#Gender stereotypes and sexism are two different things???

[famousinfamous]

me when I see Della fanart: omg she’s so pretty and cool she’s so skilled to and such a powerful vanisher

also me when I remember that one time Della invalidated Sophie pointing out gender stereotypes: *insert intense cringing here*

[lurking-latinist]

👀👀 wanna say more about your eusocial timelord theory?

when you sent this ask like a year ago apparently I did not, for which I apologize.

now it's the wee small hours and I'm trying to clear out my asks. but eusocial time lords are so fun. forgive anything that doesn't make sense/jars weirdly in this, I'm trying to explain some quite spitbally worldbuilding.

among other things, it's an explanation for (1) why are there so few time ladies on screen and (2) that very strange thing in I think it's in Gallifrey where Pandora was 'the first female President' and apparently that's a big deal? but like why would a different planet (where they regenerate!!) have the same manifestations of sexism as we have? and also vaguely riffing on the VNAs lore that Gallifrey used to be a matriarchy and Rassilon overthrew it, but also kind of completely transforming that lore.

so forget gender, this is not about gender. "male"/"female" is at best a very rough translation of the binary that Gallifreyans are concerned with, which is worker/queen. They are bees!

The Time Ladies (i.e. Gallifreyans played by female human actors) that we see in the pre-War era (all of this applies to the pre-War era)--Romana, the Rani, Flavia, Inquisitor Darkel--are biologically the equivalent of insect queens. (And the Doctor, the Master, Borusa, the Floating Time Lord, Commander Maxil, etc. etc. are the equivalent of worker bees. The fact that the former all present as female and the latter all present as male is just sort of a translation convention/useful coincidence, I guess.) Gallifreyans evolved from a eusocial species and their early political structures were developments of the hive structure, with reproductive capacity strongly linked to political authority.

Presumably this is what Rassilon, or whatever revolutionary Rassilon stole credit from, is supposed to have overturned--the link between reproductive capacity and political authority. But in my version, it was before that that Looming became a thing: the queens had control of the Looms, so it was the ultimate refinement of their arts and sciences, and it was their way of getting rid of whatever drone class there used to be, if they weren't already parthenogenetic.

And that's why there's the stereotype in Gallifrey--mentioned in connection with Pandora, suggested as a concern about Romana--that a "female" (queen) President will be autocratic. It's seen as a potential return to "how things once were."

And then I did a lot of worldbuilding for how government worked at a stage in history when there was a sort of uneasy balance between reproductive and political power, but that was for a fic Moki was working on and I think she's still working on it, so no spoilers!

So what you end up with is a hive structure where the role of the queen has been sort of abstracted away into... well, the hive itself. The power at the heart of Gallifrey is Gallifrey. I feel like that explains a lot of what's wrong with them.

There might be another branch of the species that evolved away from eusocial structure into something more like solitary bees and that's the Shobogans, possibly, since nobody seems at all clear what the Shobogans are.

Also I read that with naked mole rats, the only eusocial mammal, there are a few in each colony that are predisposed to not fit into the colony and instead go and wander and find other colonies, to promote genetic diversity, and I'm just saying, renegades.

And after the War when there are often maybe two Gallifreyans left, that's why whatever's left of the hivemind keeps trying to get at least one of them to turn out as a Time Lady. Fortunately for the universe, neither of them seems that interested in reproducing.

[spitblaze]

Gendertash From Hell Issue 02 (1993)

Transcription under cut

GENDER MYTH #1

Although male-to-female transsexuals have surgery to change their anatomy and take female hormones, they still act like men.

FACT: Some male-to-female transsexuals act in ways many consider to be masculine; some don’t. The same can be said of nontranssexual women. In fact, some types of “masculine” behavior in nontranssexual women are applauded in the lesbian and women’s communities, while the same behavior in a transsexual woman is taken as proof that she is “really” a man. Labeling behaviors as masculine and feminine is of little practical value and only reinforces gender stereotypes.

GENDER MYTH #2

Male -to-female transsexuals are not womenborn women (or womyn-born womyn).

FACT: No one is born a woman. Most of us who ended up as women started out as girls. The paths we took to womanhood are many and varied. Most male-to-female transsexuals felt like girls from as early as they can remember, just like most nontransexual women. Although many nontranssexual women struggle with the changes associated with becoming women, most become women without consciously attempting to. This fact doesn’t make our paths any better, more natural, or more valid than transsexual women's paths.

GENDER MYTH #3

Male -to-female transsexuals have been socialized as men, and this socialization cannot be changed.

FACT: The messages given to each person about the roles of males and females in society are a little different, and these messages may be experienced in very different ways. Many transsexual women felt that the male messages they were given were inappropriate. Many felt inadequate to meet the demands placed on them to “act like a man.” Nontranssexual women feel they have a choice to become aware of and reject parts of their sex-role conditioning— so do transsexual women.

GENDER MYTH #4

Male-to-female transsexuals are trying to “pass” as women. They try to make themselves as much like nontranssexual women as possible.

FACT: Male-to-female transsexuals are women; they don’t need to pass. They don't necessarily want to hide or eliminate their differences from nontranssexual women, although the threat of ostracism leads many to do so. Some transsexuals are proud of their particular route to womanhood, feel that they have learned a lot from the joumey they have taken, and value the unique qualities they bring to the women’s community.

GENDER MYTH #5

Transsexuals take jobs away from other women because they had access to better training when they were men.

FACT: By making the transition from male to female and staying at the same job, some transsexuals have forced employers to change rules restricting women’s positions and salaries, thus opening doors for other women. Many transsexual women seek out qualified women to hire. Furthermore, by holding jobs not traditionally thought of as appropriate for women, these transsexual women bring the message to the general public that women are capable of performing “men’s” jobs.

GENDER MYTH #6

To lessen the power of patriarchy in our lives, we must purge our community of everything male, including women who once had male anatomy.

FACT: By emphasizing the distinction between male and female, we reinforce the idea that there are exactly two distinct sexes. This is the very concept that permits sexism to exist, because discrimination wouldbe impossible if women were not readily distinguishable from men. If we wish to deflate the power of the patriarchy, the most effective thing we can do is encourage the blurring of gender lines and expand our thinking beyond the male-female dualism.

GENDER MYTH #7

Most women can easily prove they are not male-to-female transsexuals, if they are challenged to do so.

FACT: There is no simple way to prove you are not a transsexual. There are no apparent physical characteristics nontranssexual 7 women have or lack that distinguish them absolutely from transsexual women. Birth certificates and other documents show an “F” for both. Chromosome tests may reveal | an XY pattern for a nontranssexual woman. | Hormone levels do not distinguish transsexuals from nontranssexuals. Even inspection of the genitals may not provide definitive proof of your gender history.

GENDER MYTH #8

Male-to-female transsexuals have been raised as boys, have never been oppressed as women, and cannot understand women’s oppression.

FACT: Some male-to-female transsexuals were raised as girls for portions of their lives, appeared to the world as girls, and were treated like girls. Some were beaten and raped both by outsiders and by their own family members because of their belief that they were girls or their desire to become girls. For most, the difference in the way they were treated when they appeared as men and after they began appearing as women brought sexism into sharp focus.

GENDER MYTH #9

Women’s space is not “safe” space if male-to-female transsexuals are allowed.

FACT: Women's space is not safe | whenever anyone in it behaves in threatening or disrespectful ways toward another. Transsexuals are no more likely to | behave this way than nontranssexuals. We should exclude individuals who behave badly rather than exclude an entire group 3 because some of its members act in | offensive ways—any group could be | excluded on this basis. Most importantly, )) women must take responsibility for their their own feelings of being unsafe when others are not acting in threatening ways.

GENDER MYTH #10

Transsexuals have surgery so they can have sex the way they want to.

FACT: How or with whom a person wants to have sex is rarely a major factor in the de) sire for sex reassignment. Usually, people undergo reassignment in order to make their bodies conform more closely to the way they feel inside—their gender. Whether a transsexual is attracted to men or to women usually doesn’t change with surgery. » Although no figures are available, probably | a third of transsexual women are straight, one third bisexual, and one third lesbian. Sexual orientation is not related to gender identity.

GENDER MYTH #11

Male-to-female transsexuals are trying to take over the lesbian community.

FACT: Most transsexuals who identify as lesbians are focused on their own personal growth and happiness—just like most nontranssexual lesbians. Those who feel strongly about their night to participate in women-only events may become activists for their cause and hope to influence the lesbian community. On the other hand, being overly sensitive to issues of power and wanting to avoid controversy, many transsexuals repeatedly decline to take leadership positions and abstain from participating in decision-making votes.

GENDER MYTH #12

The sex assigned to a person at birth is that person’s “real” sex.

FACT: Sex is assigned at birth on the basis of a cursory glance at the baby’s genitalia. | In about 5% of births, there is some ambiguity in the sexual organs, and mistakes can be made. In other cases, internal genitalia, chromosome patterns, hormone production, and secondary sex characteristics that develop later may be at variance with the person's external anatomy. Sex is arbitrarily assigned by the patriarchal medical system, and there is no reason to assume that it is any more correct or real than what a person experiences.

GENDER MYTH #13

The lesbian and women’s communities have nothing to gain by including transsexuals.

FACT: Transsexual women bring many valuable qualities to the women’s community. They bring skills usually taught only to men into the women’s community and pass them on to other women. Many are active feminists, increase opportunities for women, and seek to hire and promote women. Those who have made it through transition must have intelligence, persistence, and a sense of humor. Many also bring a spirituality that has been possessed historically by cross-gendered members of various cultures.

GENDER MYTH #14

Nontranssexual women have the right to decide whether transsexuals should be included in the women’s community.

FACT: Each individual has a right to claim her own identity. While being adamant about having this right for themselves, some members of the women’s community would deny it to others. Just as each woman must come to her own conclusion about whether she is a lesbian, each must know her own truth about being a woman. Transsexuals can and do include themselves in the women’s community and the lesbian community without permission from nontranssexuals.

GENDER MYTH #15

Transsexuals are guilty of deception when they don’t reveal right away that they are transsexuals.

FACT: There is no standard of disclosure that requires transsexuals to reveal their medical history, just as lesbians do not need to mention their sexual orientation immediately on meeting someone. The circumstances in which this is considered an important fact to know vary from person to person. The individual meeting a transsexual may collude in the “deception” by assuming she or he is a nontranssexual. If it’s important to you to know, take responsibility for asking.

GENDER MYTH #16

Male-to-female transsexuals are considered men until they have sexchange surgery.

FACT: Although male-to-female transsexuals appear as men during some part of their lives, most never consider themselves men. They have felt like females for their entire lives. The change from male to female is a change in external appearance of sex-related characteristics, not a change in gender (how a person feels inside). This transition takes place over a period of several years, and sex-reassignment surgery is only one part of it, together with living as a woman, taking hormones, and resocialization.

GENDER MYTH #17

People can be categorized as transsexual or nontranssexual—there’s no in-between.

FACT: There are nearly as many categories as there are people. There are transsexuals who have had or plan to have one, two, or many surgeries to make their bodies conform more closely to their gender, and those who will never have surgery. Some people feel comfortable expressing both genders. Some refuse to identify as either gender. Some people (male and female) enjoy cross-dressing, but their gender is congruent with their sex. Some conform to gender norms; some flout them. The possibilities are infinite.

GENDER MYTH #18

Women who want to become men have bought into societal hatred of women or are hoping to take advantage of male privilege.

FACT: Female-to-male transsexuals don’t want to become men—they are men. The reason they want to change their bodies to become more male appearing is because that’s how they feel inside. If they gain male privilege, it is tenuous; whatever they have gained is lost if they are discovered to be transsexuals. If transsexualism were based on misogyny, there would be far more female-to-male than male-to-female transsexuals. In fact, their numbers are thought to be about equal.

GENDER MYTH #19

A person’s “true” sex can be determined by chromosome testing.

FACT: Although most persons identified as male at birth have XY chromosomes and most of those identified as female have XX, there are many variations that can occur. Some “women-born women” have XY chromosomes, a fact that may be discovered only when they are tested to qualify for athletic competition. Other patterns, such as XXY, XYY, and XXX (no, this does not make you an amazon) can also exist. Some individuals have what is called mosaicism, in which some percentage of cells have an XY pattern and the remainder have XX.

GENDER MYTH #20

Transsexualism is unnatural—it is a new problem brought about by sophisticated technology.

FACT: Throughout recorded history there have been people whose gender identity did not match their anatomic sex, and there is evidence that sex-change surgery was performed thousands of years ago. In some cultures, transgendered individuals were held in high esteem as shamans. Today, surgery—from liposuction to sex reassignment—allows many people to have a physical form that is more congruent with | their inner sense of themselves and the way they want to appear

GENDER MYTH #21

“Real” women, certainly those who belong to the lesbian community, rejoice in their womanhood and have no desire to be men.

FACT: There are people who were assigned as females at birth who identify as men, and many of them become part of the lesbian community. Most would be labeled butch lesbians. Many are afraid to reveal their desire to appear more completely as men, including taking testosterone and undergoing surgery to remove their breasts and construct penises. (Transsexual men are apparently permitted at Michigan because they are “still women” according to the Festival doctrine of immutable sex.)

GENDER MYTH #22

Now that Festival policy has been made clear, there are no transsexuals at Michigan.

FACT: Festival policy is far from clear. The brochure states that the Festival is for “womyn-bom womyn.” Many transsexuals include themselves in that category. While some transsexuals have no desire to participate if they know they are unwelcome, others are here and will continue to come because they have a right to be at any event open to women. No statement has been issued about whether female-to-male transsexuals are welcome at the Festival.

GENDER MYTH #23

Transsexuals have caused trouble at Michigan, resulting in their expulsion.

FACT: According to Festival organizers, transsexuals have been attending MWMF for many years, and 1991 was the first time a transsexual has been expelled. Nancy Burkholder was expelled because she said something that made a woman suspect she was a transsexual, not because her behavior was offensive. In fact, Nancy had participated fully in the 1990 Festival without incident. There is no evidence that transsexuals have ever caused trouble at Michigan. Seeing transsexuals as trouble-makers is once again blaming the victim.

GENDER MYTH #24

Nontranssexual women at Michigan don't want male-to-female transsexuals here.

FACT: Although Festival organizers claim that the policy excluding transsexuals reflects the senument of the community at large, many nontranssexual women support the rights of transsexual women and want them to be included. A survey of over 600 women at the 1992 MWMF showed that 73% of those surveyed thought male-to-female transsexuals should be welcome at the Festival; 23% thought they should not be welcome and 4% were undecided. Only 20% would welcome female-to-male transsexuals, who are apparently permitted.

[the-way-astray]

if you were the author of kotlc, what would be different? (besides keefe)

i'm so sorry this is so late, anon, but every time i feel like i'm done and up to posting i feel the urge to add something else. here's a (long) list:

representation/diversity stuff

it would be completely normal to be queer in the lost cities. you tell the matchmakers what your sexuality is and if you don't know then they just assume you're pan and are cool with any gender. also, they don’t care if you’re trans and there are plenty of elixirs (temporary and permanent) to help with transitions and dysphoria. the elves are still scared of blood and sharp things though, so instead of top/bottom surgery, there’s permanent elixirs that can change . . . what you’ve got down there. recovery time is also zero

fitz and dex becomes canon. but don't you ship keefitz- yes, sir, i do indeed. but the sad truth (for me) is that fidex is more suitable for canon and keefitz is more of a fanon daydream. it brings both fitz's arc about learning the world isn't perfect and dex's arc about not judging vackers just for being vackers to a satisfying close

stina is non-binary and goes by they/them

sophie is a (straight) trans girl, mostly because it would be funny as hell. alden and fitz spend twelve years looking for a boy, but sophie’s on puberty blockers and goes by sophie, so they miss her completely. forkle has to send alden the article on sophie three times before alden realizes the “boy” they’ve been searching for might be a girl. sophie’s transness was the best defense against being found by the neverseen all along. sophie’s also alienated by her senior class’s transphobic thoughts towards her. when she goes to the lost cities, they treat it like it’s completely normal and della gives her a gender-affirming elixir with her birth fund. this is never brought up again and is completely irrelevant to the rest of the story

talked about this a tiny bit in my keefe rant but the sexism in the supposedly un-sexist world really grates on me. i would take it all out. sophie wouldn't be forced into wearing girly clothes all the time, either by herself or by anyone else. women frequently do/wear "masculine" things and vice versa. oh, and alden wears a dress at one point. also, foxfire uniforms are unisex. definitely no weird sexist comments made by keefe or anyone else. the lost cities are truly and really gender-equal

alden and della are t4t

the women aren't all housewives that get like one over-the-top girlboss-y moment because shannon realized she was being unintentionally sexist

female characters are allowed to be angry instead of sad more and are allowed to yell instead of cry more

della is a more prominent character. edaline is a more prominent character. juline is a more prominent character

cut down on poc stereotypes (like quinlin and livvy's crumbling marriage, prentice being in jail for his son's entire teenagehood, tiger parent songs, comparing tam and linh to both k-pop idols and anime . . . )

the main vacker family are all poc

the main heks family are all poc

bronte is a poc

tiergan is a poc

the elves have normal-colored eyes and the thing that makes sophie different visually is that she's the only elf not to have pointed ears (and i would erase the whole “elves only get pointy ears as they age” thing). all the poc have brown eyes, including the vackers (i'm so sorry, fitz). sophie tries to cover her non-pointed ears with her hair as a sign of insecurity, which could be related to the way she used to hide behind her hair in her high school senior class

the poc don’t all have dyed hair (tam, linh, maruca) and are allowed to keep their natural hair color

despite the lost cities’ progressiveness when it comes to gender and sexuality, polyamory is not socially acceptable because it is considered “imperfect”. sophie learns about this and campaigns against it

there's two polyam relationships: alden, della, grady, and edaline, and tiergan, prentice and cyrah

vacker stuff

alden and della's trust issues and generally fucked up relationship are explored (but minus the forced gender roles because i took out the sexism)

alvar is closer emotionally to sophie (kind of like alden), making his betrayal feel less cheap

the pressure for vackers to be perfect in every way is explored more

fitz is not demonized just because he and sophie didn’t work out

fitz and biana are twins, actually. alden and della just hid it really, really well

alvar knew that fitz and biana were twins and tried to use this as blackmail to get them to join the neverseen because he genuinely loved his little siblings and hated betraying them (his gripes were with his parents and the immense pressure put on him because he was a vacker). when they refuse, he makes good on his threat, leading to actual repercussions that affect the story (alden and della are kicked out of the nobility)

brant is a vacker and that's why his name is redacted (could still happen) and alden and della know his parents

tiergan and alden used to be best friends canon for real for real (could still happen, i guess)

biana's scars arc is given the time it needs to feel like a full arc and not a half-baked two-scene wonder. also she has scars on her face, too

fitz actually kills alvar (could still happen, i suppose)

biana's feelings with regards to alvar are explored more

keefe and alvar lore is expanded upon

ruewen/dizznee stuff

more stories of jolie. we don't really get to know her for her. maybe from brant, or grady and edaline, or someone. stories of mundane things, like her worst subject and her hobbies and her ex-friends and her conjuring classes and what she got her friends for midterms and how she got in trouble and grady and edaline's parties and how she picked a fight with anyone that put brant down

grady and edaline's parties are talked about more when people bring up how different they used to be

the fact that jolie died in an everblaze fire is actually acknowledged

the ruewens are just as prominent a family as the vackers because on the original council, just like fallon vacker was a member, there was also a ruewen

ruewen is juline and edaline's name, which is why grady took edaline's and also why juline took kesler's because that is a sign that she's literally forsaking her incredibly prominent noble family for a life of scorn. it's also why edaline and grady hoped jolie and brant would end up together (because a vacker and a ruewen together is like. the ultimate noble couple)

juline's struggles with adjusting to a life of scorn are acknowledged because it couldn't have been easy to be the top of the top falling all the way to the bottom of the hierarchy. she beats herself up about this, too, thinking it means she doesn't actually love kesler. he reassures her that he understands but she still feels guilty

the triplets act like actual twelve-year-olds instead of six

dex's family is more relevant, as the primary bad match couple and an example of the lost cities’ injustices (the main point of the story)

the lost cities inequalities/other worldbuilding stuff

sophie campaigns for rights for pyrokinetics, shades, talentless people, twins, bad matches, polyamorous people like the moonlark she's supposed to be and the entire point of the story isn't forgotten

the fact that councillors are the only ones allowed to elect and impeach other councillors is called out and fixed (could still happen, i guess)

the elvin justice system is fixed (vackers are not let off easier just because they're vackers, the council's say isn't what decides a person's fate) (could still happen, maybe)

exile is made out to be the horrendous prison it is and in the end, is banned. sophie heals the minds of everyone with a broken mind in the end (i honestly don't think shannon's going to do this. but hey. she might)

controversial: the elves' relative beauty is emphasized more. i think it should be immediately obvious to humans that something's off when an elf is around. they look too beautiful, almost ethereal, and it makes humans uneasy, but they can't quite put a finger on why that is. this is also why sophie had no friends and even her family felt strange around her. that scene in nightfall where the girls are staring at tam and fitz? well actually, they’re trying their hardest to avoid the group. humans are fleeing left and right at the sign of the group, but they can’t really put a finger on why they feel so off

shades are not allowed to take the elite levels. the ability isn't banned or anything, but they are barred from the elite levels anyway. sophie and co call this out

vanishing and flashing is one ability. hydrokinetic and cyrokinetic is one ability. mesmering and beguiling is one ability. empathy and inflicting is one ability. also there's an earth ability and it's not just given to the dwarves because man, that's cheap

the dwarves and gnomes are one species that can control plants and are really good with minerals. they are still in charge of exile, though, because plants roots can go that far deep or something. this means there are no gnomish slaves servants

there is confirmed to be a third school where you go if you aren't a noble and also not a criminal

the segregation that happens between the classes with regards to mysterium and atlantis is acknowledged

other types of couples are explored, such as talentless-talentless matched couples and talented-talented bad matches. nuance is acknowledged

that rule about councillors not being allowed to be married is challenged. i don't care whether it actually gets revoked or not, but i want it to be challenged (could still happen, i suppose)

if it does get revoked, councillor fitz! (could still happen, maybe)

at the end of the series, a multispecial council with two representatives from each species is formed with the goal of promoting equality among all species. this is different from the actual rulers of each species (could still happen)

talentless people are allowed to serve in the nobility at the end (probably will happen, would be weird if shannon didn't do that. but just saying in case)

controversial: cognates are erased. i don't like the concept of cognates very much. i find it makes telepathy too overpowered compared to other abilities. i'm so sorry, keepblr

the council are called out publicly for their unfair treatment of talentless people, pyrokinetics, shades, twins, bad matches, and polyamorous relationships by the neverseen. this leads to the sophie and the black swan being conflicted

black swan/neverseen stuff

gethen is kenric and oralie’s secret child. this gives gethen an interesting motive, makes us question kenric and oralie, characters we are supposed to like, makes sophie have to grapple with the fact that her half-brother by blood is a neverseen member, and gives oralie an internal conflict

glimmer is keefe's twin sister and lady gisela's daughter, explaining why she's so loyal and how she ended up with the neverseen (she was kicked out by cassius, who didn't want the shame of twins). keefe is forced to grapple with this

. . . or maybe glimmer just. wouldn't exist. i don't know

brant, vespera, umber, and possibly alvar wouldn't have died such anti-climatic deaths

vespera and biana face-off. brant and edaline face-off. umber gets a proper backstory (which still might happen). umber and trix are a bad match (which still might happen)

cut the keefe’s legacy plotline. fintan stays the main villain the entire series instead of randomly being hijacked by gisela halfway through

cut the forkle twin reveal

cut the trolls and everglen plotline. fitz kills alvar a different way

cut the timeline to extinction plotline and silveny/greyfell. i'm sorry, but it adds nothing to the overall story besides "the neverseen are evil and want to control the council"

cut the lodestar symbol plotline. it was interesting, but took too much page time for a plotline that effectively ended up changing nothing about the overall story

cut the criterion plotline. it's never brought up again anyway and takes too much time for something that goes nowhere

cut the gnomish plague plotline. it didn't have much of an impact on the overall plot. all it proves is "the neverseen are evil", which is kind of the point of the story. also dimitar's project is never brought up again

cut team valiant. it never should've happened

cut the lodestar initiative plotline. It’s too vague and hasn’t affected anything important to the overall story in a while

cut the boy who disappeared plotline. it added nothing except "alvar is evil". also, don’t have fintan purposefully spill the beans about alvar. the black swan find out he's part of the neverseen a different way

cut the unmatchable sophie plotline. instead have the elves do matchmaking by dna. the point of this plotline is to show why matchmaking is unfair, but the system targets talentless people and pyrokinetics more than anyone else, so it feels forced to try to have sophie be a victim of it. sophie has a (non-pyrokinetic) ability, so she can’t be oppressed by the matchmaking system. sophie isn't affected by the matchmaking system in the way that it's supposed to target its victims, so the plotline fails to showcase the real reason matchmaking is unfair

instead, have the black swan and sophie actually listen to the povs of characters who are directly affected by matchmaking and fix it

marella's dad pushed marella's mom off the balcony (he’s not trix, though) (could still happen, i suppose)

fintan ends up being sophie's biological father (could still happen. pretty likely actually. but just in case)

the black swan are actually competent and don't throw away the entire point of their organization by working with the council

the black swan actually fight for change instead of hiding in the shadows

sophie realizes that forkle sucks over the course of the series and never talks to him again after the end

fintan is confirmed to have long hair and a flat ass from the start

fintan and vespera are confirmed to be childhood friends and fintan is confirmed to be the councillor that threw her in the dungeon. this means that there is tension between them when fintan breaks vespera out

the black swan learn about this and sophie comes up with a plan to divide and conquer by taking advantage of this rift and worsening it. this gives sophie a chance to actually use her brain to fight the neverseen instead of her abilities. the black swan hatch a plan to subtly worsen fintan and vespera's relationship: through the use of a double agent, keefe

this leads to the keefe double agent storyline, where keefe learns to listen to other people and consult them on his plans, and actually works toward a very specific goal (try to split the neverseen into two neverseens: fintan’s neverseen and vespera’s neverseen by subtly turning them against each other). the plan actually ends up working, but there are serious repercussions that actually affect the story (in the process, keefe is slightly indoctrinated by the neverseen and starts to sympathize with them and even bonds with fintan a little bit, which alarms sophie and co)

the neverseen actually act like a found family (with the exception of fintan and vespera)

the collective hire people to throw the council off their scent

bronte and fintan are confirmed to have had a thing that didn't work out

fintan is thrown in jail by a heartbroken bronte at the end of the story

after fintan’s captured, he still trains marella in pyrokinesis

livvy opens up a medical school

instead of dying, vespera is locked up again. this is her worst fear, and a fate worse than death for her

the neverseen are not a large group, like shannon implies. it's no more then twenty people. this actually makes them more terrifying than not, because if such a small group can cause such large scale damage, then that is alarming and the council looks extra incompetent

writing stuff

multiple perspectives. but not evenly. like 80% of the story would still be sophie's pov, but here and there there are chapters sprinkled in from other characters' perspectives as a break

a few chapters from the adults' povs that go into stuff they got up to before the series

a few chapters from the neverseen members’ povs

a few chapters from sophie and co's povs

the love triangle takes a backseat to the actual plot

keefe and fitz actually act like best friends

the cast is cut down significantly to just sophie, fitz, keefe, biana, dex, marella, stina, and wylie (i’m so sorry tam, linh, maruca, and jensi). there are just too many characters. instead of tam and linh being from exillium, have marella manifest earlier and get kicked out to exillium, highlighting the injustice against pyrokinetics through someone in sophie’s own friend group and making the injustice much more jarring and in-your-face. sophie, biana, fitz, dex, and keefe go to exillium later as well and meet marella there

stina's arc would not have been undone. instead, there would be a conversation between her and dex about how stina apologizes for bullying him and we learn that the reason she did that was to deflect attention off of herself and her own parents' shaky match status by pretending she was better than dex, a "real" bad match's child (the book would be multiple povs, so this would be possible)

dex and sophie never kiss and remain purely platonic friends for the entire series. erase dex's crush on sophie entirely. because we need a single purely platonic male-female relationship goddammit

sophie ends up single, but takes away something from both her relationship with keefe and her relationship with fitz

prentice and sophie's first conversation after prentice wakes up is actually meaningful

the series is only four books long because please shannon i can't handle this anymore

move the lumenaria-collapse climax to the second-to-last (third) book. that plotline slapped so hard and shannon had no business losing it in the middle of the series like it was just some random neverseen plan. it needs to be given the proper weight, so it needs to be the climax that truly showcases the neverseen's might and wit that finally kicks sophie and co into gear and motivates them to knock out the neverseen for good in the last book

i don't know where shannon's going with this yet, so this is tentative, but: move the elysian/ability-to-strip-elves-of-their-abilities plotline to the third-to-last (second) book's climax, so that sophie and co can have a proper reason to not rely entirely on their abilities all the time and actually use their brains for the rest of the series (like the divide-and-conquer-the-neverseen plan)

first book's climax is still the kidnapping

last book's climax is they take the neverseen down for good and fix the lost cities' problems (i assume this will still happen)

miscellaneous stuff

terik is talentless. i'm going to be so honest: i don't think shannon's going to do it. the series isn't done but i feel like i know shannon's style well enough to be able to tell how far she's willing to go with regards to plot twists

keefe is adopted by elwin (could still happen)

the great gulon incident was such a great triumph that it actually made alina quit. she's elected to the council a few years later

whatever stina's parents did to get matched is finally revealed and they fall out of favor with the public. stina gets character development and a reason to help sophie fix the world

alden and della and grady and edaline actually all act like friends (partners?) with inside jokes and not coworkers that only come to each other with problems. sophie wakes up and comes downstairs for breakfast and della and grady are chatting about dinosaurs. she goes into grady and edaline's room and alden's there, helping them pick a new wallpaper. she goes to everglen after school to play with fitz and biana and goes inside and edaline and alden are chilling on the couch talking about how that team got absolutely crushed at the latest bramble match. she goes outside and sees della getting thrown around by verdi and grady, edaline, and alden are laughing at her. and this is like. normal stuff. they're the kinds of friends where they can just show up to each other's houses and it's not a big deal. edaline and grady's dna is on everglen's gate

everglen's gate is explicitly said to also have security measures protecting it from levitators, because that is currently a plot hole

alden is not a century older than della. this is not because i think it's toxic. this is because i want alden, della, edaline, grady, tiergan, prentice, cadence, and quinlin to have all been foxfire friends and that's kind of not possible if alden and della are a century apart

grady, edaline, della and alden's blind spots with regards to the way society is laid out is acknowledged and actually a major part of the story. they are prominent nobles, after all. at the end they all become more aware of the lost cities' problems and are at the forefront of change

timkin and kesler end up best friends by the end of the story somehow. they realize they are in the same situation in different lightings. timkin (and vika) help out at slurps and burps by the end of the story as an apology

that's all for now, but there's probably something else that'll come up that'll make me go "oh, shannon should've done this instead!!!" so. there may be a part two, i don't know

[writingwithfolklore]

Hi! first of all, I think you're really incredible, and thank you so much for helping so many writers! Secondly, i'm currently hoping to write a fantasy world that doesn't have transphobia and views sex/gender differently from how we view it here (ie, no sexism etc), however I'm a cis writer and not super sure how to go about a system where there's less of strict binary male-man/female-woman (if that makes sense?) I was wondering if you have any sources or know of anyone who might that could help me get started? Again, thank you so much, it's much appreciated!!

Hii! Thank you!

I'm going to ramble on this subject and maybe something will stick. I'm by no means a history expert or anything really about this topic, so I'm going to be talking about it on a pretty surface level--I'm sure there's a lot of psychology, history, etc on why the binary came to be and how it's impacted society you could look into further!

The most helpful place to start however, is to take inspiration from other cultures that already have more than two genders. For example, many Indigenous groups in North America have the idea of a 'two-spirit' person who is both male and female. There are also many communities who didn't have a patriarchal system before colonization (you'll notice the more you look into it that colonization deeply impacted these systems and is the reason they aren't as common in the western world today).

Here's just a quick source that I pulled up about this: Cultures That Recognize More than Two Genders | Britannica and here's another with more examples across the world: A Map of Gender-Diverse Cultures | Independent Lens | PBS

I'd recommend looking into some of these cultures more deeply (especially their history before colonization) to learn how their society was structured before the ideas of the gender binary and patriarchy was placed onto them. This may help inform what a system like that would look like, and what sort of 'categories' people would fit into in that system.

Otherwise, if you want to completely get rid of the binary, you should know the basis of the system is about expectations and stereotypes. Like, what is female-woman but just a list of presuppositions about what she will look like, sound like, act like, have a career in, have goals about, etc. etc?

From this, sexism comes from the idea of "well male things make men superior to woman who are only capable of female things" and transphobia comes from the idea of "it's not okay if person doesn't fit the expectations for who they should be that was placed on them at birth"

So liikely your society wouldn't have these same expectations, or lesser so. People we would think of as woman wouldn't be expected to wear dresses or makeup or be pretty or weak, emotional, irrational, dumb, etc. etc. And they also wouldn't be expected to have boobs or long hair or other physical traits we tend to associate as feminine/female. Same goes for men.

It is more likely that your society doesn't categorize people at all in order to not have sexism or some form of "who I am is superior to who you are". So maybe everyone is allowed to just be human and express themselves however they'd like. In this case, trans folks wouldn't necessarily be any different than any other folk if there's no ideas to gender or what people are ""meant"" to be. That may not be exactly what you're going for, but these kind of 'foundational' ideas are helpful to think about when you're rearranging a new system.

I hope that helps!

[stupidrant]

Thank you for tackling another facet of fandom's misogyny which is justifying the hatred for and dismissal of story important female characters and their no less important relationships with male leads by means of invented (and often completely ridiculous) M/M ships. Hei**tre*s is a perfect example of that as it's preferred over a canon romantic storyline for Atreus (which is Atreus/Angrboda). Whereas Heimdall is worshiped and prioritized over Angrboda despite the fact that he is a textbook filler character and a stereotypical two dimensional secondary antagonist "who dies first".

Yet Angrboda whose every single scene brings something new to the story or moves the plot and whose interactions with Atreus are so vital to said plot you cannot omit a single one of them without the game becoming completely different and Atreus's arc crumbling and losing logic, cohesion and sense is dismissed as "boring".

This is that "woke misogyny" that we discussed before (and proves yet again how gamebros and "progressives" are in fact the two sides of the same bigoted coin, just like Alphas and Nice Guys).

Furthermore, this "progressive misogyny" pattern often includes those people making up "arguments" as to why male lead's relationship with a multi-faceted female character is supposedly "unhealthy" or "forced" (which is laughable given their own fanon ships have zero basis in canon). But their imagined M/M ship is somehow "complex and inspiring" because they want a male character they (often undeservedly) put on a pedestal (in this case Heimdall) to get a trophy in the form of another character (Atreus). Whom they - and that's the most absurd part - often also hate as much as they do his canon female love interest. But deem this "worthless and annoying fun-sponge" to be good enough to be a prize for their favourite man.

It's the same toxic thinking that, within the non-romantic realm, reduced Atreus to Kratos's prize and then concluded he wasn't worth becoming one. However, trolls decided that Atreus still might fulfill their fantasy of Thrud/Atreus or Heimdall/Atreus and become a prize for one of them. That's why their favourite moments in their interactions is when Thrud or Heimdall exert physical violence against Atreus and "put that runt in place".

Meanwhile, Angrboda is also seen as an "unworthy" prize, just for Atreus. It all boils down to dehumanization and treating one character as an accessory for another (and shoes how sexism affects characters regardless of gender, just in a different way). That's why canon Atreboda makes trolls so angry as it's an equal and supportive relationship for both of them.

You are also correct in seeing the potential in Skjoldr, sadly, likely becoming that glorified secondary male character whom trolls might use as a perfect cover for their misogyny. So they could continue dismissing or putting down Angrboda to prop up Atreus's interactions with Skjoldr and Thrud. Another scenario that isn't out of the realm of possibility is, as you noted, Atreus forming a trio with Skjoldr and Thrud, with Angrboda being pushed to sidelines.

Now, obviously, canonically neither Skjoldr nor Thrud would ever become Atreus's love interests and are most likely going to have a romantic arc of their own, with one another. But before it happens or in the process of it happening the writers/developers might opt for the "bros over romance" route in regards to A/T/S trio vs Atreboda relationship. It's all the more plausible if the other, grim scenario I suggested before comes to pass and Skjoldr is ultimately sacrificed for Thrud's angst (and, in this case, Atreus's as well, in a platonic sense).

With the criticism she gets, i think they will go against the “bros over atreboda” thing. I think atreboda will be a bigger focus and understandably so (or at least im hoping they will. as i said before, they continued with atreus despite trolls. Im expecting them to do the same with angrboda) I’ve noticed most main (or only) love interests get treated like this. And its usually the female ones in particular. i dont understand why so many people hate on them all the time? Its not like theyre always the same yet there is smth “unappealing” to so many people about said love interests all the time. I wonder if it has to do with the ���not like other girls” sort of thing..

[horizon-verizon]

You’re a whole coon, of course Rhaenyra hates women, especially Black women, she tried to murder a 16 years-old Black girl, slut shamed her, called her racial slurs, and linked Nettles “ugliness/attractiveness” to her Blackness. Rhaenyra literally acted like a pathetic pick me in regard to Daemon and Nettles. If given the chance, Rhaenyra would have enslaved her. TB must truly despise Daenerys to compare her to Rhaenyra, they couldn’t be more different. (The way Rhaenyra is never mentioned in Dany’s chapters and GRRM has never discussed them in conjunction with the other, finally y’all can thanks HOTD for turning her into a progressive and flawless Mary Sue).

And really an insanely privileged white woman dying after putting a bounty on a lowborn Black’s girl head should be a good thing right ? We just gon have to celebrate Rhaenyra death with Nettles.

If you say so, anon, I guess I'm a straight up coon. 🤷🏿‍♀️

I suppose arguing how no one can be a feminist in a medieval world is coonish. I guess that pointing out how unconstructive it is to go "she wasn't a feminist so we shouldn't care about any possible effect her coming into power like the men before and after her have been able to will have an effect on other noble women's power to maybe implement some pro-women stuff in their own domains" to us analyzing why/how Rhaenyra is important to the history of Westeros and Daenerys is coonish.

I guess it's coonish of me to flout so many non-Nettles arguments of Rhaenyra's supposed bad leadership and amorality not once, but TWICE (that I remember), where it clearly just veers into straight up sexism: HERE and HERE....thus coming into why I even bother defending Rhaenyra (in some points).

It's not like I haven't already wrote several time in several posts how Rhaenyra's trying to get Nettles' head reveals much about the Targ-Andal paradigm she grows up in and tries to use to bolster herself through her going after Nettles to the end. It's not like I don't see how essentially different Daenerys and Rhaenyra are as people through the Nettles event as well as how they grow up and come into their positions of power and how/why they desire those roles:

It's not like I haven't already written about the Black Jezebel stereotype at least three times, including on Twitter and here. It's not like I have defended Nettles not just from "dettles" stans but also from people who call themselves Rhaenyra stans while bashing on Nettles and Mysaria, totally misunderstanding both characters and what even a supporting character is.

But sure, I'm a coon bc I don't want to ignore the journey of Rhaenyra's downfall and make distinct where she decided to destroy another woman vs her being the victim. Sure, I'm a whole coon.

And for the last fucking time, "compare" does not always or only mean "these two things are exactly alike and I will show you how"! "Comparison" analyses means that you will list out what traits or developments two things have, what inspirations, and see how they differ and how they don't. And through such a process, you will find out how many and how well/or not these two or more things are alike and how.

For Dany and Rhaenyra, I never said these girls/women were the same person. I said that both women, as women in male-designated positions of power, have to deal with people in world AND out of world must contend with misogynist feelings towards of their not deserving power or leadership on account of their gender, no matter what sort of characterization either had BECAUSE even with the main series not being like F&B, not being a history book, PEOPLE IN THE FANDOM STILL TEND TO MISREAD OR TWIST DANY'S ACTIONS AGAINST HER CHARACTER AND GRRM'S INTENT. Rhaenyra is meant to contextualize that very experience into a real event of catastrophe, she was set against ever since she was 10 bc she was female and another, older woman wanted power denied to her directly bc she was a woman. This is a fact, you nor I can change that. There is a difference between what we learn from the events to make the conclusions of who should rule ideally and what we should shoot for VERSUS thinking of the situation at hand for what it would have been like for the character.

F&B (having been written after the main series) continues even this "analysis" phenomenon; what do people choose to believe when it's a woman at the center of their stories?! No matter her real circumstances or their knowledge of things not present in their understanding of the world and of history?

I also mention, several times, how it is here, Rhaenyra's end, where the Targs lose their dragons because they have assimilated into the intenser patriarchal paradigm already mentioned to the point where they weakened their women's positions by denying them their autonomy and political powers...which plot sequence wise leads to the end of the dynasty as whole and Dany's exile. I'm must be a coon to not want Nettles, a 17 year old, to fuck a 50 year old, esp with her being his bio daughter. No, anon, I am too repulsed with direct vertical incest (parent-child, grandparent-grandchild, etc.).

Then there is how the Bloodstone Emperor and the Amethyst Empress and how the former usurped tha latter and plunged the entire world into mythological "darkness"--thus leading up to the importance of the Azor Ahai, aka Dany, directly seems to reflect how another brother--Aegon II--usurped his older sister--Rhaenrya--and thus the world loses a strong magical tool against darkness "dragons". An obvious link....

In fact, I tend to repeat how different they are as people! There's this whole thread talking abt the very thing I despise abt some critiques of Rhaenyra. I even say many times that Rhaenyra couldn't have the throne after the Nettles letter, that at that point, there needed a "refresh". Up until then, there was simply more reason for us to not think her a real terror except for maybe Addam and Alyn. But I have my misgivings there and it comes down to timing and grief.

No, Rosby and Stokeworth do not count and why? I already wrote why, but for someone who doesn't stan Rhaenyra or is not a fan of hers but actually stans just Daenerys--the previous ozymalek says:

I have myself said several times how I disliked how they rewrote show1Rhaenyra to make her a much less assertive version of herself, and I agree with others how they made her female-friendless. No matter how amoral or moral she was, similarly to Dany, people have written her sexistly in the show. I believe that this is CENTRAL to the point of F&B, how people refuse to see the point of it.

Finally, I really don't see how the hell show!Rhaenyra even is a Mary Sue or a NLOG, bc for the first, she displays no skill she excels over others at. A Mary Sue is:

Show!Rhaenyra, for some reason, seems "perfect" to some people. Esp with Luke saying so in epi 8. I never felt that way, I always thought she (older, not younger) was too meek and that is her great flaw---due to the sexist writing, but if kept at face value, that's the great flaw. Other definition: Who is inserting themselves into her character on the show? you got proof?

A NLOG (not like the other girls) is a Cersei like character who goes out of their way to destroy/diminish most women who are competitors for their power or destroy any semblance of socially-defined femininity and socially-coded feminine "weakness" so as to appeal to the male authority and get privileges. Problem is that EVERY SINGLE FEMALE MONARCH AND WOMAN IN SOME SORT OF AUTHORITY OVER MEN IN EVERY SINGLE PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY had to convince their male supporters that they were the one they should follow to some degree more than any male heir or candidate--during a time where they had to either fight for their "birthright" or they were planning coups (Catherine the Great), came into power through some accident, or whatnot--that their rule was in it for them. There is no pattern of woman-hating or self-hating to define Rhaenyra as a NLOG, where she consistently tries. NLOGs tend to hate women even in their own "race" or group for perceived acts of upheaval and destabilizing their positions of power. Alicent was and she uses misogyny to do so, so Alicent is not Rhaenyra's victim; other way around. Rhaenyra has all reason to despise Alicent, justified even. It's more than the positions, it's the whole targeting since 10 deal and trying to espouse Rhaenyra's inherent unworthiness for power.

So Rhaenyra deciding to do the Rosby/Stokeworth bit is her seeing how her greatest ally, a sexist man, has basically all her ships during wartime and insisting she does not give those girls their father's seats is Rhaenyra choosing wrongly, yes, but something I don't think that you or a small number of women would bow under considering the other shit she was going through. Yes, even black/PoC women. Again, this is not about Nettles but about women vs women (yes with them all being white or white-adjacent) bc I know that this will be the next thing some will say as a counterargument to what I'm saying here.

You are correct, however, in how similar Rhaenyra's behavior abt Nettles is pick-me-ish and NLOG concerning her intent to turn Daemon back to her and how this was her seeing Nettles as competition for "control" over Daemon, who was one of her principal military commands as well as her romantic partner...and like i said once before, this is a reflection on how this Andal-Targ patriarchal paradigm makes its own female "terrors" through misogyny. To ignore the process is to endanger its justified repetition. Yeah, Rhaenyra ends up becoming like Alicent in that way after the consistent losses, and I mean defaulting back to destroying another woman for a simulation of power. This doesn't mean that she was a feminist or that she didn't intend on using the Black Jezebel reasoning to get rid of "competition" to feel more in control. It does mean that her behavior reveals her enmeshment in the xenophobic, aristocratic, patriarchal Targ-Andal feudalist paradigm that she chooses to use to, again, construct more feelings of power at a time where she seemed to feel she was losing more and more--after the betrayals and the deaths of her sons in that moment. And yet if there is anything to be extracted from her narrative it is how that built-in classism (the companion and parent of racism) can become the thing these women default onto to retrieve/gain the agency & power denied to them. I believe this is also where you can draw a core similarity to Cersei, who is rather the starkest extreme example of that classism making up for her internalized misogyny through her Lannister Exceptionalism.

The discourse has to include how we, the readers, over-blame Rhaenyra for things she has either very little control over or what she had no control over and for trying to, again, assert herself (before Nettles). She's a reflection of her times and situation; doesn't mean she isn't still a victim. You don't need to like her. I never asked for people to do so. I don't care if you do or not, I've never needed that. Just don't lie or twist information or ignore clear patterns GRRM establishes that are also important, or try to erase the lines of harm done to her and undo the work GRRM is doing to point out this pattern of misogyny that contextualizes one very key aspect of Dany's journey: sexism doesn't care how good or classist you are, you are a woman so you will be subject to disenfranchisement, distortion of facts, and destruction...if you are not like Dany, who intuitively and "rationally" discovers lanes of power while reintegrating her being to the natural process and relationships between herself and her dragons for the ecological benefit of the entire world (the Others, again). Unlike Rhaenyra, Dany doesn't fall into the ideological "trap" or the noblewoman's save-grace of exploiting of lowborn people AND dragons but intelligently seeks other non-exploitative ways to use her dragons and those inspired by he bravery. This again, does not erase or override the sexism and specific elements of gender politics that tie these two together.

It's a paradox, not a contradiction.

[psychoticallytrans]

But men and women ARE physically different. There is something about being a woman that a man will never know or understand. That doesn't mean men and women can't enjoy the same things or do the same jobs. A man will never understand pregnancy the way a woman will. Men and women parent children in a different way. To say that men and women are the same, that there is no distinction between the two sexes is actually rather transphobic because CLEARLY there is a fundamental physical and psychological difference between the two sexes that a AFAB/AMAB feel they don't have/is wrong in their birth body.

Some men get pregnant. I could, if I had a mind to, but it's not something I plan on. If you want to declare that trans men who get pregnant don't understand pregnancy, I would like something to back that up. If you want to argue that they aren't men, we are going to have a problem. I would not be less of a man if I did get pregnant. I also want to note that presuming that men can't understand things about womenhood is inherently exclusive of multigender and genderfluid people who are both men and women.

Inuit parenting, Danish parenting, and Korean parenting are all wildly different from each other, which puts a good bit of weight behind the idea that parenting is a hugely cultural phenomenon. "Men work, women nurture" is a cultural bias common all over the world that is reinforced by capitalism and sexism. Parenting is naturally affected by this. I am not persuaded that if somehow raised in a cultural vacuum, men and women would naturally parent in ways that adhere to sexist stereotypes. You are welcome to present any evidence you think says otherwise.

Gender and sex are both socially constructed. Gender is constructed along the lines of "a person who looks/feels/behaves like this is this gender." Of course, people can be nonconforming to their gender- it's one of the most complex social constructs we have, right up there with law. Sex is constructed bimodally as "someone with this common grouping of sex traits is male, someone with this common grouping is female, and those who have traits that mix groupings, are outliers, and/or are missing a major trait are intersex." The gender construction of "woman" is strongly associated with the sex construction of "female" and the gender construction of "man" is strongly associated with the sex construction of "male". Gender associations with the "intersex" construction are complex and varied accordingly to the traits of the person and their cuture, but rarely if ever boil cleanly down to "man" or "woman" in the way that they do with the male and female constructions, even when ostensibly lumped in with one of the binary constructions.

A considerable amount of perisex binary transgender people feel like their bodies should have the traits of the other binary sex construction, and that their gender aligns with the one associated with that sex construction. However, some perisex binary transgender people don't care about their sex traits, or only care so far as it helps them to be treated as their gender. In addition, some completely cisgender perisex people want traits of the other binary sex construction, such as perisex cis women wanting beards or perisex cis men wanting vaginas. It gets even more complex when intersex people and nonbinary people are introduced to the discussion.

I see no reason that arguing that there is a fundamental difference between the genders or sexes that makes it impossible for people to transgress them would help anyone other than conservatives, and perhaps a fraction of perisex binary trans people that adhere very closely to conservative ideals of sex and gender. If refusing to cast aside people who aren't interested in strictly adhering to the sex and gender binary is transphobic... we have very different definitions of transphobia.

[blundergato]

i watched a video where a japanese dude interviewed different japanese people on their perception of the united states and there were two ladies in particular who had lived for a little bit over here who nailed it pretty hard in terms of what its like to be a racial/gender minority in this country specifically.

there was another person who mentioned that the impression they get is that the united states looks down on japan.

and the comments were not happy with it. you had some of the most smoothbrained assholes possible coming out of the woodwork to talk about how we don't look down on them because (insert any japanese stereotype you know here) and how much they love their "culture" aka cultural products and man...you guys are so close to getting it. boiling down a culture to a small slice of its cultural exports that you consume here is absolutely simplifying and looking down on a culture.

and of course, you had people trying to explain away the racism/sexism thing by saying it depends on region, when...no. the way that kind of shit manifests is different depending on where you are, but that shit is embedded into the very fabric of this country and trying to dismiss what these two women experienced when living here or blame it on the wokes (yea those comments were scattered in there too) just makes you a shithead.

the comments just kind of devolved into a bunch of right wing talking points and it made me want to rip my hair out. it was just this weird glorification of japan plus this odd way of trying to justify u.s. racism.

On that note, there were a number of comments about how people in the u.s. love forcing labels on people when that shit doesnt matter; basically implying that it is the fault of people who fall outside of the societal standard (non-white, non-straight) for these labels. you know, every bigots favorite dumbass talking point. but in these SAME interviews the interviewer asked japanese people what they admire specifically about u.s. culture, a lot of them answered "individuality and self-expression"; the ability to fall out of the societal norm and not be immediately ostracized.

now, that idea is not exactly true here, considering that the u.s. is one of the most bigoted countries on this planet because white people cant chill the fuck out, but that sort of idea does sort of exist here by proxy of how diverse this country is overall.

now...you have these morons in the comments idolizing japan for its conformity, while a lot of japanese people (well from the tiny ass sample size of these interviews) seem to at least appreciate how people can self express here and you have a perfect little looking glass into how u.s. americans look down on another country while THINKING that they are admiring/appreciating it.

anyways im pissed off and im going to bed now

[aestherians]

Alterhuman gender bitching:

So I'm from* a culture where the (stereotypical) gender roles are almost completely reversed and I would like financial compensation for having to deal with Western Human Gender norms.

Like anatomically we're close enough to human standard, but because of some of our history (basically that we had to play into another culture's sexism to survive), men for us are delicate, passive, scholarly homebodies who serve the wills of others and work conceptually; while women are the aggressive, socially dominant warriors/workers, who tend to be the ones making decisions and dealing with the practical side of things.

Which sounds like a clusterfuck already, but wait! There's more! Because of the fact that our gender stereotypes are in reaction to outsider views on it, we have two different kinds of trans people. To over-simplify drastically for the sake of my thumbs, we have trans people who act like their gender according to our stereotypes, and then those who do the fucking opposite to act as that gender to outsiders, mainly because they're working with outsiders. That second one is still recognized as being trans, because you're still living as your preferred gender, but "Yeah this person is a trans man because they act so much like a woman that outsiders think they're a man" is not an easy sell to explain. Especially since that's our older form of trans identity.

Here's the thing, too: it would be easy to just go and label the ultra-conforming trans people by just gnc labels. To use, say "butch"** for one and "trans man" for the other. There are two problems with that. One, both groups are equally trans. The, to us, ultra-femme town guard who prefers their female partner in marriage to the male one(s), is just as trans as the, to us, highly masculine teenager training to be a healer. Two, and connected to one, is that we consider the femininity/masculinity of that person vital to their transness. The aforementioned ultra-femme town guard is trans *because* they're so feminine. It's not a factor that can be divorced. It's "this person is transmasc and feminine", it's "this person expresses their transness via their femininity and their assumption of a male role with outsiders".

And yeah this would be navigable if it were rare, but no, it's the default. By human standards we're complicated and strange, but it's just intuitive and natural to us. I don't like feeling like I have to explain that yes, we are growing our hair (or most other human-feminine things) as a man thing. Or when I can't just talk about the second kind of trans around people.

Ye gods I think I've seen a variation of this rant before, I'm sorry I just feel like you'd get my rage. Thank you for reading. Delete this if you feel like it, publish it if you don't. May people be understanding.

*Walk-in, don't @ me, I know the body is from USA-dominant culture, trust me, I know

**Do NOT get on my ass about the existence of transmasc butches, I know, I know. I'm partially using transmasc because both of our species members in headspace are transmasc.

No yeah I completely get you. This is kinda how gnoll society is too. Very strict gender roles, but opposite roles of human society. I can't say gnolls are better than humans, 'cause it's still a strictly gendered society, but I'd be lying if I didn't say part of me still misses it

[ecos-discourse]

I think you misunderstand classification. I'm currently majoring in biology, and the science of things is that...there is always an exception. Always. We say "humans have 46 chromosones," even though people with down syndrome have 47. To classify humans we say they have bilateral symmetry (meaning I can draw a line through a human and have two equal sides) even though someone born without a leg would not have bilateral symmetry. However, that is a defect. The average human is intended to have two legs. Being born without one is a defect, and doesn't impede on the definition--humans are chordata, they have bilteral symmetry. For this same reason, Swyer syndrome (women presenting as "cis", alongside a uterus, fallopian tubes and a vagina, however containing an XY chromosone) does not dismiss the validity of the statement: Women have XX chromosones. Because this is a mutation. When we define something, in biology, we define it by it's "true" form, which is dictated by the average. The way a female should naturally be. Since gender is not real, and stereotypes (long hair, long nails, etc) don't actually define a female, and we don't present with sexual dimorphism (a phenomenon in animals where the female and male sexes look different IE: peacocks) we can only define such through reproductive means. All this is to say--I don't give a shit if someone is trans. I'll use their correct name and pronouns. People are people. But trans women are males. (Biological fact, this is their sex). Trans men are females (biological fact, this is their sex). And the definition of a woman is a female. Thus, trans woman and woman are not equal terms, they mean two different things, and feminism/sexism activism (two terms rooted in FEMALE/sex-based oppression) need not make room for them. They can have their own movement, their own bathrooms (gender neutral) and their own sports (special leagues, some of which already exist). Hope this helps!

sorry are you saying that intersex people and people with down syndrome are defective

I really don't think you know what feminism is. A feminist is somebody who fights for equal rights for women. Are you really a feminist if you are excluding who is and who isn't a woman?

[lexmulticultural]

Television Series

Post 1:

The television series that I picked for this project was Sex Education. This show follows the lives of teenagers and adults who live is the fictional town of Moordale. The main characters and whose lives we follow the closest are those of Otis Milburn, Maeve Wiley, Eric Effiong, Aimee Gibbs, Adam Groff, Jackson Marchetti, Jean Milburn among others. We observe their lives and from which are able to understand and explore human connection and emotion. One of the main reasons I picked this show to analyze is due to the overall human representation and intersectionality. Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw states that, “intersectionality is a lens through which you can see where power comes and collides, where it interlocks and intersects. It’s not simply that there’s a race problem here, a gender problem here, and a class or LBGTQ problem there. Many times that framework erases what happens to people who are subject to all of these things” (Kimberlé). Race, religion, along with sexuality are all main topics talked about in the show. Our course talked a lot about intersectionality and how it can present itself in people in different ways. For example, one of the main characters, Eric, is a Black British-Nigerian gay man from a Christian household. Eric’s family are immigrants from Nigeria who are strict Christians which particularly plays a role in his self-expression (Sex Education). Eric is also an openly gay man which intersects and clashes with his family’s religious beliefs in additions to society’s. The way he expresses himself with colorful fashion, makeup, and drag all defy societal and religious norms, exacerbating the challenges he has to face. Eric’s identity as a Black gay man in a religious household and racist, homophobic school environment, highlights the struggles that he has to face with his intersectionality. In addition to Eric, the character Aimee Gibbs presents, in my opinion, an interesting and important take on intersectionality. Aimee had undergone sexual assault which resulted in trauma (Sex Education). Aimee’s struggle to understand and articulate her assault stresses systemic issues of power and sexism as well as emphasizes societal pressures on women to deal with and overcome trauma quickly. Moreover, Aimee is from a working-class background and her journey depicts how socioeconomic status can have effects on one’s access to resources and emotional support after facing a traumatic event. Another topic that has been addressed throughout our class is that of identity and belonging. An example of understanding and exploring one’s identity that can be seen in the series is that of the character, Jackson Marchetti. Jackson is a mixed-race head boy of a predominately white school who experiences intense academic and athletic expectations and undergoes pressures relating to Black resilience stereotypes and his mental health (Sex Education). Moreover, in the series Jackson is raised by two white gay mothers which leads to him questioning and navigating his identity and feel of belonging (Sex Education). This TV series, Sex Education, does a great job reflecting and underscoring the multitude of experiences people can face and how their backgrounds such as race, sexuality, gender, and religion can all impact their lives.

Works Cited:

Sex Education. Created by Laurie Nunn, season 1, 2, 3, Netflix, 11 Jan. 2019.

“Kimberlé Crenshaw on Intersectionality, More than Two Decades Later.” Colombia Law School , Colombia Law School, 8 June 2017, Accessed 24 Nov. 2024.

[myanxietydisorderhasanxiety]

Aggretsuko

Aggretsuko revolves around a red panda who deals with a lot of frustration and sexism in her daily work life, and is kind of coping the best she can by screaming death metal music. I relate (not to the death metal part) strongly to the frustration and casual sexism in the workplace. As a woman in my early 20s, it’s hard to be taken seriously in any workplace by certain people, whether it’s because you’re inexperienced or you’re a woman and you’re not fitting into exactly what they want you to be.

I think it’s interesting the show chooses to show Retsuko having an outlet of death metal music. That particular genre of music tends to be very stereotypically male (all metal does), and you don’t see tons of female metalheads in the media. She’s shown as being feminine (as is necessary) at work but has this outlet that’s culturally considered male. I think that speaks to the idea of gender performance in the show, that a lot of what we consider gender is just doing what people expect us to do because of the anatomy we have.

One thing I knew about Aggretsuko before this class was that I’d seen the character of Retsuko in lots of merch, particularly in emoji/emoticon style merch with different expressions. The show is really good about actually showing her internal feelings vs. her external appearance, with the big difference between the two. I think it’s cool a lot of the merch isn’t focused on her being cute, but relatable and expressive.

[moontheoretist]

What is interesting about omegaverse that it not only amplifies the issues we have in real world to the point of absurdity and allows for puting them on characters (i.e. men) that in real world would never have to deal with such type of discrimination and therefore explored by women with a distance they're not allowed in real world, but also that depending on the author's idea it doesn't even have to be sexual.

Yes, omegaverse is in essence a world where sexual desire is running rampant and turns a lot of those stories into "porn with a plot" kind of situation, but thanks to the fact that "every omegaverse is shaped by their individual author" you get various different takes. I saw stories in which heat was considered to be in nature a non-sexual thing that can turn sexual for the sake of intimacy and closeness but doesn't have to, even though the norm for most other omegaverse is that rut / heat wake up an inherently sexual instinct nobody is able to fight. It's literally what flies your boat. There are ace / aro ABO stories that tackle the entire universe differently by aplying non-sexual themes. There are also asian omegaverse doujinshi that differ significantly from the western ABO - like for example the fact that the animalistic / shifters omegaverse are far more common in the west than in Japan, or that idea of a pack I ever only saw in western ABO, but never saw such a thing mentioned in Japanese ABO doujinshi.

The only topic I never actually saw discussed in omegaverse were the reproductive rights (i.e. right to abortion) and the right to sterilization (i.e. hysteroctomy), tieing tubes etc. but it may also be that they exist and I simply didn't find them yet. Still it's very much true that ABO is something more than just a kinky sex-zombie breeding fantasy.

Most of omegaverse stories touch heavily upon the discrimination, or even actively fight with it. Some are set in worlds where discirimation was defeated long ago and is just a shameful memory of the past, while in others it's a still every day thing that haunts lives of those who are oppressed. You can also find a child raising omegaverses that focus solely on raising children which turn the entire universe into a cute stories with baby shenanigans. Or even omegaverses where not only omegas are the ones that can bear children, but in fact every single person with secondary gender can but with varied levels of success rate (the two last examples are shown in the anime that is airing right now - Tadaima Okaeri, as in that anime A/O ships are not the norm and are in fact considered to be non-traditional).

Also the best part of omegaverse is that you can take a very powerful figure or character (like Tony Stark, Bruce Wayne, Steve Rogers, Clark Kent etc.) and make them an omega. There is no rule who can or can't be an omega. Yes, alphas are usually the macho types, but you can go wild and make your favourite superhero into the omega and then write a story about fighting the oppression and stereotypes associated with the secondary gender assigned to them. Sky is the limit, but most of the times even the sky is not, because cleativity knows no bounds.

Transcript:

A man: What is your purpose on Earth as a woman if you are not seeking some type of family?

Stitch: So serious go to ao3.com look up something called mpreg or the omegaverse and I want you to just really digest what you are reading, because the thing is a lot of men don't understand sexism, the patriarchy and misogyny unless it directly affects them. "Oh, getting pregnant is the most natural thing a woman can do" - you don't understand the sacrifice and you won't understand it until you see what Tony Stark has to give up to have Cap's child.

I couldn't have said it better. Also if you type "omegaverse" in Google Scholar you will find numerous fandom studies about this topic alone.

Do you think in the omegaverse there’s a new, awful layer to “the talk” that teens get

[feministfocus]

Women on the Right, and Men on the Left: Opinion on How People See You When You Break the Political Stereotype

by Cassidy Gable

It’s no secret that in America there is a gender gap. Whether that’s the wage gap or women in politics, most people acknowledge the existence of it. But there is another, less discussed disparity between men and women: the partisan gender gap.

This describes the pattern that, over time, American women tend to vote democratic, while men vote republican. And while millions of people break this pattern at the voting box, it’s still a prevalent gap. 

But what happens when you’re a woman, and vote red, or a man, and vote blue. In a country where more women you meet will be democrats than republicans, how do people see a woman who doesn’t do that?

I’ve found that it largely comes from a saying I heard a lot as a child, from my dad: If you’re young and a Republican, you have no heart, and if you’re old a Democrat, you have no brain.

This saying represents a widely-shared consensus among the American public, where the Democratic party sides with more emotional appeals, while Republicans side with logic. And this saying also perpetuates the idea that women are naturally emotional, and men are logical.

In a sense, by making the Republican party out to be a heartless, logical political party--which men are more likely to be a part of--it continues the image of men as emotionally unavailable and cold. 

So, what happens to men on the left? 

While they’re usually regarded as overly-emotional people, and eleven unintelligent, most men who vote blue don’t face a significant amount of backlash from the public. Women on the right have a very different image.

Women are seen as submissive people, who are in touch with their emotions to a fault and naturally care for others, matching up with the image of the Democratic party. So when a woman sides with the Republican party, there’s a conflicting image of her.

Most people can’t see women as mean, or truly aggressive. Sure, they can be seen as petty, rude, or catty, but not in the way men are generally regarded as being. Men are the murderers, ruthless CEOs, and heartless politicians of the world; women are the homemakers, gentle teachers, and kind customer-service reps.

The women that consider themselves Republicans, in many people’s eyes, can’t be Republicans, because the right-wing is regarded as mean. Not only that, but they’re the logical party in America, thinking about economics and political affairs, not social welfare and equality.

Conservative women become one of two things: brainwashed, or stupid.

I’ve heard this mostly from men on the left. Women can’t possibly end up on the right by themselves, with their own experiences or thoughts due to their natural instincts to be docile, so they’ve been brainwashed--often by their husbands or fathers--into becoming conservatives. 

On the other hand, they lack the social awareness they should naturally have to be Democrats. They don't lack a heart, but rather the brains and capacity to look around and find inequality. They’re illogical. 

Conservative women often become outlets for misogyny, in a unique way many democratic women who fall into the partisan stereotype don’t experience. Their political views are somehow inauthentic compared to right-wing men, because they’re either not smart enough to recognize reality, or have had their minds constructed.

It’s just another way many men use sexist stereotypes on women, without the backlash. And it’s just as harmful as the sexism many right wing men exude. 

Conservative women are still women, and even if they oppose gender equality in legislation, they’re still a part of the gender equality movement and deserve the same respect by those in the movement.

In essence, those who break political stereotypes in a way break gender stereotypes themselves, which in this case is more consequential for women than for men. And to combat this, the association between logic to Republicans and emotions to Democrats has to disappear, or the assumption that men are logical and unfeeling while women are emotional but illogical has to.

And as a society, which are we willing to let go of: the centuries long, chauvinist outlook on women as docile, or the right wing as the more draconian political party? Is it easier to decondition ourselves away from the idea that women must be naturally caring, or that our political parties fall along certain personified traits?

[hauntu4ever]

Saw the Barbie movie

I feel like I live in a bubble. Like I'm in a little place all to me, where all the sexism in the world is relegated to businesses refusing to hire women and everything else is explicable. Where other people (those outside the bubble, if you'd prefer) view sexism as this pervasive, formless thing which cannot be described or understood and is the sole product of the Inherent Evil of Men and the corruption of power, and I'm the only person who sees that that's fucking insane. Where people can say "spreading your legs too much is bad and wrong and men who do it are evil" and I'm the only one who's willing to acknowledge that this is because of bone structure differences between the sexes and it is just more comfortable. Where people can hear a man explaining things to a woman and go "he shouldn't do that because men always explain things to women, he should listen to her instead", and I'm the only one willing to accept that *explaining* is a good thing and *overexplaining* is a product of being tactless not being male. A world where half the time I also experience the things women experience from men and it's only because I myself am male that I can recognize that it's not their masculinity that forces them to overexplain but their passion and who they are as a person. A world where some of the things women say are evil about men, like being approached, are things I would *prefer*. A world where the patriarchy seems more like an anti-male sentiment than a description of a phenomenon, just because of the way people use it, and conversely where feminism is more about glorifying women than being "supportive of all genders" or whatever. A place where nobody else thinks it's weird to complain when men say "female" but not complain when women say "male".

A place where nobody else is willing to acknowledge that everybody stereotypes everyone all the time, and not only is that true, but it's also preferred, and the same is true of categorization. A world where bad people are bad people, not men; and good people are good people, not women. A world where my (at least half chosen, and certainly not fixable) existence as a cis white male in a stem field doesn't make me an awful person and entirely undateable inherently, but rather that my undateability is because of my inexperience and fear of acting in a way that the feminists don't want me acting, that the feminists say will turn the women away from me. A world where one can be and often is masculine without being toxic, and where we acknowledge that femininity can also be toxic, where these two words aren't synonyms for good and evil.

And I can't figure out if

a) I'm just sexist;

b) I'm simply not trying enough or ignoring feminism enough, and that's why I get so upset about this; or

c) It's not me who needs a shift, it's the terminology and vitriol and the way men seem to just let women walk all over them with this shift.

I know which one I feel.

I don't know how correct each of them are.

The movie did have a lot of good moments though, and even a good moral at the end. The final line was amazing too.