#But because they're women. And women can't be flawed

[listen-to-the-inner-walrus]

(genuine question sorry if it comes across as spam or trolling) is porn addiction not actually a thing? and how is it connected to terf stuff (again genuinely want to know so I don’t repeat the retoric)

No worries anon, I do not get enough asks for things to come across as spam or trolling.

But yeah no, porn addiction is not a thing. Over two decades of research has not proven a goddamn thing; rather, it's proven that it doesn't exist. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] *note, some of these are more accessible than others and some are more specific

While those who believe in it will present what seems to be a mountain of evidence for it, their evidence is often unscientific or unreliable or uses flawed measures or uses incredibly small sample sizes, including a sample of 1 in some cases.

The actual scientific consensus is that while excessive watching of porn can be a bad habit and can negatively impact your life, you can't become addicted to it the way that you can with things like alcohol. Things like alcohol addiction or tobacco addiction are related to a significant change in the neuronal transmission in your brain. Like certain drugs mimic certain neurotransmitters and impact the neuro-receptors on either side of a synapse.

Porn doesn't do that. Or moreso, porn is not unique in how it can change your brain chemistry. Someone who spends twelve hours a day seven days a week watching reality TV doesn't have a habit inherently different to someone who spends the same amount of time watching porn.

Often excessive watching of porn is a symptom of a larger issue such as depression. Many of those who self-report as porn addicts match the primary diagnosis of depression.

Also, within research, it is often found that those who self-report a porn addiction watch the same amount of or less of porn as someone who doesn't report it, mostly because a lot of it is related to shame and guilt and not addictive behaviour.

Porn addiction as an idea is most often rooted in religiosity and not science.

It can also be rooted in terfism. Because terfs hate porn.

Their arguments against porn boil down to the idea that women cannot and should not have sexual autonomy. They dress it up obviously, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a misogynist.

Almost any argument against porn they make can be easily countered by the fact that all their criticisms occur in every industry that exists currently, especially so in creative industries.

The porn industry is not uniquely exploitative. If people's labour is involved, it's probably being exploited or it has the potential to be exploited. Not knowing if the person on screen was treated well on set is not unique to porn, you know how many movies I can list that included actors being treated like shit? The porn industry does not have an issue with human trafficking that is unique to any other industry; it's a massive issue in industries with manual labour. etc.

Point is, it is not inherently evil. Terfs want you to think it is though because A) they hate women and B)

To them, porn equals predatory men (they include trans women in this) exploiting poor innocent women who cannot possibly consent.

The idea of women who actively partake in sex work and enjoy doing so is mind breaking for them; they often rationalise it as the women being mentally ill and being indoctrinated by porn. The idea of porn addiction suits them well because they believe porn is inherently evil like men are.

Terfs can't perceive any situation where women are not being actively victimised by men. They are always the victims and they always need protection from men who are inherently evil and inherently predatory.

They're misogynists and idiots (and very often very racist though that's not currently relevant).

I don't know how coherent this is. It is approaching the time I go to sleep so it might be very rambly. I hope it was helpful anyway. Feel free to ask for clarification that I'll reply to in the morning.

[imminent-danger-came]

tbh you are so real for talking about the misogyny targeted to mei & other women in the lmk fandom. in general its like people only value mei as: a: the wingman to some basic mlm ship or b: macaque 2.0. its honestly crazy how so many male side characters overshadow her in the fanbase despite not even having a FRACTION of her screen time. idk chat i feel like the reason people dont care about mei but care about some random male side/background character is less because they're inherently more likeable but because some of you view women as inherently less likable. and everyone is always like "mei is so girlboss pussy cunt slay shes the only reason theyre still alive because she keeps them safe from their silly boy shennanigans shes their ultimate wingman shes so badass shes their lesbian best friend i totally paid attention to her when i watched this show LOL" and even ignoring the obvious misogyny here (ie. how people reduce her to being the male characters babysitter) its like... okay... i know mei is cool & badass already... could you name literally ANY other character trait she has. like people just value her as being "the braincell" who can get red son and mk together or something stupid and its like are we having fun still is this still fun. literally every day i go into the mei tag its like "look at mei shes red sons wifey and shes vaguely in the background of this drawing of red son and mk staring into each others eyes #trafficlighttrio am i right oh look shes macaques niece now this post is about ao lie why is it in the mei tag"

and thats literally JUST talking about mei and it doesnt even begin to cover the other female characters. chang'e constantly gets reduced to being red sons aunt/mom/big sister despite them like. not having any actual interactions in the show. lady bone demon constantly gets overshadowed by her minion who has like 2 seconds of screen time, or she gets made into a cartoonishly abusive madwoman who people call lady bitch demon. just in general people act like shes a horrible person for like. being a villain. liks yeah the trying to destroy everything was bad but also she was an antagonist and thats what antagonists do LOL. spider queen gets completely ignored. princess iron fan gets made into a cartoonishly abusive mother so that way red son can have a poor angsty backstory and some male character (usually nezha, macaque, swk) can take care of him.

(also theres just a great deal of ethnocentrism in the lmk fanbase? like im white so take what İ say here with a grain of salt but so many people will misconstrue aspects of chinese culture for their own personal hcs. people will say male characters are transfem or nonbinary while completely ignoring the time period/culture their from where thats the norm. like yippee youve implied that an east asian man is feminine/emasculine because he has long hair. how do you not see the negative connotations with this. people also turn pif (& lbd to an extent) into a dragon lady which obviously has negative racial connotations lol.)

anyway this is where my unhinged rambling ends have a good day have a good night İ had more to say here but İ reached the text limit. İ dont see a lot of people talk about the misogyny thats prevalent in the lmk fanbase so İm glad youre pointing it out lol.

Yeah, I totally hear you. The lmk fandom has plenty of issues with misogyny and, like you said, ethnocentrism. It's definitely something worth having a discussion about, along with these issues in fandom as a whole.

[candied-cae]

Real talk y’all?

They musta put something extra special in his water this season because - lord have mercy - he is GLOWING and I am ON MY KNEES. I keep coming back to this one just to look at him. Look at him, y'all. LOOK AT HIM!

HE'S SO FUCKING GORGEOUS I'M GOING TO DIE!

JUST ONE CHANCE- JUST ONE CHANCE IS ALL I ASK-

[floweringpopcat]

getting gradually more frustrated because this documentary i'm watching for my gender class is labeling every identity other than man and woman as a "third gender". like?? trans women and men are not a third gender they are women and men

[bi-writes]

whats wrong with ai?? genuinely curious <3

okay let's break it down. i'm an engineer, so i'm going to come at you from a perspective that may be different than someone else's.

i don't hate ai in every aspect. in theory, there are a lot of instances where, in fact, ai can help us do things a lot better without. here's a few examples:

ai detecting cancer

ai sorting recycling

some practical housekeeping that gemini (google ai) can do

all of the above examples are ways in which ai works with humans to do things in parallel with us. it's not overstepping--it's sorting, using pixels at a micro-level to detect abnormalities that we as humans can not, fixing a list. these are all really small, helpful ways that ai can work with us.

everything else about ai works against us. in general, ai is a huge consumer of natural resources. every prompt that you put into character.ai, chatgpt? this wastes water + energy. it's not free. a machine somewhere in the world has to swallow your prompt, call on a model to feed data into it and process more data, and then has to generate an answer for you all in a relatively short amount of time.

that is crazy expensive. someone is paying for that, and if it isn't you with your own money, it's the strain on the power grid, the water that cools the computers, the A/C that cools the data centers. and you aren't the only person using ai. chatgpt alone gets millions of users every single day, with probably thousands of prompts per second, so multiply your personal consumption by millions, and you can start to see how the picture is becoming overwhelming.

that is energy consumption alone. we haven't even talked about how problematic ai is ethically. there is currently no regulation in the united states about how ai should be developed, deployed, or used.

what does this mean for you?

it means that anything you post online is subject to data mining by an ai model (because why would they need to ask if there's no laws to stop them? wtf does it matter what it means to you to some idiot software engineer in the back room of an office making 3x your salary?). oh, that little fic you posted to wattpad that got a lot of attention? well now it's being used to teach ai how to write. oh, that sketch you made using adobe that you want to sell? adobe didn't tell you that anything you save to the cloud is now subject to being used for their ai models, so now your art is being replicated to generate ai images in photoshop, without crediting you (they have since said they don't do this...but privacy policies were never made to be human-readable, and i can't imagine they are the only company to sneakily try this). oh, your apartment just installed a new system that will use facial recognition to let their residents inside? oh, they didn't train their model with anyone but white people, so now all the black people living in that apartment building can't get into their homes. oh, you want to apply for a new job? the ai model that scans resumes learned from historical data that more men work that role than women (so the model basically thinks men are better than women), so now your resume is getting thrown out because you're a woman.

ai learns from data. and data is flawed. data is human. and as humans, we are racist, homophobic, misogynistic, transphobic, divided. so the ai models we train will learn from this. ai learns from people's creative works--their personal and artistic property. and now it's scrambling them all up to spit out generated images and written works that no one would ever want to read (because it's no longer a labor of love), and they're using that to make money. they're profiting off of people, and there's no one to stop them. they're also using generated images as marketing tools, to trick idiots on facebook, to make it so hard to be media literate that we have to question every single thing we see because now we don't know what's real and what's not.

the problem with ai is that it's doing more harm than good. and we as a society aren't doing our due diligence to understand the unintended consequences of it all. we aren't angry enough. we're too scared of stifling innovation that we're letting it regulate itself (aka letting companies decide), which has never been a good idea. we see it do one cool thing, and somehow that makes up for all the rest of the bullshit?

[tiredandoptimistic]

What I think works so well about Clary and Isabelle's friendship is that they're very similar people, but they present themselves just differently enough to appear alien to each other. Both of them were the only girls in a group of boys (Isabelle was raised more or less isolated with Alec and Jace, while Clary doesn't seem to have any friends other than Simon and to a lesser extent his band), and they responded to this in very different ways. Isabelle basically committed herself to her role of "the girl" and always performs extreme femininity, while Clary attempts to sink into the background as "one of the guys." Both of these behaviors can be seen as rebellions against their culture. Isabelle comes from the very misogynist world of Shadowhunters, where women are respected as warriors but expected to act in a masculine way in order to earn that respect. She rejects this, and proves her place as a brilliant fighter while maintaining her fun and glossy feminine traits (compare her with Jessamine Lovelace, who was seen as silly and frivolous for her feminine interests). Clary on the other hand is a child of the nineties growing up in NYC. As a teenage girl in the early 2000s, she would have been surrounded by "not like other girls" philosophy, and hyperfemininity would be both pushed on her and demonized in popular culture. Because of all the pressure placed on gender roles and her lack of connection with other girls her age, it's no surprise that Clary would develop a certain bitterness towards people who perform gender in a way she won't.

With all of that out of the way, we get two teenage girls who have no fucking clue how to handle each other. They're both jealous of how the other one fits in with the guys in a way they can't. Obviously any friend group is made up of friendships which fit together in unique ways, but Clary and Isabelle both see themselves as The Girl, and thus are worried that the other one will make them redundant (Clary gets along with Jace, so will he still need Isabelle? Isabelle and Simon are getting along, will this take away Clary's place as Simon's most important person?) Of course this isn't something that will actually ruin their friendships, but Clary and Isabelle don't know that. Instead they need to learn how to engage with each other, and I enjoy that TMI actually shows them having those conversations. They're trying, but it doesn't all happen at once. Clary still has bitter thoughts about Isabelle's femininity, and she also looks down on other girls like Maia.

Speaking of Maia, there's a really good moment in COA where Clary starts grumbling to herself about how unfair it is that a werewolf can be pretty, and that Maia should be gross and hairy. She then catches herself, and literally thinks "this is exactly why I don't have any female friends," showing that thanks to Isabelle she's learning to recognize her internalized misogyny. She can hang out with other pretty girls, and it doesn't decrease her value as a person.

It's just so nice seeing a character whose internalized misogyny is actively acknowledged by the narrative and treated as a flaw she must overcome. So many female protagonists in the early 2000s (and other decades) had the hyper-femme "best friend" who they hated, but even though that's how Clary sees Izzy at first, she's able to look past it and see the ways they click together. The two of them don't become besties immediately, but they're at least able to get past that first layer of hostility.

[drdemonprince]

The Barbie Movie is confused -- and it is confused on purpose, because it can't actually acknowledge the role that capitalism and white supremacy play in the patriarchal system that it wants to give itself credit for acknowledging. And so the film introduces patriarchy as a force with no agent or system behind it.

Ken, an oafish goof is able to find the concept of patriarchy and transmit it to the entirety of his society simply by learning about it and speaking about it to his fellow Kens. There is no use of force, no political organizing (notably, the Kens try to take over the political system after they have already taken hold of the culture), no real persuasion even -- simply by hearing about patriarchy the women in Barbieworld somehow become brainwashed by it.

This means we never have to really see the Kens as genuine antagonists, we can still laugh at their bizarrely crammed-together multiple dance numbers and forgive them when they, like the women, are freed of the patriarchy simply by women speaking about the fact that sexism exists. Both the origins of patriarchy and the solution to it is as simple as an individual person telling their story.

The CEOs that run Mattel in the Real World in the film are similarly cartoonish and devoid of real agency. They're even portrayed as generically interested in the idea of Barbie being inspiring to girls. The movie can't even acknowledge their profit motive, and it can't make any of the men running the company look too powerful or even too morally suspect -- but the film does still want to have Barbie encounter sexism in the real world and grapple with the harm "she" (the consumer product, and not the social forces and human beings that created her) has supposedly done.

In the Barbie Movie, patriarchy is a genie in a bottle, and no one is to blame - except maybe Barbie herself, since the movie spends a significant amount of time discussing how she is responsible for giving women unrealistic beauty standards.

And so Barbie is depicted as both sexism's victim and sexism's fault. She's dropped into a patriarchal world that the film acknowledges has a menacing, condescending quality -- but the film can't even have an underlying working theory of where this danger comes from, and who had the power to create this patriarchy in the first place, because that would require being critical of Mattel and capitalism.

And in the film, ultimately the real world with all its flaws and losses and injustices is still preferable to Barbieworld, because you get to have such depth of feeling and experience and you get a vagina, so how bad could really be? And hey, when you think about it, the Barbieworld is just an inversion of the real world, isn't it? A world with women in power is just reverse sexist, so it was justifiable for the Kens to want to take over, and what does it say that all things being equal Barbie still would prefer to leave behind her matriarchy and join the patriarchal capitalist world? That's the real world. Real world is struggle and sexism and loss and pain and capitalism and death and we must accept all of it but it's worth it..

It's not that I'm surprised the film's a clarion call for personal choice white feminism and consumer capitalism. I just expected the call to be a little more seductive or in any way coherent. I wanted to have frothy fun, and instead I was more horrified by the transparency of its manipulation than I was by even the most unsettling moments in Oppenheimer.

[french-goodbye]

please never fall in love again

pairing: steve harrington x reader

summary: dating steve harrington is hard, especially when girls keep hitting on him.

notes: i wrote this a while ago but eventually forgot about it in the midst of all my wips lol. title from the song please never fall in love again by ollie mn.

you stare at the back of your boyfriend's head with narrowed eyes and your chin resting on your hands, an anger you know you shouldn't be feeling boiling beneath the surface of your skin. he, of course is none the wiser, as he is to most things, just chatting with eddie completely carefree by the bar.

you love steve harrigton, you really do. you think you fell in love with him on your first date and never really fell out of it. you've already planned your whole life with him, from getting married and having kids to growing old with him and sitting side by side on a wrap around porch. he's sweet, kind, he's great with kids and it doesn't hurt that he's easy on the eyes and great in bed.

his biggest flaw, however, is not exactly his fault. the worst thing about dating steve harrigton is the amount of women who hit on him on a daily basis. whether it's old ladies at the grocery store telling him he looks like their dead husbands or bored soccer moms looking for a little thrill or, the worst of all, the girls your age who slip him their phone number in old receipts over the counter at family video. these women are always there, like blood sniffing sharks, somehow finding a way to make a suggestive comment or a flirty joke.

most of the time, it doesn't really bother you even when it does happen in front of you. steve's the kind of guy who'd never cheat on you, simply because of who he is and how obsessed with you he is. sometimes, however, they can get a little too close and personal and you can't help but wish steve was a little less attractive. just a little.

and it's not that you don't trust him either, he's always quick and firm to shut them down when it happens. it's that they're the ones you don't trust, the girls with big permed blonde hair and fake tans and bright pink lipstick who look at you disdainfully when they realize you're together because they can barely take their eyes off of him for long enough to notice you're standing right next to him.

you're out at a bar celebrating jonathan's birthday when it happens this time, steve and eddie having offered to get everyone another round, the two of them leaning against the bar talking while they wait when a girl from the booth in the corner approaches them. she's clearly a little bit more than tipsy and obviously focused on steve as she talks to them, avidly taking him in and resting her hand on his forearm. he doesn't even blink, just smoothly leans away from her and tells her something that makes her leave as fast as she arrived.

you can barely hear nancy as she complains about her male coworkers on her summer job, as you heatedly stare at his stupidly nice hair and broad shoulders as your boyfriend laughs at something eddie said, hand scratching his neck. you're still watching him with scrunched eyebrows and a sour expression when you feel robin poking your cheek, making you look at her and gently slap her hand away.

"why are you poking me?"

"why are you staring at steve like he kicked your puppy?" she asks, frowning, looking back and forth between the two of you like a tennis match.

"i'm not" she gives you a flat look with raised brows. "fine," you huff. "why do women always hit on him? we can't take him anywhere"

"no idea, you tell me"

"urgh" you groan, throwing your arms around her and resting your head on her shoulder. "god, i hate men"

"amen sister" you hang onto her for a second as she takes a noisy sip of her empty drink through her straw and taps your back sympathetically a few times before gently pushing you away as steve and eddie walk back to your table, drinks in hands and still chatting distractedly.

she softly claps her hands, enthusiastically and telling you a quiet "yay" as she turns back to nancy and jonathan, as the two argue wether or not their coworkers are sexist (they totally are).

you're still laughing at robin's drunken antics when steve comes to your side again and sets your new drink on the table in front of you, resting his hand on your lower back. you let him but when he leans over you to press a kiss to your hair, you promptly dodge away from him and out of his reach. from the corner of your eye, you can see how he frowns at that and silently watches you for a second as you pretend to listen to what nancy says.

his hand on your lower back climbs all the way up to the back of your neck so he turn your head his away, forcing you to look at his big brown eyes staring at you like you just kicked his puppy and you almost feel guilty. almost.

"what's wrong?" he asks.

you shrug, "nothing's wrong."

"are you mad at me or something?"

"no" you slowly shake your head in negative, shrugging.

"gimme a kiss then" he rests one of his hands on your face tilting your head his way while the other on your neck guides your face to his. you lean in and press a quick kiss to his cheek and look away, accidentally making eye contact with the girl who just hit on him. she's watching the two of you, quickly looking away when she notices she was caught staring.

"you saw that, huh" he tells you, hands settling on your waist instead so he can look at you.

"hard not to" you huff, picking invisible lint from your pants.

"then you know nothing happened"

"of course i know that, i trust you" you complain as you roll your eyes and gesticulate to show your frustration "but i-it just makes so insanely angry when they touch you like that, like they have any right to-" you stop your ranting mid sentence when you realize the look on his face. "what? why are you looking at me like that?"

"nothing" he clears his throat and looks down to uselessly smooth non existing wrinkles on your top. you watch him though narrowed eyes and gasp when it hits you, making him look at you again. "what?"

"you like it when i'm jealous" you accuse, lightly poking his chest.

"no, i don't"

"yes, you do. i can't believe i never noticed it before" you huff an incredulous laugh, remembering all the times girls hit on him in front of you and he said nothing but affirmations of how much he's in love with you and how he could never want somebody else, acting more attentive and affectionate than usual later, pressing you against his body and kissing kissing kissing you until he was the only thing on your mind.

"okay, it's not what you're thinking" he replies running a hand through his hair nervously.

"what am i thinking, harrington?" you ask, lifting one eyebrow as a smirk makes it's way to your lips.

"it's not an ego thing" you laugh softly at him, letting your fingers run soothingly through the hair at the nape of his neck, finally giving into the temptation to get your hands on him. "it's just- i like knowing how much you want me just for yourself, how much you care about me."

you stare at him for a moment, taking in his sincere brown eyes and his fluffy hair, feeling impossibly endeared by the boy in front of you. he fidgets under your stare, so you smooth your hands down his shoulders, feeling the muscles underneath his shirt.

"well, i do care... a lot" you tell him, pretending to be coy and batting your eyelashes at him. "but it's not like i blame her"

"what?" he looks at you blankly, confused.

"i mean, look at you" you pull him closer and then closer still, still smirking. "those nice brown eyes, the pretty hair, those shoulders... nevermind how much of a charmer you are. damn harrington, no wonder women keep throwing themselves at you."

"babe" he groans embarrassedly, "they're not throwing themselves-" he dramatically drops his forehead on your shoulder making you laugh at his discomfort, letting brown strands of hair slip through your fingers as you comfortingly pet his hair and he squeezes your waist in reprimand.

"it's true!"

he pulls you closer by the grip he has on your waist and burrows his face in the crook of your neck in lieu of an answer. you let him have it even though you would like to see his face and the way his blush is probably spreading from his cheek to his neck and rest your chin into his shoulder as you hug him.

"but one of these days i'll have to step in and defend your honor"

"please don't" he pulls away and cups your neck, thumbs brushing your cheek and staring at you disapprovingly, his eyelashes touching at the corners, the hint of a smile still on his face.

"i don't know, maybe i'll have to challenge them to a duel to the death" you disagree and look at him from under your eyelashes. he gives you an affectionate look that'd make you nauseous were it not directed at you and presses a long lingering kiss to your lips.

"shut up" he whispers against your lips. you gladly do, at least until eddie and robin start throwing balled up paper napkins at your head. it's worth it though.

[alittlebitofloveliness]

Misogyny in the fandom: let's talk about it

Not gonna lie, the level of interalized or even just blatant misogyny in this fandom is really disheartening sometimes. There is already VERY few female characters in the book, even fewer with speaking roles, and yet I see all of them being hated on in some way. People hate on Cherry for standing up for herself when Dally was harrasing her, and for not seeing Johnny in the hospital, which bullshit to begin with but also, you can't tell me that if the roles were reversed and Cherry sat down behind Dallas and starting talking about how stupid and classless greaser boys are, and Dally threw a coke at her, that the fandom wouldn't love him all the more for it. People hold her to this impossible golden standard, expecting her to literally be perfect instead of a conflicted and grieving teenage girl, when they embrace the flaws and give a lot more grace to much more violent and 'bad' male characters. It's a very 'boys will be boys' and 'girls mature fatser so they should know better' double standard that I really can't stand. Marcia gets a level of the same treatment, with people occasionally calling her vapid or shallow when the book makes it clear she and Two-bit actually really hit it off, and the number she gave him being fake was only Two and Ponyboy's speculation. But I digress. Moving on.

Misogyny and classism intersect when it comes to the few female greaser characters we get a little insight on. So many people LOATHE both Sandy and Sylvia because they're cheaters, but honestly, how is cheating worse than stealing? (And don't pretend they steal because they need to survive Ponyboy makes a point of claiming Two-bit doesn't really need or want half the stuff he shoplifts) How is it worse than jumping little kids? How is it worse than sexually harassing girls? How is it worse than the plethora of immoral or illegal activities the greaser guys partake in? If we're being 100% honest, it isn't. "But-but Sandy cheated on Soda, who really loved her". Yeah, she did. That was shitty of her, I'm not defending that, but she was also a sixteen year old girl in a tough situation she was trying to navigate the best she could. She could have lied and told Soda it was his and trapped him in a marriage raising a kid he definitely couldn't afford if she wanted to- but she didn't. Hell, she told him the truth and he was still ready to do that and she wouldn't let him. I don't think those are the actions of a completely terrible person, I think they're the actions of a scared kid who did some shitty things, but is trying her best and trying to do better. At the VERY least they're the actions of a multifaceted character who deserves the same level of grace and insight afforded to the male characters. (If anyone wants to read more of my thoughts on Sandy and her narrative importance, I have a post here). There's also something to be said about the poor 'greasy' girls facing harsher vitriol than the soc girls, and while part of it is because of Ponyboy's biased narration, it's clear to see that readers very much took his views at face value. Soc girls are 'good girls' and have to be perfect to deserve credit from the fans, but greasy girls are 'trashy' so it's ok for them to be judged and shit on. Spoiler alert: it isn't.

Sylvia is similar to Sandy in that her cheating and 'loose' behaviour earn her a lot of hate, which again, I'm not defending her cheating, but we need to give her the same analysis and benefit of the doubt given to Dally. Dally is NOT a good person. Ponyboy says this and makes it clear plenty of times. He's a hurt character, so we can explien why he is the way he is, but he isn't a GOOD character. he values loyalty, so he never cheated on Sylvia, but it's clear based on how he treats Cherry and casual comments he makes that he doesn't really respect women. I can't imagine Sylvia's experience dating him was one where she felt very adored. Again, not an excuse for cheating, but I can understand WHY she'd try and take back power within a dynamic and a society where she never had any, and I don't want to vilify her for that. She's also a poor woman growing up in the sixties- the book makes it clear life is hard enough for poor guys griowing up at that time, but it was probably equally if not more hard for poor women. I think, like the gang, she does what she had to to survive. If you can understand why the gang does bad things, and still be humans who can be considered good, you can extend the same understanding to Sylvia (and Sandy.) I think people need to also keep in mind that everything we know ABOUT Sylvia (and the rest of the female characters) we know from Ponyboy, a fourteen year old boy who's narration is INCREDIBLY biased and who doesn't have the full details of any of the relationships in the gang. Ponyboy sees Sylvia and Sandy as these terrible, loose women who have hurt people he cares about, so a lot of the fandom does too, but it doesn't change the fact that by doing so you're accepting and embracing Ponyboy's internalized misogyny and making it your own.

Anyway, I don't think I'm articulating this as well as i want to, and i spoke a bit more about this in this reply to one of the posts on the confessions page, but yeah, I just wish people could accept that fact that if they bend over backward to find ways to defend or explain immoral actions from male characters, but refuse to even attempt to do the same for female characters, they've probably internalized a bit of misogyny they should maybe work on.

[teaboot]

What are "transmasc" and "genderqueer"?

I just woke up so bear with me, but like

Western society has invented this idea of "man" and "woman", right? And we SAY it's actually real, and based on tangible things like sex characteristics- primary, like dicks n' hoo-has- and secondary, like tiddies an facial hair an cellulite.

Well, it turns out that those things ain't divided "correctly" into the man and woman categories all the time.

People with dicks sometimes get tiddies, people without dicks sometimes grow beards and chest hair, beauty standards like "woman thin and hairless and short with small nose and tiny feet" and "man tall and muscular with a beard and broad shoulders" aren't appearing in nature the way we say they should.

(These gendered standards also change over time, but that's a different post.)

What's more, some people have multiple primary characteristics, and it's not even super rare! (Again, worth a different post, and not one I'm really in a position to make.)

So, we say that we didn't just "invent" two exclusive boxes to sort a wide variety and spectrum of characteristics into by pure brute force, but evidence says otherwise. So do we change the rules of our society to fit that evidence?

No, we pick something else to support our beliefs.

Learning about genes and DNA and chromosomes came much later in the game, so most people's grasp of it is this: Men have XY chromosomes, women have XX chromosomes, and no matter what your body is shaped like, that determines which box you go in. Whatever you look like should be padded or amputated or shaved away until you fit in your box.

Except.... we now know that people who outwardly appear to be the perfect ideal poster children of "man" and "woman" are living full, natural, healthy and unbothered lives totally unaware that they have the "wrong" chromosomes. No visibly "mixed" characteristics at all. So there goes that idea out the window.

Unless we say that no, our invention which is fact still holds up- there's just a few mutants and freaks and dysfunctional anomalies that just sort of happen sometimes, like factory flaws that wouldn't exist if things were running as they should.

So what do we do with factory flaws? We "fix" them. Or pressure them to fix themselves. Or, if they can "pass" one way or another, shove them into that box and tell them to shut up about it. Don't fit into either? Then pick one, and make yourself fit.

But... then, if we can pick... if hairy women with flat chests and small hips can shave themselves down and throw on some padding and powder her face to be accepted.... why can't anyone else?

Or, if that same "woman" went, fuck it, cut his hair short and embraced all the "man" characteristics, went by different pronouns and stepped into the "man" box... wouldn't that be okay, too?

And, he'll, what if they changed nothing about themselves and decided to opt out? We've proven that these "universal facts" don't *actually* exist and exceptions are everywhere, so fuck it, right? "Man" and "woman" don't really mean anything tangible anyways, so why not do what makes you happy?

And since, again, evidence shows that "man" and "women" aren't perfect binary boxes with perfect binary traits- why bother living up to those traits at all? Why can't someone assigned to the "woman" box live in the "man" box with long hair and heels on? If I makes him happy, what's the harm?

We don't like this, though, because when you build two boxes that contain the whole world, and people start escaping, or slipping out to live in the one they like more, or switching, or building their own, people begin to wonder why they're living in boxes at all. If we even need boxes.

And the people who maintain the boxes tell us, it's because the boxes are safe, and the boxes are natural, and the boxes have been here exactly as they are since the beginning of time anyways, and NO, they aren't just terrified of life outside the shelter of the box, you're the weird one.

Meanwhile, if we really looked into it, I imagine we'd find more people who don't fit their box criteria, or don't even like their box, at least as often as we find people who do.

Transgender means "someone who isn't in their assigned box".

Genderqueer means, "someone who isn't in their assigned box", but in a the same broad way that "transgender" is- Maybe a him, maybe a her, maybe both, maybe a they, perhaps a xey, and sometimes some of us move around.

I say I'm genderqueer, 'cause that fits me, but "Transmasc" to me personally means, "I know I'm not a woman, and I'm closer to the "man" box, but I'm happier wandering outside the "man" box than I am stepping fully inside. (Dysphoria is part of that, but again, in my opinion it's not vital to the experience.)

And I'm not one for destroying those two boxes entirely- they bring joy to a lot of people.

Just, you know. Maybe making more, different boxes. And maybe little camps out between them. And not treating people who roam the wilderness instead like rabid animals. Is the thing.

Long answer

[shiverdawn]

okay, i gotta talk about mel and jayce, especially when jayce stood up for himself in ep 8, because i've been seeing a lot of shit around that rubs me the wrong way. mel manipulated jayce. we all know that, this is true. she pushed him into getting a seat at the council, becoming a people's man when all he originally wanted was to help people- not popularity or status. she encouraged him to make hextech weapons. she frequently touched him while she talked to him. she used him. so why can't people seem to grasp that fact? hell, i've seen the rancid take that jayce used mel right back, which in my mind...isn't true in the slightest. i think a lot of it comes down to the gender roles. we're so used to seeing women come out about abuse, being concerned about if women are in abusive relationships- and this is good, i'm not saying it isn't- that we forget that women can be abusers too. mel's abuse isn't physical. it's more emotional than anything. and she's written so well in this aspect that as a survivor of an abusive relationship where the abuse was more mental than physical, she kind of...makes me uncomfortable. she's a great character, don't get me wrong, but past experiences just make me uneasy.

i think we need to recognize that if the genders in their situation were reversed, people wouldn't like mel as much/as outwardly as they do now.

hell, in s2 e8 when jayce accuses her of seeing him and viktor as nothing but investments, she doesn't even deny it. she says "you were a wise investment".

multiple times now, on multiple different platforms, i've gotten dogpiled for just pointing out the fact that mel is, in fact, manipulative. it's all "why cant characters be complex" and "so you hate her" when i'm simply pointing out a flaw. i could point out one of silco's flaws and nobody would bat an eye, they would probably agree with me. i could point out one of jayce's flaws and people wouldn't bat an eye either. people need to recognize that complex characters are complex for a reason. yes, mel had good intentions, but she still manipulating jayce and viktor by extension. i thought it was so satisfying seeing jayce stand up for himself, but nobody seems to share my sentiment.

yes, they're absolutely both flawed! nobody is in the right here! as a wise person once said, arcane isn't about who's in the right it's about who's your favorite war criminal.

but it's important to recognize that women can be abusers too.

[blue-mint-winter]

Theory about king Jaehaerys the Conciliator - was he sexually abusing his daughters?

Alright, so I came upon the theory that Jaehaerys was sexually abusing his daughters. After reading the chapter at first I was disbelieving of the theory, because:

just because he was a shitty, patriarchal and neglectful father doesn't mean he was lusting after his own daughters,

the description leads you to believe that he was a great king and very upstanding and moral, he didn't even have any affairs and refused any women even when he and Alysanne were in separation,

GRRM wouldn't do that with a king he's portraying as the greatest and most successful, with the longest and peaceful reign. Jaehaerys couldn't be a great king and a monster at the same time.

...or could he?

However, it's undeniable that the personal stories and tragedies of Jaehaerys' daughters are disturbing. Especially Saera's story. And as I was thinking about it, I realized that all arguments against this theory can be rebuffed.

"GRRM wouldn't do that" - well, he actually did it once, with Craster and his daughters, showing that he doesn't shy away from difficult topics. And he did show a great man with a reputation of being loyal to his dead wife as a flawed, monstrous man - in the person of Tywin Lannister, a successful statesman, administrator and politician. And at the same time he was a monster - destroying the Reynes, ordering the murder of Elia and her children, organizing the Red Wedding. Despite his deeds, Tywin maintained a stellar reputation as an upstanding and moral man, while in private he was employing services of prostitutes.

This leads to the next argument - the book in-universe is a history book. Archmaester Gyldayn uses historical sources on Jaehaerys, mostly from his maesters and Septon Barth. Understandably, these sources would have no idea what and who Jaehaerys would get up to in private. Besides, Jaehaerys had the best PR, certainly not worse than Tywin. His deeds as king, keeping the peace, maintaining good relations with Oldtown, made him beyond reproach. And still, the history couldn't completely whitewash his treatment of his daughters and wife.

How interesting that for all that befell his daughters, Jaehaerys is never blamed. He is their father, innocent of any wrongdoing, but the daughters are: stupid and picky when it comes to suitors (Daella), cruel, nasty and promiscuous (Saera), vain, manipulative, ambitious, reckless (Viserra). They're also 13-16 years old. Basically, the book tries to say they got what they deserved, despite their young age and immaturity being a reasonable excuse for their bad choices. The only ones who might be considered tragic victims of circumstance are Daella and Gael. In all cases, who could expect young teenagers to be fully responsible for themselves? They were underage even by Westerosi standards and they had parents that were responsible for them - Jaehaerys and Alysanne, who both obviously failed as parents to their daughters (and arguably Vaegon too), even if the sources and Gyldayn don't want to admit it (but Alysanne herself clearly did).

I decided to gather all the evidence in text that could support the theory that Jaehaerys was sexually abusing his daughters:

Saera's story is the first clue, especially Jaehaerys' words:

The truth did not come out until a year later, when the former princess was seen in a Lysene pleasure garden, still clad as a novice. Queen Alysanne wept to hear it. “They have made our daughter into a whore,” she said. “She always was,” the king replied.

This gave me a pause. What father, even an angry and disappointed one, would say something like that? And enough time passed that it wasn't said in the heat of the moment and we can't say that he didn't really mean it. Jaehaerys meant it. According to him his daughter, the girl who was his favourite for years, who he bought expensive gifts for whenever she asked, "was always a whore". This sounds like something an abuser would say after his victim got away. Basing his words on what he knows he did to her.

Bonus evidence: in the time before his death Jaehaerys confused his caretaker, 15 years old Alicent for Saera and according to Mushroom she was serving him in a sexual way as well. It's probable an old and ill man would repeat his past behaviours and take advantage of a girl that looks like his past victim and is constantly around him and under his power. Alicent couldn't refuse him and couldn't quit being his caretaker (and obviously couldn't talk or she'd ruin her own future).

2. Second piece of evidence is Daella, Saera's older sister. Jaehaerys for some unknown reason pressured Alysanne to arrange Daella's marriage, despite many factors suggesting that it was unnecessary and she was not ready. The chosen suitor was lord Arryn (36 years old):

Short and balding, with a kettle belly, Arryn was not the man most maidens dream of, Queen Alysanne admitted, “but he is the sort you asked for, a kind and gentle man, and he says that he has loved our little girl for years. I know he will protect her.” To the astonishment of every woman at the court, save mayhaps the queen, Princess Daella chose Lord Rodrik to be her husband. “He seems good and wise, like Father,” she told Queen Alysanne, “and he has four children! I’m to be their new mother!”

What does that mean, "he loved her for years"? Daella was 16, looked small and childlike. Lord Arryn seems like another predator. AND he reminds Daella of Jaehaerys. She literally chose him from among many other, younger and more handsome suitors, because he reminded her of her father. What does that say about Jaehaerys? Did he look at Daella with the same "love" as lord Arryn?

3. Jaehaerys had a type. Jaehaerys refused "lissome maids and handsome widows" which is treated as some proof of loyalty. It can be refuted easily - Jaehaerys had a clear preference and that's Alysanne - a pure-blooded Targaryen. That preference was proved when Rogar's plot to send women to seduce Jaehaerys failed and not even other Valyrians - the Celtigar women - interested him. I doubt any woman offered to him looked like Alysanne or was related to him. Unfortunately, their daughters fulfill the criteria. What's more, he literally had people preach how Targaryens are different from other humans like lions are different from aurochs and therefore Targaryens are allowed to have incestuous relationships. Jaehaerys' refusal of other women makes sense in that context.

4. Another important part of Jaehaerys' characterization was his belief that only a married couple is allowed to have sex and an unmarried woman has to preserve her virginity. And that's how I came to the last bit of evidence - his relationship with Alysanne when they fled to Dragonstone in their youth:

If servants’ tales may be believed, the king and his new queen slept naked and shared many long and lingering kisses, abed and at table and at many other times throughout the day, yet never consummated their union. Another year and a half would pass before Jaehaerys and Alysanne would finally join as man and woman.

Jaehaerys was fine with doing sexual things with his 13 year old sister, as long as he didn't penetrate her and take her virginity. Alysanne is the precedent and quite possibly he later wished to repeat his experience from those early years with girls looking like her, aka their daughters. Or at least Saera. He was very oddly fixated on her virginity.

And the above book passage made something click for me. Young Jaehaerys and Alysanne on Dragonstone with Rogar Baratheon ruling in Kings Landing and plotting against them sounds extremely similar to Viserys and Daenerys in Pentos with Robert Baratheon plotting against them. The parallel is startling. Jaehaerys was smarter than Viserys, but his sexual abuse of his underage sister is clear, even though it's described as "romance" by his maester propagandists. Viserys simply didn't have anyone who would rewrite his disgusting actions towards Dany in a positive light. Also, Alysanne might be just as delusional and brainwashed about the mutual love with her brother as Dany was.

The evidence is scarce and circumstantial, but when put together, it seems to support the theory that Jaehaerys was molesting one or more of his daughters. Which in turn could explain the daughters' behaviours and Alysanne's reactions as attempts to escape from Jaehaerys or find some form of protection from him.

Apart from Daenerys who died when she was 6 the rest of the daughters are:

Alyssa - a tomboy that was clinging to Baelon and then married him (protection by marriage),

Maegelle - pious from a young age, joins the Faith when she's 10 and goes far away from Jaehaerys (protection by Faith),

Daella - Jaehaerys forces an early marriage for her, despite her being fearful of everything, the wedding is a small and quiet ceremony on Dragonstone and there's no bedding ceremony, because "she'd die of shame" (was she possibly not a virgin?), she's taken far away to Eyrie (protection by marriage arranged by Alysanne), then dies in childbirth,

Saera - attention seeking, able to get anything from Jaehaerys, alcoholic at 12, after she's caught having affairs with boys in her friend group her father personally kills her lover and she's forced to watch, she tries to claim Balerion (probably to protect herself from Jaehaerys or run away), is sent away to the Faith, eventually runs away to Essos (rebellion and then seeking various forms of protection),

Viserra - also has a drinking problem, Alysanne arranged her to marry old Lord Manderly, a renowned warrior, then Viserra tries to seduce Baelon to marry her and save her from marriage to an old man (she saw what happened to Daella!), she dies in an accident when she's drunk and racing on a horse (or running away on a horse with her six protectors?),

Gael - most suspicious, all we know she had a stillborn with "a travelling singer" and drowns herself in grief when she's 19. Despite it being a point that she was constantly with Alysanne and even slept in her bed. The whole story with the singer was covered up by a story of her dying of summer fever. The existence of the singer is unconfirmed and doubtful. It's the same as just saying it was an anonymous man. And if Jaehaerys was still on the prowl... he had access to her and Alysanne couldn't personally protect her - she was going deaf and the last time she rode Silverwing was when Gael was 13, then Alysanne broke her hip and started using a cane to walk.

To finish this post, I'm not saying that this is definitely what happened. I merely wanted to gather the evidence for the theory and organize my thoughts. I think the theory isn't completely baseless and explains a lot about the treatment of the daughters by both Jaehaerys and Alysanne as well as some of the daughters' behaviours (and even Alicent if she was molested by him as well).

Probably someone already did a better write up of this theory, but I had fun doing this by myself.

I might write next big theory post about Maegor's conception.

[acekoomboom]

So.

Gale Killed Prim, and his relationship with Katniss ended because of it. Why is Peeta different?

"Why was she able to forgive Peeta but not him? She had dismissed Gale from her life with barely a blink. Snow had twisted Peeta’s gifts and turned him into a weapon against the people he loved. Hadn’t Coin done the same thing to Gale? He loved Prim like his own sister." A quote from oakfarmer on ao3 that I actually have SO many thoughts on, though I can't remember which of their fanfics this is from. Darn me for not labelling my notes well enough.

What it boils down to, for me I think, is that the capitol has to create things to manipulate Peeta but D13 used what was already there for Gale. Gale already had a mean arrogant streak and wasn't good at taking criticism or rejection. He already had a cold callousness about killing and death. He was already a bit radicalized, and Coin did twist that into something worse. No, Gale didn't kill Prim, Coin did. BUT Gale did invent the weapon + tactic used by his ally and superior to kill her. Katniss told him it was wrong, this trap he'd made, and he condescended to her about it, how this is just how war works. Acted like she was just naive about it. His own ignorance of the reality of life and death and his complete disregard for human life on the other side of the war is what got Prim killed.

Peeta, on the other hand, is nothing like his highjacked self. They didn't take pieces of his personality, personal flaws, etc. and twist them into their perfect soldier. The capitol had to use false memories, had to inflate his insecurities, had to use chemicals and torture and mutated venom. They didn't make Peeta aggressive through hatred or vengeance, they made him aggressive through bodily fear. The venom and his body's extreme adrenaline, fight or flight response to that. He didn't attack Katniss bc he thought he was better than her or bc she deserved it, he attacked her because the very sight of her caused his body to go into overdrive of adrenaline to protect himself from her. This is a Peeta that *hates* Katniss, and he wants to kill her, but her specifically. He only reacts negatively towards other people (other than normal trauma-induced stuff) when she is involved somehow, like him flipping out on Delly while Katniss watched behind the glass.

These characters are not equivalent. And from a meta perspective, they're not supposed to be. Katniss ends up picking Peeta. Yes, the character obviously would have picked him, but also Katniss as a narrative figure picks him. She picks what he represents. Integrity and war. That boy on the rooftop that said he was willing to kill himself defense and to do what he needed to do but wanted to stay himself. Wanted to stay a human being even in that violence. Wanted to come out the other side of it still intact. Wanted the flowers to grow again after the harsh winter; a dandelion in the spring. Not the cycle of destruction, of forever punishing those that have wronged you, that both Gale and a capitol-kids hunger game would represent.

Which brings my thoughts also to the male loneliness epidemic. (We won't even get started on the fact that when women have problems it's something they need to just get over and take a joke, but when men have problems it's an epidemic) That is Gale. Yes, he has absolutely valid reasons behind his emotions. But he then takes those emotions and becomes radicalized, become something lesser. And that is so indicative of our current political climate in a lot of ways. Men have been hurt by the patriarchy also, they have been raised and socialized and desensitized and to not forming genuine emotional connections with the men around them or the women there in a relationships with. And I do separate those specifically, because men are also taught to not see women as people, so to a lot of men you are either a. someone they are related to b. someone they are romantically interested in or c. someone they are sexually interested in. And that is all a woman can be to them, not a friend.

So every which way they turn men are not taught the skills it takes to not be lonely. Community and having a support system and a network of people doesn't just happen by accident. That is something that you build, and cultivate, and prune, and intentionally add to. Men are lonely because they want someone else to do the work for them. The onus is on them and the system that made them that way.

And that man is the same as Gale. Someone who is rightfully hurt and wounded by the society they live in but then takes those real feelings and experiences and lets it justify all of the awfulness that follows.

Gale and Peeta are not equivalent. In dumbed down terms, Gale became bad because of what was already in him and then was fine to stay that way. Peeta became bad because of something someone else put in him, and then he did the work to not stay that way.

Oakfarmer again, to bring my rambling back to its original point: "Snow turned Peeta into a weapon, Coin turned Gale into a weapon. Both had been unleashed to destroy Katniss. They were the same, but they weren’t the same at all. The Capitol pumped venom into Peeta to create a hateful mutt. Coin only needed to provide an outlet for the hateful venom already circulating Gale’s veins. Hate and rage, he had never tried to suppress. Hate and rage, Peeta painstakingly clawed his way out of to recover his identity."

[dunmeshistash]

We literally see Nakamoto sneak into Maizuru's room in the middle of the night while drunk off his ass, in what realm does she have any say in their affair even if she is into him? She even respects his wife for holding her ground by banishing her from parts of the compound, those aren't the feelings of a jilted mistress who wants to be his one and only

Now that everyone is done beating the "Milsiril is abusive and manipulative" horse they're all hopping on the "Maizuru is to blame for all Shuro family bullshit" one huh lol. Nakamoto is right there, and he doesn't even have a fun design like Maizuru does!

It is incredible how fast people jump on female characters to blame them for male character trauma.

I used to think "people can't take evil women" arguments was an exaggeration (because once again I don't really engage with fandom) but if this blog has taught me anything is that people can't even take women with flaws let alone evil ones.

I've tried to come up with reasons why I see such a discrepancy of judgement of female characters compared to the male ones but I got nothing, I keep seeing that trend in my notes, if the character is female (and even worse a mother) then every trauma is their fault, if the character is a male, even if a father, suddenly there is space for more nuance.

I'm not being more specific cause I don't want to call anyone out but I wish people were a little more introspective as to why they are only this judgmental if it's a female character's effect on a male one.

[velvetvexations]

Please correct me If I'm wrong, but didn't Playdough's whole beef with Bechdel trying to reframe her as a TERF start originally because escentially she wanted to prove that HOMESTUCK is somehow more deep and influencial and important queer media than DTWOF?? It was a poll thing and people where getting mad that homestuck was beating dtwof (this is the homestuck website like cmon) so Playdough started there the discourse of Bechdel being a terf to discredit her work

I have no idea if homestuck is actually that queer in it's content, but this incident made me realize something very common about pretentious cult-like groups like TRF and Tankies.

They want to find the way to parrot that their interests are somehow morally superior and more correct than other's; forcemem can not be just a kink it's actually a culturally significant political practice and forcemasc is just a transmisogynist bastard copy, transfem headcanons can not be just normal fandom shit for enjoyment they are the more correct and intelectual reading an analysis of any character that doesn't adhere to strict tradicional cis gender roles and transmascs headcanons are anti intelectual media illiterate misogyny, homestuck can't be just a popular old webcomic you still like despite It's flaws (like srly It has a shit ton of racism and ableism, it was created on the era of the internet 4chan was more culturally relevant than ever in memes mostly so of course) no It's not a pillar of queerness in fiction and media and the comics created by a literal feminists trans ally buch need to somehow be morally inferior because they're both compiting in a Tumblr poll

AHAHAHAHAHAHA SHE'S STILL DOING IT TOO

I'm sorry, but imagine having this much of a grudge over your fave losing a poll lmao lmao lmao lmao this is so funny oh my God.

But it's especially hilarious because all of what she wrote about June is complete nonsense that was never part of the text. Now let's look at what she had to say about transmasc headcanons:

Welcome to projection playground, ma'am! She's literally using the idea of "legitimate analysis" just to prop up her own headcanon. This is so gutbustingly hilarious. Does she even think it's possible transmascs could have headcanons based in 'legitimate analysis'? Considering the fact that she seems to vehemently insist literally every transmasc headcanon ever is actually transfem, probably not, right? Because she doesn't understand masculinity is revolutionary and transgressive for people who weren't assigned it? Because she's a self-centered moron?

But wait, there's more!

She's so consumer-brained and she doesn't even know it.

I love that her whole personality is structured around being the world's most obnoxious Homestuck fan who uses academic language to build a comfort blanket to soothe her insecurities and lash out at others because it's gender validating if she gets to lash out at trans men the way cis women are allowed to with cis men. Except I've never seen a cis woman do it this ineptly, or so blatantly the product of issues they desperately need to work out.

Anyway, back to Bechdel...

I know I've been ranting about this subject in a general, undirected way all morning, but I'm going to tell you that this is a problem with Plaidos, specifically, which she passes on to her audience:

They don't know what TERFs are.

A TERF has defined political views. There is a lot going on with them. You cannot take one belief or action in particular, such as Bechdel softly supporting some sex-segregated spaces, and call her a TERF when she's praxis in much bigger, material ways. It's not just about Homestuck with Plaidos, or TERFs in general. It's also about the fact that Bechdel ever did anything that had anything to do with the idea that some people are more wymynly than them, which they take personal offense to that overshadows, oh, I don't know, loud and consistent advocacy for children having access to HRT? Any real transfeminist would recognize that matters infinitely more. But with these people, that's not the issue. They don't care about anything but how badly it hurt them to hypothetically not be welcome to a shitty music festival, and Bechdel having went - even if she criticized it's policies - is basically the same as having flaunted her gender assignment to intentionally make them dysphoric.

But Bechdel supports minors getting HRT. She supports them being in women's bathrooms. A lot of TERFs have identical conversations about her.

So what makes her a TERF? Because she went to a party you weren't invited to?

Do you understand how pathetic this makes you look?

It's gross and TERF-y to say trans women as a category are jealous of people AFAB on some level but when you prioritize like this where being let into the club is the one big all-consuming deal over things like Bechdel repeatedly going to bat for minors having HRT, and they obsessively treat trans men the way they do...

Like, listen. TRFs. My friends. You're women. I promise you you're Trve Wymyn. Please get over not having been AFAB. Come to peace with it and accept that people who got what you want are on your side and are happy to support you in being recognized as a woman in spite of what was on your birth certificate. Get over it.

Just get over it.

And also get over your transfem headcanons not being any more textually supported than transmasc headcanons, losers. You're so obviously the ones addicted to seeing yourself reflected in every piece of media you consume if you have to write essays about how it's bad literary analysis to not believe in your strings-on-a-thumbtack-board shit and run down anyone else having headcanons related to their identity. You're not doing literary analysis, you're playing pretend with cartoons for children and getting upset when you see other people having their own fun without you.

One last thing:

EXTREMELY holy shit racist. Do you see what I mean? How TRFs care so much about slights to their Trve Wymynhood over all else that they say shit like this? Like yeah Michfest was basically the KKK, you're right, unimaginably stupid White woman. Remember when Lisa Vogel hung all those trans women to warn us not to vote?

[scurvyboy]

the craziest thing to me is people in your inbox pissing and shitting themselves over you saying ford might be misogynistic when like. ford being homophobic/having internalized homophobia is SUCH a common headcanon so why are people getting up in arms abt this

well you see, internalized homophobia has become a romanticized little meow meow fanfiction trait while misogyny hasn't. there is the same amount of canon evidence pointing towards ford being homophobic as there is him being misogynistic. it's just that internalized homophobia is seen as an admirable flaw while misogyny is relegated to the most evil people. of course, both of these traits are destructive and can be learnt away, but the way that they're viewed by people who aren't particularly well read places bias on one over the other.

the reason people are uncomfortable with me saying ford hates women is because now in their head he's being compared to a rapist or a corrupt business man that can't even look at one without having something nasty to say; rather than poor poor little gay man who hates himself and needs to be kissed (kind of demeaning if you asked me). it's simply an exercise in applying nuance to what you're reading and understanding that people aren't that black and white.