#We have a communication issue because people will not outright say what they mean

[actual-corpse]

Who the fuck decided the word "curvy" equaled "fat"?

Because they can go fuck themselves.

[fairuzfan]

The thing with news sources and deciding what's trustworthy and what's not is that when you see criticism of Aljazeera (which to be clear is not a great news source about anything other than Palestine) is that they completely neglect to mention that each regional section of Al-Jazeera has different people in charge of it, different contributors, different sources.

By all means, analyze your sources and understand what information you're getting but to say outright that ALL of what AlJazeera reports EVER is wrong is inherently meant to discredit Palestinian journalists in a way that no other journalist who is not Palestinian and NOT directly experiencing the war in Gaza has been discredited. Surprisingly (not really but), a lot of Palestinians in Gaza are employed by AlJazeera because it's difficult for them to find employment elsewhere.

And again, I do not love AlJazeera. I think they do plenty of faulty journalism and reporting and I actively avoid them for most news sources. But RIGHT NOW with everything going on in Gaza, they're probably one of the most trustworthy ones because of their first hand accounts and willingness to publish Palestinian voices, which many, MANY news stations refuse to do. I especially encourage the Arabic version of AlJazeera!

Like Haartz has like... 4 Palestinians on their editorial team max, and they have EVEN LESS people on the ground in Gaza whereas we have dozens of reporters from Gaza on Al-Jazeera, many of which have died. The way to fact check your news is you find how many times they link factual evidence (like videos of experiences, primary accounts, primary quotes) and compare it with circumstance of publishing.

Here are some ways to fact check and questions to ask, even when looking at Al Jazeera:

Is this a first hand account? If not, does it name a person who experienced this first hand?

If they cite/name a person who experienced it first hand, are they a trustworthy person? What are their ties to the situation? Why would they report this, have they reported situations like this in the past?

What would the person reporting gain from reporting this? A Palestinian with an Instagram post about their life in Gaza has much less to gain than an Israeli soldier publishing their experience in Gaza, for example.

In the first hand account, are there actions or evidence that is corroborated? IE: There was a video of an Israeli soldier abducting a blonde Palestinian, and there was a Human Rights Org that reported child abductions from evidence gather by an on the ground reporter. There is less of a chance that this is false, therefore.

If you don't see other news sources reporting this (ie, you don't see CNN/NYT/BBC/Fox/any other western-led media outlet) then ask: Why would they not report it? Does that mean it's false? Maybe not. Many Euro-american sources spend MONTHS before they talk about an issue (think: Washington post article "questioning" the evidence of Hamas in Al-Shifaa hospital more than a month after the raid happened)

Defining "Trustworthy":

What is their history on reporting events? Are they someone who is well known in whatever community they represent?

Think: Ghassan Abu-Sitta, a world renowned doctor. When he reports something with his name attached, he is putting his entire reputation on the line. Therefore, it is more likely he is telling the truth.

Are they someone who has any real, structural power over the situation? Maha Hussaini, for example, cannot change her circumstances because a ceasefire relies on other people separate from her, a journalist. Therefore, she has less of a reason to lie about things happening to her.

For the news source: what are their ties to the situation? CNN, for example, has stated they have their content reviewed by the IDF. Wael Al-Dahdouh, before he was evacuated, was providing first hand accounts of situation, meaning its difficult for him to fake anything or misrepresent.

What else has this person/news source reported? What are their political leanings — not just left/right, but what are their general stances on a variety of issues?

How many people who are part of the community impacted are part of reporting on this (IE: How many Palestinian POVs are shared, how many Israeli POVs are shared, what are the POVs of the people shared in general?).

Can someone I personally trust vouch for this person? If not, can I ask someone I trust to look over this person/agency and tell me their opinion?

There's for sure more I'm forgetting but these are some ways I personally check my facts and information as a quick rundown. And I see this issue of not knowing how to fact check happen ALL OVER the place, on both sides. So I really, highly encourage everyone to engage with sources more honestly!

You'll make mistakes, everyone does! I do as well! But try to be vigilant about these things so we can ensure that we're spreading accurate information and try to correct information when possible! There's no 100% unbiased source so I encourage you to compare/contrast information and your understandings of the world to fully comprehend the situation!

Please use these questions when checking ANY news source, even Al-Jazeera!

[alexistalkscomics]

Why Is The Jewish “Representation” In Agatha All Along So Problematic???

When it was first confirmed that Joe Locke was going to have a role in Agatha All Along, most fans quickly came to the conclusion that he would be portraying Billy Kaplan AKA Wiccan which unfortunately ended up being correct.

The problem with that casting you ask?

Joe Locke isn’t Jewish and he is playing one of Marvel’s most prominent Jewish characters. Whilst many goyim (non-Jewish people) often inaccurately perceive Jewishness to solely be a religious identity which is a massive oversimplification of what it means to be a Jew, Jewish people are actually an ethnoreligious community which means that we’re our own distinct ethnic group and culture that have a traditional religion that is intrinsically tied to our identity and culture regardless of individual Jewish people’s levels of observance.

And because we are an ethnoreligious group, that makes the casting of Joe Locke, who is not ethnically or religiously Jewish, inherently problematic to say the least, especially when placed into the wider context of Jewish representation in the MCU.

Marvel Studios has previously been criticised for the way that it’s approached adaptations of Jewish characters for the MCU with the two main examples being casting Elizabeth Olsen as Wanda Maximoff, who is Romani and Jewish in the comics, and Oscar Isaac as the Ashkenazi Jewish Marc Spector in the Moon Knight streaming series and in both cases, the heritage of the characters were either downplayed or just outright erased. So for anyone who understands the issue, it should be clear that the MCU has a poor track record when it comes to representing Jewish characters and that Agatha All Along’s adaptation of Billy Maximoff/Kaplan is just another addition to the list of disrespectful adaptations of Jewish characters.

What is the specific problem with how Billy has been adapted in the MCU?

Well, in order to answer that question, the answer has to effectively be split into two parts:

In the most recent episode of Agatha All Along, we finally learn the backstory of Billy (who had previously only been referred as “Teen” due to a spell that prevented his identity from being found out) and as part of that, we are shown a flashback to the day of Billy KAPLAN’s (the capitalisation will make sense in a bit), Bar Mitzvah, a sacred Jewish ritual that marks the transition into adulthood and the responsibilities that comes with being a Jewish adult. In this flashback, Billy (who if you’ve payed attention, is being played by a non-Jew) is shown wearing traditional religious garments and handling what is potentially an actual Torah scroll.

Within Judaism and Jewish culture in general, handling a Torah and then reading from it is seen as both a great honour and responsibility for any Jew who is called for an Aliyah so seeing a non-Jewish actor who has no experience as a Jewish person and in interviews, has mocked fans who criticised his role in the show, wearing my culture and religion as a costume to advance his career just felt wrong to me. I love Marvel and I take great pride in superhero comics being an art form that was created by Jewish immigrants so seeing one of the biggest franchises in history cast a non-Jewish actor to appropriate Jewish culture just felt disgusting to me. At least with Moon Knight, all we got was the smallest references to his Jewish heritage rather than being subjected to seeing the christian Oscar Isaac partake in sacred closed rituals.

And now, moving onto the second part of the answer to the above question, after we see Billy reading from the Torah and are then shown the party following the ceremony, we learn that the flashback takes place concurrently with the final episode of WandaVision. Because of that, the party has to end early so that guest can evacuate and soon, Billy and his parents are in a car accident where Billy dies…

…until his body is quickly revived after the soul of Wanda and Vision’s artificially constructed son, Billy MAXIMOFF possesses and takes control of Billy Kaplan’s body whilst erasing everything that made Billy Kaplan who he was. The reason why this is especially problematic is because of the great importance of the soul within Judiaism. According to Jewish laws, one of the most important things that distinguishes Jewish people from goyim is a Jewish soul and in Agatha All Along, one of the main protagonist who is an adaption of a Jewish character who was created by a Jewish writer is reimagined as a non-Jewish soul that hijacks the corpse of a Jewish teenager to use as a meat puppet. It becomes even worse when later on in the episode, “Billy” is shown rejecting his identity as Billy Kaplan which effectively takes the undertones of ethnic erasure and cultural appropriation of Joe Locke’s casting and makes it an essential part of the characterisation for this incarnation of Billy.

In Conclusion?

In the Marvel Comics, Billy Kaplan is a proud queer Jewish man who was partially based on the lived experiences of his creator who is also a gay Jewish man. Becuase of that, he holds a special place in the hearts of many fans who see a piece of ourselves in him and we deserved to see the really Billy Kaplan be brought to life in a way that would honour the source material that we love and introduce mainstream audiences to a really cool and fascinating Jewish superhero who can open up so many possibilities for the more supernatural side of the Marvel Universe to be explored in further MCU instalments.

But instead, we got the bare minimum of Jewish representation followed by the complete erasure of that “representation” with the ultimate end product being a show riddled with the underlying rot of antisemitism.

[cazort]

If you are trying to talk about the situation in Gaza and with Israel and Palestine in general, and you feel like you're talking to a wall when you are talking to conservatives or even liberals who are parroting the Israeli hardliners' propaganda, here is something that is important to remember.

People have been fed literally decades of propaganda on these issues. And people's views are not going to change overnight. A topic like genocide is a heavy topic and it can be hard for people to even entertain it, mentally.

This doesn't mean, however, that they're not going to change, and that they're not going to realize what is going on.

There are some people who were posting pro-Israel stuff vehemently a couple weeks ago, who have mysteriously become silent. Who knows what is going on with them? Maybe they're confused, maybe they're uncertain.

I also have seen online communities where there was an overwhelming pro-Israel sentiment weeks ago, where suddenly, people are having some tougher discussions and some of the concerns about Israel's actions are being actually engaged with instead of dismissed outright.

I have also seen people who have previously never talked about these issues, even people who barely knew anything of it, become moved to action and start sharing a ton of material, talking to people, and getting active politically.

What I am saying is to persist. And persist in sharing your material and talking to people who you might not think are open. Public sentiment is changing and we can make a sea change if we keep going. And we need to because so much is at stake.

[hoodreader]

Why does Chappell Roan get so much hate?

most of the hate she gets can be summarized with one word: misogyny. people hate when women are sure of themselves. but i’ll just be observing the ways this may present through her natal chart.

𓊆ྀི❤︎𓊇ྀི Tenth House in Cancer

this is going to be the house of notoriety/fame, because it’s the most public house in the chart, thus it represents our place in the public eye. it rules our relationship to the public as well.

in cancer, the native’s is known particularly for lunar themes (and contextualized to their own moon placement, as moon will be the lord of this house). chappell’s relationship to the public is one that is nurturing, empathetic… in some ways, a guardian. she may be known for her emotions (which she is) or intimate life (which she is, in a way). in my opinion, the tenth house also shows how we are publicly commodified. & i notice people try to commodify her emotions quite a bit.

her tenth house lord (moon) is in sagittarius and conjunct sagittarius pluto, in her third house - the house of communication and thought. and her moon is rejoiced in the third. thus, she will be known for her opinions.

let it be known… this is a very intelligent and well-spoken woman. like i really don’t give a fuck what nobody say, all of the clips i see of her speaking shows that she’s very thoughtful and intentional in how she speaks. and that is all the jupiter, pluto, & moon influence in this house. jupiter = wisdom, truth, justice. pluto = depth, taboo, complexity. moon = conviction, the mind, & the shadows.

however, because her tenth house lord is in the third conjunct pluto, her vocality is going to attract a polarizing response. this is usually because it almost ‘triggers’ the general public, especially triggering a deeply emotional response (10h in cancer, lord conj pluto). people kinda want to disagree just for the sake of without even genuinely engaging with her thought. sag pluto gen is a generation that’s already highly political (imo) but because that malefic informs her tenth house lord, she will almost be reprimanded for it.

it also causes an issue of parasociality. when u have ur tenth house in cancer, this causes people to already think they know u more than they do. however, the lord being conj pluto can show obsession, aggression, or possessiveness toward her from the public. like ‘helicoptering’ her. in the third house, it can show they wish to have dominion over her thought. but she is natively a very emotional speaker with a lot of convinction (3h sag moon). moon is a defensive planet so she’s going to always defend her standpoint / feelings, & this angers them more.

a woman with a tenth in cancer is going to have submissiveness projected onto them. people expect them to just lay down and take it. they expect conventional femininity & womanhood, but chappell’s femininity & womanhood as an openly lesbian woman deviates from the convention. her vocality deviates from the convention. etc. so the fact that her moon is in a self-assured & righteous sign and her moon wants to defend itself frustrates the people who hate her.

𓊆ྀི❤︎𓊇ྀི Fourth House Venus in Capricorn Opposite Tenth/MC in Cancer

as venus represents grace and charm or likability, her venus in capricorn and in the fourth doesn’t necessarily mean she is dislikable, and it doesn’t mean she doesn’t have those venutian qualities. but it means u have to know her or understand her more intimately for them to show. it’s saved for her intimate life.

in fact, venus is one of the quieter planets in her chart. in a sign of saturn, it shows reservedness. in the fourth house - the house of invisibility - it shows this romantic, feminine, graceful side of her isn’t as acknowledged. despite that literally being her chart ruler, since she’s a libra rising.

but again… her tenth house in cancer opposes her venus in capricorn. saturn already causes an effect where people interpret it as a lack of, so people think she outright lacks these qualities because they don’t perceive them.

her public image is at odds with her venutian expression to the public. which pisses them off because like i said before, that tenth house in cancer/first house in libra causes people to want to project submission onto her. but she’s not a submissive person.

the nature of libra/venus and capricorn/saturn is structure and balance. there’s a reason why saturn exalts in a venutian sign. she’s someone who deeply values peace, contrary to popular belief. her worldview/mindset/soul (first house) is literally in the sign of fairness & balance (libra). her chart ruler is in the sign of structure (capricorn).

but… the thing is that because her chart ruler is in a saturnian sign, she’s willing to more stubbornly assert herself. she’s comfortable making others uncomfortable for the overall goal or objective. and people hateee a woman with boundaries.

𓊆ྀི❤︎𓊇ྀི 1H/Ascendant in Libra Opposite Aries Saturn, 4H Venus in Capricorn (Chart Ruler) Square Aries Saturn (Venus Dispositor)

those with saturn harsh-aspecting the ascendant may struggle to be understood, accepted, or given grace by others. saturn rules isolation, so a lot of times, those with saturnian influence in the chart are isolated & unwelcomed.

this effect is also felt with the chart ruler is harsh-aspecting saturn, which it is in this case. and saturn is also the dispositor of venus. again, venus = grace/charm.

𓊆ྀི❤︎𓊇ྀི Misogyny

i did have a long ass drafted post about the astrology of misogyny, and maybe i’ll post it later. but for now, i can briefly speak on natal placements i think indicate a woman will experience a disproportionate amount of misogyny, relative to women with similar behaviors.

1H Libra Lilith - reference the myth of lilith

Moon conj Pluto/Venus square Saturn - the planets associated with womanhood are aspecting the malefics

Pisces Sun, Aqua Mercury, & Pisces Jupiter Conjunction - people hate women with big/strong personalities or women who are intelligent or provoke ur thoughts

Jovial Women (Sag Moon, Pisces Sun/Jupiter) - as i said above

𓊆ྀི❤︎𓊇ྀི Upcoming Solar Eclipse in Libra

the eclipse is on her ascendant (the house of health & the mindset) & opposing saturn (deterioration, exhaustion) so i’m not shocked she’s experiencing a menth health decline as a result of the dogpiling. the reaction she got for a very tame take about both kamala & donald being pieces of shit was ridiculous considering they’re both endorsing multiple genocides. i advise she stay private during this time anyways.

all the hate she getting lowkey making me wanna tap in, so y’all gon fuck around and make a fan out of me. but yeah.

hope this was interesting.

[keepingeahalive]

Why Rapple Wouldn’t Work as a Couple

First off, let’s get this out of the way: Raven and Apple are not related. Well…more like distantly related, but to the point where any relation is almost nil. Raven is not destined to marry Apple’s father because Apple’s dad and Raven’s dad (The Good King) are two separate characters. Raven is only destined to be jealous of Apple and poison her. That is all.

Okay, on with the real debate.

I'm probably gonna get a lot of hate for this, but I can't see Apple and Raven as a couple. While both of their arcs were about coming to accept each other, they weren't equal in their relationship. Raven made it clear to Apple many times that she felt disrespected, and Apple ignored that and pushed her own agenda on her. It may have come from a place of caring, but Apple didn't get Raven at all. I can see them working through their issues down the line, but their love story (if you can call it that) is better as platonic.

Bulldozing and Passive Aggression

From the first episode, we can see that Apple immediately took control for both of them. She went behind Raven's back to room with her and decorated Raven's side of the room without her permission, all because Raven is an important part of "her" story.

Not their story. "Her" story.

Her friendship with Raven in the first three chapters was surface-level at best. She assumes what Raven wants instead of actually getting to know her, like when she decides to take "Home Evil-nomics" to get back at Raven for taking Princessology. But Raven's favorite class isn't Home Evil-nomics. It's Muse-ic.

We can see Raven trying to be patient with Apple because Raven is a good person. She doesn't want a repeat of what happened between Snow White and the Evil Queen. In fact, we see her other friends hide their concerns from Apple because they don't want to upset her.

When Ashlynn finally comes out about her relationship with Hunter, she's immediately met with Apple's dismay. Apple tells her several times that she's making the wrong decision, and it gets to Ashlynn so much that she chooses her friendship with Apple over her relationship with Hunter because she doesn't want everyone to be upset. Although Ashlynn decides to do what makes her happy, Apple still tells her outright that she's making the wrong choice.

Briar starts to feel the weight of her destiny sink in and, instead of being met with compassion and understanding, Apple tells Briar "we all have our part to play." While Briar rightfully calls her out for how privileged she is, it takes her three chapters and two more specials to admit to Apple that she was too scared to tell anyone that she didn't want to follow her destiny.

They both go behind Raven's back to poison a birthday cake she made for Apple just so she would stop crying about it.

Apple is the next Queen of Ever After, and she wants to take an active role in serving her people. But she thinks she knows what's best for everyone. If they don't do what she says, then there's something wrong and she has to fix them. Everyone enabled this behavior, except for Raven. This domination is what causes her and Raven's tension at the start of the series.

2. Apple's Fears

Apple is a selfish character. But that selfishness is born of fear.

She believes going against her destiny means dying and being forgotten.

I believe she does care about her friends, in the same vein a God-fearing church-goer cares about the people in her community. She believes there is only one true way of staying safe: following your destiny. If you don't, something bad happens. And she has to remind you of that. She thinks she's helping people when she's really being insensitive and condescending. And this comes down the hardest on Raven.

Raven is the equivalent of someone who's become disillusioned with their faith. She's unhappy with the system she's been put in and she wants something better. That doesn't mean she's not afraid of what might happen if she does. She's terrified she might doom everyone at first. But taking a risk on Legacy Day and showing everyone they can live without following a predetermined path made her and others more hopeful that they could live better lives.

But Apple can't be convinced with one act of rebellion. She doubles down on her beliefs and blames Raven for ruining her Happily Ever After. She's so afraid of her future being uncertain that she would rather follow a status quo where someone she claims to care for is locked away for the rest of her life. You could argue that she doesn't understand that's what would happen, but she never bothered to understand Raven's perspective. Raven takes Apple's perspective in Thronecoming and considers the consequences of her actions. Raven cares about her friends too, so much that she's willing to put her happiness aside to keep them safe. Apple never once did that for her, or for any of her other friends.

This stems from Apple being promised the best destiny out of anyone. She'd go on to live a very prestigious life as Queen. But she's too naive to realize what that would mean for everyone else: Raven would be locked up for the rest of her life, Ashlynn would die to continue her legacy, and Briar would marry some random dude several decades younger than her and never see Apple or anyone she knew ever again. I understand that no one wants to lose the stability they've had their entire life. But she doesn't seem to understand how good she has it.

3. Apple and Raven's Growth

Way Too Wonderland and Dragon Games gave us a lot in terms of character development. Apple and Raven have gotten to know each other better at this point. Even though they have their differences, they do care about each other.

Say what you will about Way Too Wonderland, but I do believe Apple has come to know Raven and is genuinely shocked and heartbroken when Raven finally signed the Storybook of Legends. She's come to care about who Raven really is, she knows Raven would never want to hurt anyone, and she realizes that destinies can be dangerous. I understand her main reasoning was that anyone could easily take someone else's destiny if they had the chance. But seeing what signing the book did to Raven frightened her. Destroying the book with Raven cemented a level of trust and understanding that Raven was longing for.

Which is what makes Dragon Games so heartbreaking.

Apple is a privileged little princess who was promised the best destiny one could expect. I don't think anyone would be all that happy about letting that go. It goes back to what she fears the most. She doesn't know what to do without her destiny. And with her mother only feeding into these insecurities, it allows Apple's doubts to resurface and for someone to take advantage of that.

Apple could have prevented releasing the Evil Queen. But she was too deep in her own cowardice to think clearly. Desperation will make people do anything, especially if promised a happy ending for you and everyone you love (maybe subconsciously hoping Raven would be her True Love). That doesn't excuse her freeing a war criminal who happens to be her best friend's estranged mother, thereby breaking her trust all over again. Raven had just started seeing Apple as someone she could depend on. That's gone now, and Raven had a right to be angry with Apple's selfishness and cowardice.

"But Apple realized her mistake and Raven forgave her in the end!" That's true, but that doesn't mean things are okay between them. Apple is still Raven's friend, and it's in Raven's character to forgive her. But I don't see her forgetting this experience any time soon. That trust would have to be built up all over again and, if you ask me, this ruled out any chance of them getting together romantically. I think Raven would need some time away from Apple to figure things out. Apple could use that time to figure herself out too, especially after figuring out it was Darling who woke her.

If that trust was able to be built back up again, hopefully they would have grown as people and learned to be better friends. But you can't expect this level of trust to be regained for a partnership.

4. A One-Sided Romance

If Rapple were to be anything romantic, it would only come from Apple.

Apple was always obsessed with Raven. I do believe she wanted Raven to fulfill their destinies so they would both be safe, but was too selfish to consider how that would look from Raven's end. She never showed any interest in Daring and, while she enjoyed the admiration she got from other boys, never expressed interest in anyone else.

Except Raven.

So, yes. I do believe Apple was in love with Raven. But I can't see Raven returning those feelings. Apple always disregarded what she wanted, ignored her when she argued against her destiny, and continually tried to turn Raven into something she wasn't. Even after her much-needed character development in Way to Wonderland and Dragon Games, these two still don't have a good foundation of trust between them. If we had gotten more of the show, we might have seen some healing. And, in my opinion, that would include Apple learning to let go of Raven and focusing on her own growth as a person.

And maybe someone else...

In all seriousness, Apple and Raven have a complicated relationship that I don't see working romantically. I know they have the most development together, and it would be an interesting take on the enemies-to-lover trope. But with how often Apple betrayed Raven's trust and how grounded and self-aware Raven is, I can't see them getting together.

I can see Raven being Apple's first crush, but the closest these two can get is sisters.

Because, you know, Raven has a boyfriend. It's Dexter. Say what you want about him, but they have a healthier relationship than Raven and Apple could ever have, romantic or not.

[poopingonthefloor]

Davesport is Toxic NOT abusive

(((WARNING: PRETTY LONG POST UNDER THE CUT.))) I've seen some people making the claims that Davesport is comship/proship (ok well i've more seen people bitching about it) and im tired of the Davesport slander so this will be an analysis of their relationship. My motive isn't to force anyone to ship it or anything- i really dont care what you do with your life, my frustration is just when people try to make up REASONS why they don't like the ship, even though its literally canon (and not badly written). My main point is -- You can hate what you want. You don't need a reason, and it doesn't need to be bad just because you don't like it. But I will not take any slander on their ship nor any slander of people who like davesport. Davesport is absolutely toxic-- No DSAF fan would disagree. They are literally child murderers with little to no souls and literally are physically disfigured to the point they don't have the capacity to feel proper humanity anymore. You cant expect 2 men who live their lives willingly murdering and then partying in vegas to celebrate on repeat to be gentle and kind to themselves or anyone else.

However, its NOT abusive. I've seen multiple people (mostly from twitter screenshots) claim that Davesport is abusive or the way people portray it is in a fetishy or romanticizing way of abuse, when that's just not the case. I don't blame a lot of people, since a lot of it comes from reading context and intent of the artist, which not everyone is good at-- BUT I'm here to assure you that MOST people don't intend to do that much and just like to portray how their dynamic is canonically like or portray Daves obsession with Jack. Another argument I've seen (by a twitter screenshot...) is that people are comshipping Davesport because people draw Jack annoyed a lot at Dave when...thats not true? That's just Jack's personality, first off:

(From the Dave x Reader fanfic by Directdoggo)

"Jack is a bastardman not very touchy-feely. We can see this in many scenes, where Dave more or less says “I love you” and Jack responds with deflecting humour, or outright scorn. When Dave says it for the final time, this time, Jack tries to say it back, but can’t outright, only getting out: “Why is this so hard?” and “I hope you can find peace with what you’ve done.” Which Dave understood the meaning of. (Hey, better than Henry (LEGACY Jack) hearing “I love you” and proceeding to tear Dave limb from limb, huh?"

(Directdoggo describing Jack's personality)

I know it can be a little confusing to some people, but as someone who struggles with similar issues, just because he struggles to express intimately doesn't mean he can't love anything. Sometimes people are just different and communicating like that doesn't come as easily, even to the people you're closest to. To make it as easy as possible to comprehend-- He's quite literally a tsundere. (Minus the exaggerated ridiculousness in anime) He loves Dave, he just cant bring himself to say or act like it. The dismissiveness or rudeness in response to Dave's affection is not abuse, it's just a defensive response since he doesn't know how to say it back. (His way of being "shy") -- Also note its important that Dave UNDERSTANDS this about him by that point.

However Jack isn't the only thing I've seen regarding the claims that their ship is abusive-- and to debunk all of those I'm going to explain the three points that keep Davesport from being abusive, and I'll use Henry x Dave (which is what I'll call it to prevent it getting confused for FNAF willry) as an example alongside it since its super obvious why that one is messed up. Firstly, They are both bad people. By this point, Dave and Jack are murderers. It's just not surprising that they will be willing to kill each other at at least some point, considering they are willing to kill 5 year olds without remorse- and they'll both deserve it. It's only their own faults that they teamed up with the other, and it's meant to be the ultimate irony when Jack becomes even worse than Dave by "An ending". My point is- they're bad people. It's not like they're owed perfect company or would choose wholesome people to hang out with when they're literally both child murderers. Dave wasn't evil and didn't want to kill by the time he teamed up with Henry (and even after it was Henry's fault), so by that point his suffering was absolutely undeserved.

Secondly, They're lacking any specific power dynamic. Unlike Henry and Dave- whom have several levels of "Age, Father figure, and Employer", the most important one is that Henry is Dave's abuser. He manipulated him and purposefully harmed him both mentally and physically, whereas Dave never had any intention of doing either because Dave loved him and didn't want to lose him (because he had nobody else) This obviously much different with Dave and Jack, whom other than being taller and several years older than (which you can argue their 6 year age gap is weird but they didnt get to know each other till they were both older than 30 so by that point age difference doesnt rlly matter and (also theyre "mentally" like 24 and 22 canonically anyways (as much as I usually hate that argument)) Other then that they are only co-workers. This is a bit more arguable during DSAF 1, where Dave comes across more threatening and comes across like he's manipulating Jack, but I don't exactly count that because I wouldn't say theyre "shippable" or in their "situationship*" by that point (but also because them even being a ship was barely considered by the creator at that point obviously)-- whereas Dave is certainly more easily recognized as sincere to Jack in DSAF 2. Jack also is not someone who is afraid to defend himself against Dave, as shown by the fact he's willing to call out Dave's ridiculous behaviors (which is reasonable of him to do).

(Also from the Dave x reader fanfic) (I just think this specific screenshot debunks any sort of "power dynamic" claim)

My Third and Final point: There is a CHOICE involved I haven't really done much Dave defense in this post, but his defense is very simple: He is literally physically unable to comprehend guilt or conscience. Dave didn't want to murder anyone in the first place, but it was Henry who fucked with his (literal) head so much to the point he stopped being able to feel guilt. He doesn't care about murder and doing wrong because he CAN'T care. You can't really let that reflect Dave as a character when he's really not in control of himself in the first place. Now with that, that doesn't change the fact he could certainly affect and hurt people, and it's fully up to Jack as to whether or not he wants to deal with this purple man's freakish life choices and hobbies or not. And that's honestly super dependent on the ending you decide to base Jack on. Most people see the 'canon' endings to be: Gnarly ending (DSAF 1) -> An ending (DSAF 2) -> Good ending (DSAF 3) Where in all of these, Jack DOES choose to deal with Dave and basically is completely cool with murder. You don't have to follow those endings if you don't want to, but that's just typically what the modern "Davesport" is known for, but its what I'm using for my defense (considering this is a defense of both fandom and canon Davesport.) Though as opposed with Henry and Dave- Dave had no choice. Henry only ever manipulated him into thinking he did, and Henry made sure to feed this whole 'we will be a family' ideal into Dave (who never had one) so that Dave would be terrified to lose him. Jack never manipulates Dave (when teamed up with him), and Dave never manipulates Jack (tho arguable in DSAF 1 as well). They stay with each other despite all of their issues, and I believe its due to some co-dependency (imo I think Jack is also obsessed with Dave just in a different way before DSAF 3) Which isn't healthy, but not...inherently abusive.

I believe my main three points kind of cover the most of why I dont consider Davesport to be inherently a bad ship, but like I said- if you don't like it, none of that matters anyways. You dont NEED a reason to like something, and I wont try to convince you why you should ship something because I like it. Just don't hate it just because of what someone else says-- 90% of the dsaf fandom aren't comshippers, and Davesport isn't gross or "toxic /neg" just because it's not healthy. I think "Don't fetishize/romanticize literal abuse like its normal or sexy" and "We should explore more complicated and unhealthy dynamics" can and SHOULD coincide with each other!!!! I think Davesport is great because of how bittersweet it is that these two people finally found solace and acceptance in each other but couldn't get past the self-sabotaging nature of what Henry turned them both into, ultimately making it impossible to work out forever. I think embracing the Davesport makes the (kind of aged) trilogy a lot more enjoyable of an experience and I DO encourage any davesport skeptics to keep an open mind. [Pretend I wrapped this up super nicely I can never do that--- Also this is open for conversation and/or debate, and also yada yada my bad if i said something randomly terrible I have extremely poor social skills lol let me know so I dont do it again yada yada] *Also if anyone doesnt know a situationship is (at least in the context im using it in ive heard other definitions for it but its not a real word so i actually dont care) when 2(or more) people basically treat eachother like lovers but they never communicate this outright and dont technically officially date but like they treat and commit to eachother like a partner would) (So its kind of what all those people who playfully flirt and call each other their spouses as a commited running joke are in)

[nekropsii]

i think theres a really big issue in the community specifically surrounding the people who headcanon dave as some sort of trans where both sides of the coin seem to hate each other? like both sides are at fault here, ive seen blogs demeaning people who like transmasc dave and then like you said other people just completely disregarding transfem dave. guys. can we stop. let people headcanon what they want without blatantly attacking them, this goes for all parties in this issue. i dont get why people act like this. the fuck happened to all trans people being equal and then we get both transmisoginy and harassment of people liking either of the trans headcanons?

jesus man. im tired of it

Respectfully, I do not think this is a “Both Sides” situation.

The concept of transmasc Dave is objectively one of the most popular headcanons in the Homestuck fandom, and it has been for years. I think I can excuse people who headcanon transfem Dave for “hating it”, because as I have been trying to fucking say this entire time, people keep correcting me on my own posts about transfem Dave on my own blog, and belittling me for thinking this way. And since I’ve asked people to maybe interrogate why they feel the need to correct me and patronize me and to stop fucking doing that, I’ve been getting inundated with people trying to mansplain and traumadump to me how me saying to not correct me and patronize me for having a transfem headcanon is oppressing them and that trans men also have it bad, as if I literally ever insinuated that they do not have it tough.

You do not get to “Both Sides” me on a discussion about my experience when I have never - and I mean NEVER - received this level of heat for headcanoning a character as literally anything else. I have NEVER gotten “corrected” for headcanoning a character as gay, or transmasculine, or black, or a lesbian - only now, when I headcanon a character as a trans woman, am I getting people correcting me, condescending me, telling me some really fucking personal traumas to explain to me I’m “in the wrong” for being upset about the correction and condescension, very obviously making assumptions about my sex, gender, and what I’ve been through in my life, making negative assumptions about my intelligence, and putting a fuck ton of words in my mouth.

I am speaking from my own experience here. I am sorry if that hurts anyone’s feelings, but that much cannot be taken from me. From my experience, this is not “Both Sides”, this is very clearly one side with far greater numbers giving another flack for not assimilating, and when that other side tries to say what’s going on, they’re treated as an aggressor, and treated like a petulant idiot child.

Before anyone puts any more words in my god damn mouth:

I literally never said no one could HC Dave as transmasculine, or that they were wrong for thinking that way. I have outright said the opposite, that it is fine and that I do not care. HOWEVER, I sure as hell am experiencing people telling me that I am wrong for HCing her as a woman.

I literally never, and I mean NEVER, said or insinuated that trans men do not suffer, especially under the patriarchy. I am not an idiot, I know how the patriarchy works, it hurts literally everyone that doesn’t conform to an incredibly, incredibly narrow white non-queer cishetero male ideal. I am also not an idiot, I know that transphobia will exist no matter what you identify as, and it will suck absolute horseshit. Neither “side” has it “easy”, every type of transphobia has an uncomfortably, terrifyingly high body count. I never fucking said trans men do not have it hard. Stop putting those words in my mouth.

Literally all I said was that it’s fucking weird that I’ve never been treated this way until I headcanoned a character as a trans woman, and maybe to interrogate that because people sure seem comfortable acting this way, and that-

This is Transmisogyny.

And if there’s anything else I’ve learned from this, it’s that-

HIT DOGS HOLLER.

[dykesynthezoid]

Think Tracker said a lot of things Kristen needed to hear this ep but I do disagree with the idea that Kristen just “wants” things to be “easy.” I think she literally just doesn’t know how to make shit happen. And while it’s obviously true that Kristen has unresolved issues re:Helio it’s like. Okay well when you’re mentioning all the things about being Helioan that Kristen didn’t hate, and how she hasn’t let go of those things, should we maybe acknowledge the fact that the biggest thing people always miss when they leave a religion is the sense of community?

I mean Tracker outright says, “you still wanted something that was already established and full of people” and it’s like yeah, so you understand that means Kristen is ALONE then right? That she is literally entirely alone in her religion? And maybe that fucking sucks? Because shes 16 and doesn’t know what she’s doing and she had a family and she had a community and in the blink of an eye it was all gone. And she has her friends and she has Jawbone and Co, but the one person who could maybe actually understand her feelings about her religion has also left her. Like, yeah, of course she wants something that doesn’t by nature require her to actively suffer all by herself. Because nobody deserves that.

Did the Kristen who reached out to an ancient unnamed goddess in the middle of a forest of nightmares, knowing full well it could kill her, want something easy? And when it did kill her, and she kept reaching out anyway; did that Kristen want something easy? When Kristen brought herself back to life, was she seeking something easy? Or did she go right ahead running into the eye of the storm, ready to offer an ancient being of nightmare complete and total compassion and understanding? Kristen doesn’t want something easy. She never has. She wants to fight for what she believes in. She wants the struggle. It’s just that she can’t fucking do it all on her own. And yeah, maybe there’s some part of her that wishes she didn’t have to fight quite so hard, that she could rest. But could you blame her?

[weebsinstash]

I’m honestly living for the potential Miguel angst in your YouTwo fics, like him realising it’s pretty much entirely his fault that you got so injured/traumatised. Excellent Yandere potential right here lmaoo.

No but really, because like your standard edition default yandere could be like "oh, you're so weak and delicate, only I can protect you, only I deserve to have you, oh you're so wonderful and lovely, you are incapable of actually truly taking care of yourself like i can" and you know all the mushy shit that is varying degrees of truth and delusion

And here you have Miguel, who like, let's look on "the timeline" that we've kind of established here, ok, because, wow does he have some reasons to uh, go feral

-you guys have a cordial, team-up kind of first meeting against an anomaly in your home dimension, you wind up being invited to Spider Society, one day your home universe is JUST GONE while you're out and about in Nueva York or elsewhere

-You're like basically homeless, traumatized, depressed, like what was all of that for, what was all your suffering for, those deaths and tragedies you experienced, you SUFFERED to be a Spider, and now, your home is gone, what does this mean, like, you have the most justifiable existential crisis one can imagine, you had a DESTINY my dude! And it's GONE NOW, POOF

-Spider Society becomes new home, new community, new thing to keep you going and alive and grounded and they all like you and sometimes you think you're actually happier than ever, you feel very loved and supported, even teach your own class, people like you, little do you know how much lol

-but you still have depression and anxiety and self doubts but hey everyone supports you 🥺 part of being a Spider is picking yourself back up right?

-youtwo shows up, you feel weird, somwqhat threatened by their presence but, also some kinship actually, maybe they even feed you some story either genuine or a lie and you allow them to be you once or twice, they get drunk on it, kind of trick you, fans out, starts stealing your identity. Suddenly what purpose you had in your life is at question. If anything and everything you can do can simply be replicated, what use is there for you? Whatever depression and issues you have before are amplified

-members of the community start mistaking you for the replica and treat you varying degrees of disregard to outright disrespect and you wonder what that means, if they were all just nasty liars to "real you" or if you were just never really that special or anything to begin with and they just latched onto "real you" for some random reason

-you get framed for something youtwo does,sabotaging a big society construction project that you saved the day on but got injured for. YouTwo doesn't even need to pretend it wasn't them, you're framed and people believe it, they believe the narrative that you wanted to feel needed and set this up to be the hero and people treat you with either pity or disgust or just coddling "oh, poor them :( they shouldn't have done that though..."

-you just kind of start hating everyone because it's at the point where now YouTwo hasn't just stolen your life but put you in a position where EVEN WHEN your identity was believed, your reputation and relationship with others is tarnished. Like picture with me here, put yourself in the moment, you're crying you're feeling so sad and outraged because you genuinely cannot believe what you're hearing as Miguel stands there forcing himself to be emotionless and saying "the footage doesn't lie and we have a witness" and it's just YouTwo planting bombs and they stole your costume or were manipulating people and spreading lies or something, and you're just, like, feeling literally fucking violated that this is happening to you, you're literally sitting there with like a hip or broken femur because of being injured in the incident, where you also saved other people by the way, and you're being accused of being the perpetrator, after everything you've done for them, with them, after never having done this sort of thing before, you're just. Outraged doesn't begin to describe it. Whether you love or respect him you can't believe someone who was like family to you, not just him but by extension all of them, would do this to you. You're more alone than ever, and stuck in a wheelchair where they try to pitying dote on you while you completely clam up and some of them interpret it as guilt and you eventually just tell all of them to leave you the fuck alone (again, a little interpreted as guilt)

-Miguel like legitimately thinks he's doing what's best for you. The time he finally truly sides with YouTwo and winds up actually hurting you the worst is when he's trying to be like, "see I finally believe you, Im sorry I doubted you, I'll fix this I promise, I'll get rid of the second one" and he's saying it all to. YouTwo. Like imagine how bad that fucking hurts. You're either crying or just laughing at the absurdity of it, either weeping or actively antagonizing him until you blip away from having your bracelet broken/removed when you're "exiled"

-after you're gone, that's when he realizes how BAAAAAAADLY he's fucked up. He's got definitive evidence the you in front of him is the fake, he has no idea where you are, if even that you're alive. really, you glitching away instead of outright dying basically makes you an anomaly, even more than before anyways. Maybe the fact you just vanish instead of have the whole cell death thing gives him hope that you're still out there and he obsessively searches for you, but can never find you

-until one day when he's at his near breaking point, I mean this man is hanging on by THREADS at this point, you just, glitch back into his life. Like a miracle. And you're hungry. And you're cold. And you're hurt. And you need help and he NEEDS you, needs to be the one to help you, to atone for what's happened, especially when he sees your deteoriated state mentally, physically, and emotionally. Like. He latches on to you like a parasite, please please PLEASE let him make this up to you he is like BARELY holding himself together he NEEDS you and needs to help you (oh wow that whole construction disaster "causing a problem to reap the benefits of fixing it" is unintentionally coming back full circle for you ain't it dude, the apollo gift of prophecy levels of projection lmao)

And you know I mentioned in the past "what if you get rescued by another Miguel and latch onto him" but like if Reader is so emotionally and mentally worn down, I think really having "your" Miguel so desperate for your forgiveness and seeming so genuinely attached to you would really sort of activate the Oh God I Just Need Someone To Love Me And Need Me insecurities and traumas. You wake up from a good rest after first coming back and he's apologizing to you profusely and you just kind of break down and immediately accept him back because you just. Need to feel like you matter. Like the toxic codependency of you needing to feel loved and him desperately wanting to make things up to you, giving you any praise or affection or attention he wants to give you and you feeling somehow reassured by the dedication, but also him being in this position of power and authority over you where he, if he wants to, has extreme control over your life. You're just over here barely keeping it together and critically depressed and needing hugs and needing to matter and you have this hulking almost 7 foot behemoth of trauma of grief who has a More Than Unhealthy Attachment to you who does have Intentions is now being fully in control of your care, of your safety, of your environment, with a heightened emotional investment in just. Literally everything about you

Oh yeah, he's all too happy to give you food and shelter after your traumatizing multiverse travels. But he also didn't want to let you leave in the first place. Now he won't let you. He's partially convinced he shouldn't ever let you out of his sight ever again, period. He's just becoming Downright Mentally Unstable because not only have these things happened to you, between you and him, but also, there were people who helped YouTwo, helped the scheme, whether intentionally or not, and now he's more untrusting of his peers and surroundings. He grows colder to the ones he doesn't trust. He programs his own watch to give him notifications on your status on those occasions you're apart like when he has to go fight anomalies, which is suddenly magically Way Too Dangerous for you to do anymore you're basically on house arrest

You really truly become All He Has Left, like borderline his reason for living at this point besides his own motivations and drive as Spiderman 2099 and his mission to protect the multiverse. But you're a big thing keeping him going. Even if you don't love him, he'll make sure to stay by your side and not leave you ever again. He won't make the same mistake twice, he promises. You just have to give him the time to prove it

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

WIBTA if i cut off my partner for dating someone who is manipulative?

👁‍🗨📼 for recognition

i know these asks arent typically accepted, but i am curious and feel pretty guilty for feeling like this. for some context, me and my partner are both polyamorous, this is an online relationship, and has been going on for a little over two months. ive also only known and have been dating them for over two months, a bit after we both went through break ups with someone else. other than a few issues with communication and hurtful comments, its a pretty healthy relationship and we both love each other a lot. however, theres someone else theyre dating and while i said i dont care who they date as long as they tell me, this doesnt apply to people who do this kinda thing. this person has been manipulative and kind of weird towards them. i wont go into all the details right now, but the main issue i have is that at the start of their relationship, the other person lovebombed them and then begged them to break up with them, and then later that night apparently got drunk and tried to commit. since then its been an on and off cycle of them leaving and going back to them, despite me making it clear that i do not like or trust them and am uncomfortable with it. i accidentally lashed out at them for this recently, after they went back yet again, and ended up just agreeing to not worry about it, but i cant do that. i know that this person is in a bad situation, but i dont think that excuses their behavior. again, i dont care who they date but i dont think this is a healthy relationship. theyve already been given several chances, way more than they deserve, and still havent changed much, and thats why im uncomfortable with it. among the main thing, theyve also been venting to my partner while theyre not in the mental state to help or listen, and ive had to listen to my partner stress out about them for a while. they said they would block them if i wanted them to, and i do, but i know theyre very attached to this person and it would hurt them a lot like every other time theyve blocked them.

i think i may be the asshole in this situation because for one, i lashed out at them over this recently and have already done it a few times in the past, for two i am a very jealous person, and it feels irrational to do this over their relationship, but it also feels like they dont really care about how i feel about it either. i mean, they outright said that theyre litstening and understand, then immediately said theyre not. and i also did say during my lash out that i didnt want to hear about their issues with this person anymore, which i didnt mean in the end, but it still was said and was hurtful. i was just generally angry and hurtful when talking to them about this.

i think im not the asshole because this person doesnt really have an excuse for their behavior, other than possibly the fact that theyre in a bad situation. theyre stuck in an abusive household, and while i sympathize and hope they get out soon, i dont think thats an excuse to project that behavior onto your partner or anyone else. and the last time i tried to confront them, they took no accountability and wouldnt let me talk to them about it.

so, would i be the asshole for cutting off my partner?

What are these acronyms?

[redysetdare]

No you're so right I fucking hate the "aces have it so much better than aros" part of the community. Just because more people know the word asexual than aromantic doesn't mean aces are treated better than aros by the society?? More people know the word asexual yes, but they don't really understand what it means to be on the asexual spectrum, and they try to paint us in the worst light possible. That's like saying binary trans people have it much better than nonbinary people, or trans women have it much better than trans men due to more visibility. Some people in the aro community want there to be a hierarchy of non-aro aces > aroaces > non-ace aros so bad because they just want to be acephobic and get away with it. And they're barely even hiding that anymore nowadays.

Sorry for this angry rant, sometimes it just feels like everyone, even other aspec people absolutely despise aroaces.

I really need people to acknowledge that a group being more visible does not make them more accepted or better treated than a group that is invisible. You think we'd learn this after this argument has been used against so many identities but noooope. I guess not. The thing is that visibility can still be bad because being visible to your oppressors just makes you an easier target. the words homosexual, gay, and lesbian were all known way before asexual and you know what that visibility did? it mostly got them targeted and attacked - especially by laws and the medical field. Autism is a label that's been known for decades and people STILL treat Autism like a bad word and a terrible thing to be labeled.

People are just starting to figure out the word asexual and they are using that to actively target asexuals. The Ace discourse era around 2016 was AWFUL and it was because people learned the term asexual and decided we were just "Straight people trying to be special" or "incel freaks" or "Just sad virgins" It was considered cool and fun to mock and harass asexuals. it was common for people to create fake ace blogs to make us look bad. There are still dog whistles being posted around that mock and belittle asexuals that people treat as silly jokes. People still tell aces to shut up and not complain. People who harassed aces of tumblr act like their part in the ace discourse era was just a quirky little thing they did and not a genuine issue that they refuse to acknowledge and any ace who brings it up gets told to get the fuck over it.

It ignored the fact that asexuals have the highest stat in conversion therapy. it ignores the stat that corrective rape happens majority to asexuals. it ignored the fact that many asexuals end up getting broken up with or divorced for being asexual because so many people are unwilling to compromise in a relationship that isn't sexual. Many Aces feel forced to have sex with their partners because not doing so gets them labeled as abusive. Asexuality is still considered by most doctors to be a disorder that needs to be fixed and so it can be dangerous to bring it up lest your doctor actively try to focus on it as a main issue. Therapists assume your asexuality is a trauma response and may aces have to keep their asexuality under wraps lest their therapists start to focus only on that instead of their other issues. Yes, people know the term asexual. But that does not mean they Accept asexuals. some people use the knowledge of that term to target and attack asexuals.

No one has it better. we all just face different issues and to claim one group is some how more accepted than another is naive at best and outright malicious at worst and genuinely some of these people are getting way to close to repeating ace discourse era arguments and it's really getting to me because the call SHOULD NOT be coming from INSIDE THE FUCKING HOUSE.

[ventbloglite]

Some of you really need to step back a little bit and acknowledge how ignorant you are towards how misogyny affects trans mascs and how you yourself may be perpetrating said misogyny when speaking ill of trans mascs.

Which is not something you should be doing at all, fyi. You can talk about individual shitty trans mascs and certain community issues you dislike which involve or are perpetrated by trans mascs without just being transphobic towards trans mascs in general.

So many times I've seen the sentient of 'AFAB's have it really easy, everyone accepts AFAB's as trans, everyone loves AFAB trans people, the world caters to you, there is basically no problems for you if you're AFAB unlike AMAB folk' shown in a variety of ways from a variety of people including just outright saying it. Not to mention the belitting of trans masc experiences with transphobia and misogyny + the way those interact because they identify as men even though transphobes still consider them to be women and don't give a shit about their actual gender.

A main crux of transphobia (though many other factors which result in hating us come into play, too many to go into now) is that trans people are seen as and treated as their AGAB and punished for not identifying as it or portraying it 'correctly' by society. So tell me why so many seem to 'forget' about how misogyny impacts trans masculine people. Could it be because you believe that advocating for trans women and trans femmes and fighting transmisogyny somehow must involve being transphobic towards trans men due to that radfem influence you've absorbed? The world will never reach gender equality of any kind if everything is 'men versus women' so can we just fucking not bring that into trans spaces please.

Examples!

I saw recently a post which perfectly pointed out the potential risks associated with someone considered 'male' growing out her hair but OP clearly knew absolutely nothing about the same risks associated with someone deemed 'female' cutting his hair. Instead of not making that post or doing some research, OP thus assumed there weren't really any risks likely due to already believing that AFAB trans people have it easy.

The ignorance! Misogyny heavily impacts the way hair is treated on those perceived as women (including body hair) and women/those perceived as women have no end of people policing what they can and can't do with their bodies often taking things to the absolute extreme to do so. Short hair on woman may seem 'more accepted' but AFAB people of any gender could quickly tell you multiple situations where it's not and results in the same violence, abuse, homo(lesbo/butch)phobia and yes possibly even death depending on the situation even if you still identify as a woman. Pretending this doesn't happen is straight up misogyny btw.

'AFAB's pass easily by doing basically nothing' is another frequent one which makes me laugh. 'Passing' for most trans people is so situational and so dependent on what you do or don't do to strictly conform to gender stereotypes if you're even able to do that at all. To suggest that the world ignores feminine gender markers the moment someone's hair is short and their chest appears mostly flat ignores both the complexity of how humans perceive gender and how misogyny comes into play whenever a woman/perceived woman shows any masculinity let alone maleness. Considering the same misogyny comes into play frequently against trans women you'd think it'd be easy to remember.

This general sentiment of 'Being born with a vagina means your life is easy and everything you do will be loved and supported because society adores you. You don't and will never have any real problems, not like anyone born with a penis.' isn't magically okay and absolutely super different to when misogynists say it about cis women because you're using AGAB language and cite 'because you're men and blah blah patriarchy' as the actual reason you're saying it. It's very clearly same shit different coat of paint. The pool is there, your toes are in, stop preparing to dive for Gods sake.

[wombatwisdom]

I've recently started reading Judith Butler's new book "Who's Afraid of Gender?" where they discuss the various groups who leverage the fear of "gender" for their own means.

They never address Mormonism outright in the way it plays on the fears of gender and sexual minorities--mostly because they do not need to. The Vatican and other evangelical groups beat us to it, they wrote their proclamations on saving the family before we did, and used language shockingly similar to what we use.

Butler points out that "The Family" and its defense has become a smokescreen or scapegoat where religious institutions do not have to address real tangible issues (like the climate crisis or the perils of late stage capitalism) but instead can just say: "we were right--allowing the gays to marry and the transfolks to have rights IS causing the collapse of our societies!"

What is surprising to me, is how disappointed I am in our lack of originality. Did we really need to copy and paste this fear-based bigotry into our own church?

The truth is, of course it's unoriginal and of course it's man-made. The fear of the lgbtq+ community (and let's be honest most feminists too) is the threat we pose to the powers that be. Who gets the priesthood in a world where gender isn't set at birth? How does marriage work if one gender is "by devine design to preside over the home"? What if women realize it's better to be married to another woman than a man???? What if women really can do it all? What would become of the men????

And how do we convince them otherwise? They are anxious about a reality that does not exist but could threaten power, structure, and systems? And in truth LGBTQ+ concerns are not easily addressed without sizable redesigns, much of which would likely require divine intervention to get right.

And doesn't that all seem like too much work, when the majority of active members aren't really affected by systemic mistreatment of the LGBTQ+ community? Plus, so many have also bought into the phantasm (that's what Butler calls the fear of "gender"), that they are ready to defend "The Family" from it's various attackers (imaginary or real), and such redesigns could cause many unaffected to react negatively.

I feel stupid, mostly, for believing that our bigotry was somewhat unique. I foolishly thought that leaders were somehow interpreting spiritual promptings through a biases lens. But, it's so disappointly borrowed from congresses and committees benefitting from enforcing the same fear for the defense of the "Natural, Divine and so so delicate Family".

I do wish to believe that it could potentially change and get better. But we'd need a miracle--and apparently the miracle needs to be for not just us, but for the people we are borrowing the phantasm from.

[ugly-anarchist]

claiming misandry or anti-masculinity exists is the same as saying that heterophobia exists because straight trans people are treated like shit. it’s not heterophobia, it’s transphobia/homophobia. in the same way that masc afab people being treated terribly is misogyny and homophobia, and has literally zero to do with misandry/“anti-masculinity”. if anti-masculinity or misandry existed, even straight cis heterosexual men would suffer from it.

okay so like. as a straight trans person i definitely wouldn't call what we experience "heterophobia" and i don't know anyone who would argue that systemic heterophobia is a thing, but this person seems ignorant of the transhet experience. straight trans people are treated like shit, yes, and a big part of that is transphobia and homophobia, but part of it is also being straight.

i've had cis queers (and sometimes non-cis queers) treat trans heterosexuality as a loss, implying and sometimes outright saying they would prefer it if we'd stayed cis gays/lesbians. terfs mourn how beautiful butch lesbians are transitioning into icky straight men. sapphics have told me that when i was sexually attracted to women as a "lesbian" it was okay, but now that i was sexually attracted to women as a straight man i was creepy and misogynistic.

and being treated like shit within the queer community for being straight isn't exclusive to transhets- aro and ace people get this a lot too. heteroromantic asexuals are invading the queer community and stealing resources. aromantic heterosexuals are just slutty straight women or misogynistic straight men who just use women for their bodies. the wave of arophobia that started last december(?) was explicitly targeted at cishet aro men.

just because systemic heterophobia isn't a thing, that doesn't make it okay to hear trans and/or aspec straight people talking about the ways they are treated badly for being straight and say "shut up, you're not oppressed for being straight." likewise, it's not okay to hear queer people talk the ways they are treated badly for being masculine or perceived as masculine and say "shut up, anti-masculinity isn't a thing."

i'm sorry this is so long i just wanted to rant about this stupid fucking take

You are absolutely 100% correct

The issue here is, I think, that people are only looking at mistreatment through the lens of systemic oppression. That if it's not systemic oppression then it must be perfectly fine and okay to do, but it's not.

Feeling bitter and resentful towards cishet society isn't a bad thing but you shouldn't be taking out that bitterness on fellow queer people who happen to also be straight.

Same with anti-masculinity. Misandry isn't real, but the bitterness and hatred for men that some people have is often unfairly applied to queer people who aren't like non-queer men. People take what awful men have done and then apply it to any and all perceived masculinity and it's hurting queer people.

Just because I have the T levels and body hair of a cis guy doesn't make me predatory or abusive and me calling out the people who have been saying that shit to me and giving it a word doesn't mean I'm saying misandry is real and perisex cisallohet men are oppressed by lesbians. No. People are unfairly treating me and other queer people like shit and I deserve to call it what it is.

[pure-ablution]

Can you give us a harsh truth?

This isn’t really a harsh truth, but it is something that you really do need to consider if you want to be able to implement the advice that you’ve been given and do well for yourself in the way that I think most of my followers envisage for themselves. I receive a lot of asks and see a lot of general posts and comments which basically amount to “but what if I can’t do that because X?” It doesn’t really matter what X is, I’ve received asks from girls who can’t wear makeup because of skin or sensory issues, or who can’t transfer to a better university because of their grades, or who can’t get an internship because of their social anxiety, and I’m sure that you can think of lots of other examples in the same sort of vein.

I sympathise with these girls, I really do. Unfortunately, the world at large isn’t really all that sympathetic. I don’t like to be one of those ‘the world is unfair’ type of pessimistic people, but there comes a point wherein you have the choice to either troubleshoot your problem, or choose to live with the consequences. Sometimes you have barriers holding you back from achieving that mean you need to redirect yourself towards something different, and sometimes you need to figure out a creative way of overcoming your hurdles—but sometimes it’s a do-or-don’t sort of situation, and if you don’t, then you need to learn how to be okay with missing out on a few things. Life doesn’t dish out participation trophies or compensatory prizes, and if you’re unable to do something then you just won’t do it, it’s a very simple equation. You need to learn how to weigh up whether or not the consequences of not doing something are important to you, and sometimes, they’re actually not.

I know a girl, let’s call her Lola, who used to live on my dorm block. Lola is a first-gen Medicine student and she comes from a Traveller background, she has a very strong regional British accent, and she looks very different from everyone else at our university, with a heavy spray tan and makeup. She suffers a lot of discrimination and general prejudice from her fellow students and the professors too, on account of her appearance and background. Honestly, from an objective perspective, she would have done much, much better to have made an effort to fit in more with those around her. Instead, she seems to take a pride in not losing her accent, maintaining her looks the way she likes them, and overtly rejecting the snobbery and overall ‘look’ of our university student body. She often seemed paradoxical and downright bitter to the other students, in the way that she’d arrived at such a prestigious and ancient university and outright rejected its traditions and customs—it seemed weirdly arrogant and out-of-touch, as though she felt she didn’t need to fit in with the rest of them.

I asked her about this once, when we got talking in the hallway one rainy afternoon, and she explained to me very simply that her respect for her heritage culture and the value she has for her family meant much, much more to her than ��doing well socially’ with a bunch of rich kids whom she’d never see again after graduation. She planned to get her degree, do her training, and move straight back home as a local GP for her community—she didn’t care about networking or fitting in, when that would go against her personal values. Most people, especially those who regularly consume the kind of content posted on level-up communities and whatever, would have argued that she was doing herself a disservice, that she was wasting a world-class opportunity, but Lola didn’t see it like that at all; she wanted to do the best for her community, and studying Medicine at a top university was the best way to do that, it was simple as that for her.

I have to say, I respect Lola a lot for that. She can’t fit in with the general student body without seriously changing some key aspects of herself, and entirely hiding others, and she’s chosen not to do so, and she’s made peace with the fact that she’ll suffer some snide comments and lost opportunities along the way. I think it serves as a really important reminder that sometimes it’s better to not do something, to not adhere to social norms, if it doesn’t align with our values and long-term goals. When you’re weighing up the pros and cons of something as simple as putting on makeup for the day or as big as moving to a new city, you need to consider whether the sacrifices you make are actually worth it to you. Not whether they’re the sort of sacrifices a certain blogger has told you need to be made, or the sort of sacrifices that will give you a highly Instagrammable lifestyle, but whether they’ll actually move you forward with your personal plan in the long-term. If you suffer from sensory issues with makeup, for example, you need to figure out whether it’s better for you to force yourself to cope with the problems that arise from wearing makeup, and reap rewards in terms of your physical and social appearance, or whether it’s better for you to not wear makeup, and deal with the fact that you’ll need to work harder socially and with other aspects of self-care.

If you’re reading this, then you live in a free enough country to be able to make your own choices on matters like these, and I think that it’s crucial that you learn where your values and goals sit, so as to figure out what’s worth the trouble and what’s really not.