trans people shouldn’t be tokens to make you look more woke and accepting.

and when this was called out, they just tried to redefine the label instead of abolishing it while speaking over bisexual people about what bisexuality is. they say pansexuality means “attraction regardless of the gender” while bisexuality is “attraction to 2 or more genders” (gender mattering in the attraction), but that’s not what bi history tell us. bisexuality has been described as fluid and inclusive for 30, 40, 50 years, before the pan label has existed, bisexuality has never been fixated on bi = 2. the bisexual manifesto, written in the 90s has talked about how bisexuals don’t have only two sides, actually people shouldn’t assume there are only two genders. we have years of history ignored so pan people can redefine bisexuality against our will and seem to be more open minded and inclusive.

“but pan people are attracted to personalities, hearts not parts” implies bisexuals are only attracted to looks and genitals and paint us as shallow and transphobic. but anyway, other sexualities don’t have a new label for being “attracted to personalities” so why bi people need it?

“but pan people don’t have a preference, while bi people do” not true, but also, why would you need a whole different label to people with a preference or not? it doesn’t matter how you experience attraction but who you’re attracted to, which are the same groups in case of bi and pan people. our internal feelings, our way with dealing with personal stuff (including sex, which is why i’m also against the split attraction model you’ve mentioned) don’t make us oppressed in different ways.

there is no definition of pan that hasn’t already been used by bi people. the lgbt community tells people about how we live and who we love, there are differences among the labels but we saw what we have in common and decided to fight for it together. so why is there any need for a distinction? how does creating a new label helps us to connect with others as a community? how microlabeling everything helps us? it doesn’t.

“but the distinction matter to some people”, “i’m uncomfortable with the bi label, it doesn’t feel right” that’s internalised biphobia. why the distinction matter? why you feel the need to separate yourself from bisexuals if the definition is the same?

i could also talk about the harmful biphobic stereotypes people associated with bisexuals against our will and how pansexuality doesn’t struggle with those for giving the idea that they were more open minded and pure unlike the dirty bisexuals (which is also rooted in biphobia) but this will be too long. i’m just tired of having bisexuality being belittled and split along misleading labels that only contribute to more biphobia. i really recommend you to read my lgbt tag or search for it in other blogs that will have much more content than i do.

[captain-kit-adventuress]

Look, I get the argument and it’s well-enough articulated. But rather than pretending trans men don’t exist, even for the sake of a hypothetical, I still say we need to get people on board with “full bodily autonomy for all is a complete sentence.”

Sometimes this is why I take issue with framing a big idea as a “feminist stance.” Because we get ourselves all caught up in who qualifies as a woman, instead of remembering that feminism used to simply mean equality for all regardless (though that one’s really down to radfems for changing into this women-only space, though they’ve gotten far to many of us on their bandwagon, however tangentially).

Bodily autonomy is an issue for ALL humans. “What if they regret it?” is condescending and infantilising to any human. Yes, there are different degrees of it applied to various groups and individuals, but anything short of full bodily autonomy for all humans, no questions asked, is unacceptable.

No, I am not making an “all humans matter” argument. There is very much an urgency to defining full bodily autonomy for the most vulnerable segments of our society first because everyone else who experiences that infantilisation to any degree will quickly follow. It is so, so easy for this to start with trans people and cis women and girls, and extend it to something like forced sterilisation for minorities because of legal precedents, and those groups have fought too long and too hard to go back.

Doesn’t make it a strictly feminist issue in the way people seem to define it, though. And, for the record, there are too many people with an end goal of “no trans people exist” for me to feel comfortable with arguing hypothetically that any segment of trans people do not.

Everyone has the right to full bodily autonomy, full stop.

The fact that anti-abortion laws and anti-transgender laws are both being implemented en masse, at the *same* time, by the *same* people (who, it hardly needs to be remarked, are overwhelmingly neither women nor transgender) should be enough to convince any reasonable person that the narrative of conflict between and women's and transgender is, first and foremost, a divide-and-conquer strategy by the far right.

Your survival is our survival. Our survival is your survival. Anyone who says different is a fed.

[the-wayside]

As I stated, I was not directing my frustration at you.

In fact, I agree wholeheartedly with what you said in the comments. I apologize if I made you not want to partake in discussions, that was not my intention at all.

I sent you the ask because I thought you would agree, i was adding onto your comments not challenging it or because I'm trying to educate or one up you or anything. I am also sorry for your experiences, I hope you are well and healing.

Again, I apologize. I suppose I directed my "you" accusatorily unintentionally but I assure you it wasn't aimed maliciously, at you, specifically.

I shared my opinion with you because I get frustrated that people don't seem to recognize the sexual assault is rape.

That there is no such thing as sexual assault or rape. Yes, there are forms of sexual assault in which penetration is not present such as nonconsensual groping, kissing, etc., but rape is not magically separate from sexual assault.

Which is what that other person was seemingly saying. As if Porsche not getting penetrated (raped) by Vegas is somehow completely different from sexual assault when it isn't.

Rape = Sexual Assault. And so is any other form of nonconsensual physical contact, is my point. The other person was framing it as if rape is one thing and sexual assault is another. It isn't.

Rape is under the umbrella of Sexual Assault alongside other forms of non penetrative contact.

Again, I sincerely apologize for any discomfort I may have caused with my ask.

Because it gets a bit granular and heavy tw for CSA.

It felt accusatory because of the "if Porsche were a woman". It shouldn't matter who the person is, and it was structured as if I didn't know that this would be considered a wrong thing. It felt like you were making assumptions about me.

But I will reiterate, sexual assault is one thing and r*pe is another in the eyes of the law. The two often go hand in hand when committed which is where you get the societal perception of SA and r*pe being one and the but r*pe is legally defined as the penetration of person whether it is orally, vaginally or anally. This can be with fingers, an item or with a sex organ. It isn't only perpetrated by men towards women/men/trans/non-binary/intersex, it's also women towards women/men/trans/non-binary/intersex and any of the latter towards anyone else. Neither of these discussion views (legal versus perception) is inherently wrong when you acknowledge where you're coming from. To say SA = r*pe excludes legal definitions and also excludes those who were not penetrated but assaulted. To say r*pe happens exclusively outside of SA is incorrect. It is a minimal percentage of events where this occurs. That's why it benefits to separate the two and acknowledge the intrinsic link instead.

Porsche being touched without his consent is sexual assault. Vegas going on to potentially remove his clothing would still be assault. Touching him while naked is assault. The question was would Vegas have tipped into r*pe by penetrating Porsche? From a legal understanding of the word. He has already committed SA, that's that, but does he tip into the legal ramifications of penetrating someone without their consent? We don't know because we never see it. He is prevented from doing so if he was going to. There isn't also anything to say that he wouldn't have stopped himself, I doubt it, because Vegas when dealing with the main family does not have the same morals as Vegas who lives his own interior life. But having that discussion of would he or wouldn't he isn't predicated on what SA or r*pe is. It just means knowing where you stand from the outset and what your expectations are.

I think what you are missing though is that you have to allow for delination in terms because not all victims identify with r*pe as a term for their experience. Speaking to my own experience, I would not say I was r*ped because I was not penetrated. My terminology is wholly informed by the police and the legal counsel because I was too young to know what the differences or similarities were. I was told by a cop about sexual intercourse in practical terms before my parents got a chance to.

In light of all of that, I think what you're getting at is the hierarchy people place on sexual offences. That penetrative r*pe is somehow worse than sexual assault. It isn't. To have the inside of your body violated is awful and unthinkable. But to have the outside violated is just as bad. It is the violation of bodily autonomy that occurs when a person is assaulted or r*ped that devastates them. Someone took something from you that wasn't theirs to take. They touched a place that wasn't theirs to touch. The questions you're asked if you choose to go to the cops are just as graphic. They can't look at you and simply know what happened, particularly in a SA case. So they have to ask very, very probing questions that make you feel dirty.

So what happens with Porsche and Vegas is awful. It doesn't make it less awful that he wasn't penetrated. But what you're going up against is societal preconceptions about sexual assault and what people are taught about sexual violence. People aren't born thinking one is "worse" than the other. They're taught from a patriarchal perspective that the worse sexual violence that can occur is that a penis penetrates you. I know that there will be those who will place my experience as lesser than someone who was physically penetrated when I can't imagine ever putting a scale on asking a confused child about erections and pubic hair (this is in reference to the police not the assault) and someone else's equally horrifying experience. They aren't the same but they are the same. People have to acknowledge that but it also doesn't mean, as I've said, that we can't discuss the two. We have to be cognizant of making sure our language is inclusive and understanding which I think was your goal from the start but you also didn't know what you were getting into when you volleyed to me.

I'm not upset or offended. It just initially gets my back up because of obvious reasons. We need to have these tough discussions but we also have to be careful with each other. 💙

[hamliet]

What are your thoughts on homophobia in fantasy settings? As a queer person, I find it sort of crap when it's a huge thing in high fantasy settings (especially those written by cishet authors) for the sake of "realism" (even though there are dragons and stuff). However, recently I've been wondering if it can have its value, if the said fantasy setting is meant to have a terrible system, could this expand upon that idea? (1)

Furthermore, if a queer author explored this idea, could it potentially be a way for them to write about similar experiences to their own, but with a different context? As a whole I would trust a queer author more with this concept (because they have experienced homophobia themselves, and know how to handle a controversial trope with tact), but what are your thoughts?

Hi! Soooo... as a cis woman who's only been interested in men thus far in my life, I am really not the best person to answer this--everything I say should be taken with a massive dose of salt! But I do think it's an important question you've brought up, and one people need to think about. So... I'll kind of work through my thoughts, and anyone should feel free to chime in.

I agree with pretty much all you say. "More realistic" is not a justification. Any triggering aspect, like all aspects of a story, should be framed well and matter for the story. If it's just homophobia everywhere because "that's realistic" then that's just gratuitous. That's not a good enough reason to include traumatic stuff. I'm by no means an advocate for softening traumatic material in stories, but I do think it damn well better have a purpose and be important for the story rather than just "because."

However, if it ties in thematically then that's an entirely different scenario wherein it may very well not be for every LGBTQ+ person ever, but it might meet some needs. For example I think the portrayals of homophobia in MDZS and SVSSS work for the stories, even though it isn't technically realistic because ancient China was not so much homophobic (in my understanding). It highlights the themes of the story, which are about defying society, and is relevant in that both stories were written in modern-day China, where aspects of modern day media are absolutely homophobic. It's also true that many society fictional worlds, even fantasy ones, are created to reflect our own in some ways... I'd just ask why that's a particular part that is reflected (again: it should matter and be dealt with, or else... just maybe don't).

I absolutely agree with you when you say "if a queer author explored this idea, could it potentially be a way for them to write about similar experiences to their own, but with a different context?" I think that's often the case. Writing is often a way to process identity struggles, including with sexuality and gender. I know for example that the showrunner of Netflix's She-Ra has said it was about processing their sexuality and gender.

I also agree with you that I'd trust a queer writer more with this kind of story. Although, because we live in a world where people sometimes suck and where we're constantly figuring things out (see the last paragraph), it's also true a writer may not even know why certain elements keep showing up in their work and then have an "oooooooooh" moment... also, I think it's worth keeping in mind writers may not be out or want to be out (especially if they live in highly homophobic societies). For example, MXTX has never said anything about her sexuality, and people should be cautious with making such assumptions.

This is where I'd say my personal opinion is that it would make sense that a reader would be wary of a writer who does not identify as such, but as long as a reader isn't hating on the writer or making assumptions, that's part of what comes with people being able to pick and choose what they want to read. Writers/creators should be able to give as much or as little information as they want, and readers will then pick and choose what they want, and that's how it works.

As I am writing this, I keep thinking of a recent-ish real-life event that showed how people making said assumptions about identity under the guise of justice can go terribly wrong. I'd suggest--with caution--looking up Isabel Fall, and what happened to her, though please be forewarned it is a heartbreaking and brutal story to read. Essentially a trans writer wrote a story exploring transphobia through a metaphor and as a way of coming to terms with her own identity; the outrage over her lack of provided information about her identity--even from other queer writers--led to her returning to the closet and saying that she never wants to come out nor wants to write again. A trans writer profiled her story (anonymously, as Isabel isn't her name and she has no interest in being public), so it was really respectfully written.

[musings-from-mars]

Since you said you'd be cool with answering questions about writing enby characters, I wanted to ask if you have any tips or dos and don'ts about writing enbies for someone who isn't nonbinary? If not it's okay, I just want to see what you think. Thank you! and I love your writing btw!

Hi! Thank you, sweet anon!

This sat in my drafts forgotten about literally for months, and I am so sorry it took me until now to post it!

First of all, thank you for asking. I love talking about writing strategies and such (sometimes I feel like I talk about writing more than I actually do it). Second of all, this is a really interesting question, so I hope I can help you out a little. Just remember that I am by no means an expert on this, so be sure to get advice from others as well.

DO explicitly identify enby characters.

No “they weren’t a girl or a boy, they were just them.” That’s just a lot of cheese, okay? And it also frames nonbinaries as a “third option” inadvertently, which is sucky. Instead, describe their exact identity. Are they pangender? Then use the word “pangender.” Are they agender? Then say so. Are they unsure or do they just prefer “nonbinary”? Then just say nonbinary. Labels exist for a reason, and they have meanings behind them.

DON’T focus too much on their AGAB or whatever their body looks like.

Enbies are more than their transitions, their coming-outs, their bodies, their dysphoria, etc. These are important, obviously, but enbies are whole humans like everyone, so give them whole lives. Hobbies, aspirations, worries, favorite books, a pet lizard, whatever. Make them whole characters, not just “the enby character.”

DO your research.

I’m just skimming the surface here. You need to be informed as a cis writer writing characters who aren’t cis. Like, very informed. Run stuff by non-cis people before posting/publishing. Be particular, be meticulous. Cis writers should be writing trans and nonbinary characters because they are capable of doing a good job at it. It just takes extra work, but if you care about your non-cis characters and non-cis people in real life, the extra work will be worth it.

DON’T write stories about being nonbinary if you are not nonbinary.

Any story can feature nonbinary characters. Are you writing a medieval fantasy story? Feature an enby knight, or an enby monarch, or an enby witch or some shit. How about a crime drama? Maybe the detective’s deputy/best friend is nonbinary. However, stories that take place in the real world and are told from a nonbinary character’s perspective about their experiences being an enby should be told by enby authors only. These types of social relevance stories should be reserved for people of marginalized groups to tell themselves. If you aren’t nonbinary, you don’t know enough about what that is like to effectively write a story about it, no matter how many enbies you may talk to.

tl;dr don’t dance around the word “nonbinary” or more specific identity labels, make the characters more than just the token enby, research research research, and leave the social relevance stories about enby experiences to enbies to tell

[boreal-sea]

Cool. You can be trans and still be transphobic, just like women can be misogynistic. Being trans does not exempt you from internalized bigotry, and doesn't prevent you from aiming it at others. Several of the things you have said on your blog are transphobic, hands down. I am sorry your parents and the educational system you went through let you down, but that's not a universal experience, and it's certainly not the fault of trans men or trans women. That's not me "ignoring it happens", that's you and I both acknowledging that everyone's experiences are different. The way you have it framed on your blog, you make it seem like you believe trans men asking to be included in discussions of reproductive healthcare are somehow muddying the waters of the discussion. It is not our fault the education system does not teach about vaginas, and it's weird you seem to be blaming that on trans people. By the way, trans men were not the ones creating phrases like "vagina haver". That wasn't us, and I wish transphobes would stop blaming us for that. Those terms were created by a mix of 1. Misguided but well-meaning cis women trying to be inclusive and 2. Reactionary transphobic cis women getting super offended when trans men said "could you perhaps remember that some men can get pregnant, so it's not inclusive if you only say "women" when discussing abortion". We asked to be included, and these women reacted by going "OMG what do you want us to say, VAGINA-HAVERS!?" And like. No. I do not want that. That's weird. ...

I want you to gently ask yourself what you think causes a menstrual cycle in cis women. Is it... hormones? Hormones that cycle? Hormones that cause multiple changes in the body beyond just telling the uterus to grow a lining and shed it? And do you understand that a cis woman can still experience menstrual symptoms, even if she doesn't bleed? And that therefore, a trans woman taking those same hormones in a cyclic manner can also experience identical symptoms to a cis woman? I feel like you might still not know everything about your anatomy, and perhaps you have more studying to do. Cramps are not just caused by your uterus contracting. The hormones also cause contractions in the muscles of your abdominal wall, your lower back, your vagina, and even your intestines, which is why many people get diarrhea when on their period. If they only caused contractions in your uterus, no one would feel pain in their back during their period, but they do. My entire lower body aches when I have my period. Other symptoms you have during your period that aren't related to your uterus: bloating, headache, fatigue, mood changes, and appetite changes. All of these are symptoms trans women have reported feeling during their cycle, in addition to cramps in their abdomen. Like, it's weird you are fully ready to deny these women are experiencing 9/10 symptoms of a period, and you're getting super hung up on "she's not bleeding from her vagina!" as the sole symptom that "actually matters". She's literally experiencing every other form of distress a woman can possibly face during that time of the month, but the lack of blood means that nothing she's dealing with "counts" as a period?

...

You also have a lot of bioessentialist beliefs, which are very common in radfem circles. You are saying transphobic things about trans people, and you have bioessentialist beliefs. There's a reason people keep calling you transphobic, and a radfem.

Feminism isn't "Women vs Men"

Feminism is "Us vs The Patriarchy"

And "Us" includes everyone.