#also just generally 'i don't like how you express your identity' is just. it's discourse that doesn't go anywhere.

[a-girl-called-bob]

Like, the thing that bothers me most about the current wave of discourse is the insistence I keep seeing that 'afab trans women' are all just cis women posing for like. clout, or something.

Like, first of all, if a cis person told me that they feel like they have a non-normative gender identity of some kind or another, the likelihood is pretty high that they're not cis. If they're using language or framing that you find problematic, that can be worth talking through, but fundamentally unless you know that they're acting or speaking in bad faith, you really shouldn't do them the disservice of treating them like any other ignorant cis person.

Second, speaking as a trans woman (complicated as my relationship to that may be from time to time), is it really right to say that cis women (or even AFAB people broadly) shouldn't want to be anything like us? That we're defined so much by chasing their gender ideal that they shouldn't have anything to learn from us? How fucking miserable is that? To imagine that we have no qualities worthy of imitation save for those we ourselves are imitating? Bullshit. Any body type, any gender presentation, any look or style or quality of the voice or mannerism can inspire gender envy in any particular person, and it's disingenuous to say that 'womanhood the way we do it' and 'womanhood the way cis women do it' are exactly the same.

So, if you have a problem with someone identifying as a trans woman despite being AFAB, and if you really care that much, I really suggest you put your own feelings aside for a moment and try talking it out. What about trans womanhood appeals to them differently than cis womanhood? Is it some physical feature that they could probably achieve through hormone therapy? Is it just the way that trans women are women 'on purpose'? The language they use may not be what you'd want it to be, but a lot of the language around gender presentation is clumsy and imperfect.

When I was a kid, I told my older sister I wished I was born a girl. This should've been when I realized I was trans, and it's not like she didn't know any trans people at the time, but she just told me that I was only saying that because I didn't understand the struggles women had. It took me seven more years to admit to myself that I was a girl, and two or three more after that to come out to my family. Things have changed a bit over the years, we're fine now, but I think about it a lot. What got that reaction? Was it talking about being 'born a girl'? Was it just, dislike for my terminology that made her snap at me, or was she just not in a place to imagine her snot-nosed little bro as a sister? Maybe if we'd gotten to talk it out then I'd be a different person now.

Maybe if we're less knee-jerk and we talk it out more, less people will miserably repress their identities. Or maybe they're all horrible terrible people trying to get everyone to shut up about trans women's issues by muddying the waters. I'd rather take a chance that some of them are decent folks who don't have the right words - or maybe just don't have words we like - to talk about their experiences. This world is miserable enough without us jumping to conclusions and assuming the worst from everyone who doesn't look like us.

i don't know how ppl can make posts like YOU CANNOT BE XYZ IDENTITY without feeling the overwhelming urge to be that identity. yes i may be amab with a dick and balls but im a afab trans woman now. why are we talking about this. perhaps the harm in "terfs are calling themselves afab trans women" is in the "being a fucking transphobe" bit and not in the "having a weird identity" bit. truly truly truly who gives a shit

[genericpuff]

I don't know the term for creators who became popular outside the traditional steps to "make it" in their profession; then when people started taking their work seriously and giving them criticism, these creators saw it as an attack because they are not used to mentors and studies.

Smythe's professional training is vague at best, being a folklorist. Then there's the creator of the popular hell cartoon that became her own executive producer and director in her 20s (I'm not going to say her name since it tends to attract her rabid fans) and becomes reactive to any kind of criticism on Twitter. Then there's that TikToker Devon Rodriguez, who became popular for sketching people on subways, and when an art critic gave a mild review to his art gallery, Devon unleashed his fans on him.

Like am I seeing a pattern here for artists? And I guess, what do you think we can learn from it.

Ah, so this is a very interesting (and broad) topic that we've touched on in discussions in ULO and other webtoon-related communities. So buckle up, it's time for an ✨essay✨

I think the best way I can sum up my thoughts on this issue is: the vast majority of people who become paid content creators don't seek out a job as content creators, a job in content creation is just something that happens to them.

I say "content creation" because this is something that applies to a lot of other platforms and online mediums as well, such as the examples you included (TikTok, Youtube, Twitch, etc.). And don't get me wrong, it's not like every successful content creator out there didn't work their asses off to get to where they are, but for many... it still involves an element of luck. People don't go to school for it, people don't "apply" to become influencers, and much of it relies entirely on just making stuff until it gets seen and propelled into success.

I think a lot of these issues arise with the creators themselves and how they view their own work. The reality is that many of us artists have been treated as the "rejects" of society, we constantly feel like we're misunderstood and have some deep inner pain that we express through our art, and instead of going to therapy, we come up with OC's. It's a lot more fun and it's a lot cheaper LOL Webcomics naturally wind up being the perfect lightning rod for people who feel that way, where we can pour ourselves into the characters, the world, the narrative, in a way that perfectly mixes our talents for art and our need to express our innermost thoughts and feelings about ourselves and the world around us. So when our art gets criticized or rejected ... it can be hard for a lot of artists to not feel like it's a criticism of the self, a rejection of our identities, an attack on our feelings and experiences, because we've tied so much of ourselves to our work. And this can make that transition very difficult for people who are trying to go pro, because being professional demands separating yourself from your work, at least enough that you can view it objectively, recognize its flaws, seek out pathways to improvement, and not take every bump in the road personally.

A lot of successful creators are people who just never made that transition. It's led to an abundance of professional creators who know how to film themselves or react to content or, in the case of webcomic artists, write stories about their OC's, but don't know how to actually navigate the industry at a professional level. They don't know how to read and negotiate contracts, they don't know what deals are actually good for them and which ones are better left on the table, they don't know how to manage teams of people, they don't know how to react to the attention, praise, and criticism of their audience - they're just doing what they've always done, but now they're making money doing it.

None of this is to speak ill in any way of the creators who've found success and are still just doing what they've always done for money. None of this is meant to be a slight on the creators who are using webcomics and art as an expression of their deeper selves (I do it myself, it's very cathartic!) because ultimately that's what makes your work your work, the fact that you made it, with all your good parts and bad. Many of these creators are capable of running their platform without any issues because they've learned how to play the game, or because their platform is made up of people just like them so their audience is more like just a social circle.

But many of them still also can't operate on a professional level and those are the ones we often see getting called out and held accountable when they do shit like, I dunno, scamming their audiences for money or making alt accounts to manipulate user reviews or plagiarizing from other people's work or just being really REALLY shitty to their own audience.

Often times these are people who are just doing what they'd normally do as a hobby, became well known for it, and managed to turn it into a living. But they never actually learned how to turn their hobby into a job, and themselves into professionals.

And artists especially are prone to this because, let's face it, a lot of us are just weebs having fun drawing our blorbos, so of course if we get a chance to monetize that, we're gonna! We should! We should want to be paid for our work and time and efforts!

But we also have to remember that it's a different ballgame, especially if you're turning your audience into customers. "I'm just a baby creator doing this for fun" doesn't and shouldn't apply anymore once you start signing contracts, selling your art as products, taking people's money to fund your projects, etc. because now it's not just your art, it's what you're expecting people to pay for so you can eat and pay your bills and live.

As much as our art is often personal and should be cherished as such, you can't expect people to want to pay for it if you're not setting a bar and meeting it, or if you're not treating your audience with any amount of dignity or respect.

I'm not saying you're not entitled to having feelings or still wanting to treat your art as art, but the line between art and products is there for a reason, it's to set people's expectations and ensure that both sides are having those expectations met. Webtoon creators suffer from the same thing that a lot of Youtube creators and other types of content creators suffer from in this transition, and I feel like HBomberGuy summed it up best:

"In current discourse, Youtubers simultaneously present as the forefront of a new medium, creative voices that need to be taken seriously as part of the 'next generation of media' - and also uwu smol beans little babies who shouldn't be taken seriously when they rip someone off and make tens of thousands of dollars doing it."

It's not gatekeeping a medium, it's not telling people they aren't allowed to have feelings or to want to still have that personal connection to their work in spite of the professional level it's achieved, it's simply just expecting people to actually live up to the label of 'professional' that they're using to make money.

And this especially goes for someone like Rachel, who claims to be a 'folklorist' despite all the contrary evidence that says otherwise. This is the same person who copy pasted the first result on Google as her source on a simple word definition:

There's a second part to that HBomberGuy quote that also actually applies to Rachel really well in this discussion, concerning how she labels herself a "folklorist" and how that's affected and influenced the greater discussion surrounding Greek myth:

"But on the opposite end, Youtubers who act like serious documentarians gain a shroud of professionalism which then masks the deeply unprofessional things they do. We just saw that with James. I think [James] partially got away with what he's doing for so long because he acts so professional about it, so people assume, 'there's no way he could just be stealing shit!' so they don't check. And on top of that, a lot of James' videos contain obvious mistakes and made-up facts... but because they're often presented next to well-researched stuff he stole, no one questions it. I've seen James repeat a lie in his videos, and then other people claim it's true, and link his video as the proof. He has helped to solidify misinformation by seeming like he's doing his diligence."

There's always going to be discourse over what's legitimate and what isn't when it comes to Greek myth, there are loads of things we still don't know simply due to the knowledge being lost to time. But there's something to be said about a white New Zealand woman using her self-insert romance comic and platform to build a veneer of professionalism and legitimacy around herself, as if she's the authority on the subject, while simultaneously relying on first result Google searches and citing works that have no real foothold in the way of scholarly or "folklorist" discussion.

All that's to say, you're right, her professional training is vague at best. She's never completed a longform comic prior to LO, she's not doing her due diligence in actually engaging with the media she's trying to "retell" and exposing herself to the voices of those from the culture that's tied to it, and she's not holding herself to any sort of standards when it comes not only to being a professional, but a professional who's been held on a pedestal for all these years. She's still operating the same way she was 5 years ago - drawing and writing whatever pops into her head and sending it to her editor for uploading, with next to no intervention or guidance. Except now it doesn't have the benefit of being new and having "potential", it's getting noticed and called out more now than ever because it's been 5 years of this shit and it's been getting worse on account of her clearly being burnt out (or just giving up/not caring) and the readers can't be sold on "potential" anymore.

And that's all I have to say on that.

[absolutebl]

Hi!

I love your Blog and love to read your takes in everything. So thank you so much for all your Posts and thoughts about the industry etc.

Here is my question: i came across one of your posts where you wrote "actually gay, not bl gay" (it was a Post about Jojo and Only Friends) and while I FELT that I TOTALLY understood what you meant and instantly was like "yes 100% clear" Id love to read and learn more about what this means exactly and why some bls feel quite heteronormative while some dont. Would you mind explain the take on "actually gay Not Bl gay" a little bit? And why some Shows feel just more queer than others (besides the unbelievable stupid "gay only for you" trope lol)

Thank you so much and I hope you will have a nice day!

actually gay, not bl gay

There's actually quite a discourse on this right now mostly originating with @waitmyturtles and @wen-kexing-apologist (Post @killiru references above is here.)

I tend to mostly talk about this in broad brush strokes as a queer lens.

But there's a great ven diagram (which of course I've lost the link to) that approaches the idea of and queer lens by tunneling into its approach and intent:

about queers

by queers

for queers

How do different BLs intersect in different ways with these three elements?

When I said "actually gay, not BL gay" I was alluding to this discourse. Specifically the "about queers" category of BL.

There are characters in BL who read as genuinely gay (as in belonging to the queer family of this terrible reality we live in) and then there are those that seem more performative (to exist in a bubble of fantasy were sexual identity is almost unimportant, only the romance matters, everything is safe sweetness & light). For some queers this can read as manipulative or even exploitive (because it is inauthentic to most queer experiences). For me, it's fine... even desirable. I like the safe bubble. I enjoy the utter delusional escapism of it. Sometimes I will call this sanitized gay. (Since it is designed to make gay palatable to non-gay identified folks e.g. seme/uke.)

A sanitized gay BL may be unintentional but it is nested in origin yaoi and mm romance whose target market has never been the queer community, and whose authors have historically not been members of it, either.

Let's be frank, we queers are generally a terrible target market, we don't have enough spending power - especially not for a piece of pop culture as niched as BL. And as creators we really want our voices to be heard (obvs), which makes us produce content that those unsympathetic or uncaring find uncomfortable. (Yes, I know, fuck them, but also, they have all the money and the entertainment industry is a numbers game.)

So in the arena of office romances, just as an example:

actually gay = The New Employee

sanitized gay = Our Dating Sim

actual gay = Step By Step

sanitized gay = A Boss And a Babe

All of the above have the same tropes, archetypes, and premises. All of them are BL. Some are just... queerer feeling than others. And the characters in those shows (Step by Step and The New Employee) read as more "actually gay."

This has nothing to do with the actors, chemsitry, or how much we may personally like the show (Our Dating Sim is one of my absolute favorite BLs). It has to do with how closely those CHARACTERS intersect with the reality of queerness as we inhabit it today. It will be lots of little touches given to the drama by director and script:

language use,

surrounding friendships (and friendship style),

mannerisms and physicality (specially body language around straights vs other queer characters),

makeup & wardrobe,

facial expressions,

surrounding queer-coded behaviors by side characters,

layers of story nuance that indicate a complicated queer-driven back story.

Markers of specifically a queer identity are given to the leads.

These kinds of BLs are satisfying the "about queers" category. ("By queers" can be difficult to extract because IRL outting is involved. "For queers" is the rarest kind of BL, because making something specifically for us often alienates the majority of the rest of viewership/market. I could be argued that SCOY did this.)

I'm sure I've missed things, but I hope that kinda makes sense?

By/For/About discourse from @wen-kexing-apologist here:

Parts 1

Part 2

Part 3

I'm indebted to them for the links!

More Queer Stuff from Yours Truly

BL Linguistics & Queer Identity - I Am Gay versus I Like Men 

Will BL Get More Honestly Queer? 

Queer lens (from the director) and chemistry (from the actors) in BL (A Tale of Thousand Stars)

Touch & Daisy in Secret Crush On You - Queer Coded Language and 3rd Gender Identity

BL in Taiwan & Gay Marriage

Debating Queerbaiting in BL ( + Devil Judge... is it queerbaiting?) 

BL Actors and the Assumption of Queerness - outing actors, coming out, being out, more:  Is that BL actor actually queer?

So is it really fetishization? straight women loving bl 

Some BL fans are sasaengs, and it’s a problem in this fandom 

BLs That Highlight How Society Treats Queers

10 BLs That Are Honest to a Queer Experience 

(source)

[tricksterlatte]

I've always been fascinated by fandom history, and I know I'm not the only one. It's interesting to see how fans of pop culture can create a culture of their own, and in the modern age of social media and the internet in general, that culture is as widespread as ever. Unfortunately, that also means downsides are becoming bigger as this culture becomes widespread, and it's saddening to watch, maybe even concerning.

I don't discuss these things to be preachy, especially considering how I've fallen into several of these pitfalls before, and have perpetuated some of this behavior in the past. To say otherwise would make me a hypocrite and a liar, and I firmly believe this goes for most people in any fandom. I was just thinking about this recently, and how a lot of the biggest stressors in what should be our stress relief really can be pinned mostly into a few central talking points, which I would love to discuss to know if I'm not just going crazy here

The concept of Big Name Fan has evolved into a position of authority on fandom, which does not fall to anyone regarding subjectivity. No one in a fandom is an authority except the creators themselves, who have every right to stay away from the fandoms they have birthed.

Popularity in general being conflated to intellectual authority as well, especially on websites with public stats, particularly following counts. The algorithm is no benevolent god, but people will sometimes see someone with 30k followers and think they are correct on a minor non-issue that has spiraled into discourse, especially when compared to someone with 30 followers. This also is just...a bummer when fanon evolves into perceived canon, and newcomers to the fandom can't post even innocuous meta or headcanons without it being perceived as morally/intellectually incorrect.

Monetization of fanworks, but especially zines, have led to a hypercompetitive atmosphere that only escalates the bitterness and resentment. This is not a universal problem, but many zines across all fandoms habitually accept the same artists and writers, or diminish the value of fanfic due to the limitations of physical printing. The application process has devolved into such a disheartening debacle for a majority of people I see, and the way it is often framed as "your work just wasn't good enough" when it's really about what the mods deem mass marketable will destroy just about anyone's self-esteem after repetitive rejections, and will give some frequent zine runners a false sense of final say over the community (not usually, but it can happen).

The level of distrust for anyone new attempting to start a fan project is just so depressing nowadays (and this one we sadly can blame on a few people by name, but the ones who have sent this issue spiraling still don't care and that just sucks. I feel horrible for everyone who has been tricked).

Somehow comment and anonymous asks have gone backwards from "don't feed the trolls" to "suck it up, at least you're getting comments." I have seen some of these comments people have been told to suck up. It's not okay in general. It's particularly gross when it's an anonymous hate message unrelated to the fanworks themselves, perhaps born out of resentment or bearing an ulterior motive. And some will even attack and defame character due to identity. It's not subtle. It's not okay. People should absolutely be dunked on for this, and I gotta say I'm sick of unsolicited concrit being enforced as positive either. If they didn't ask, don't give it. There's a reason a lot of fic writers some people adore suddenly go ghost, and they can't even talk about it.

Don't like, don't read has been discarded in favor of don't like, tell others don't read and also don't write. Transformative works don't have to fit into a canon or even in character mold. That's why they're transformative! It's a different type of artistic expression. If you don't like it, chances are good it simply wasn't meant for you. It's not bad. Don't shame others, god especially not for non-issues such as a t/b preference or a different gender hc, preferred haircuts, types of animal you imagine them as in another lifetime, I could list literally anything here and I bet there has been a fandom fight over it.

Exclusive yet publicly advertised community Discords that will bar you from invite if you're not one of the cool kids. I have unfortunately fallen into this trap before, and refuse to ever enable or endorse that behavior ever again. This isn't about friend groups either, it's about fandom-dedicated servers that flaunt themselves as a VIP club instead of what they are: a friend group. I also don't even know how to broach the subject of private accounts that turn into fandom tea accounts with dozens if not hundreds of followers, only for people to be angry if someone isn't exactly okay with horrific stuff being said in general, let alone about their mutuals or friends.

I know none of this will likely ever change, and tbh i'm so tired of it all, but...does anyone else know what I mean? I'm stressed out whenever I try to enjoy myself, because popularity and a strange business mindset is steadily taking over fandom spaces. I'm not saying people should stop trying to make stuff that sells, or that people universally do any of this, but fandom is evolving into a thing I'm not sure is good. idk anymore

[utilitycaster]

I’m I the only one who finds it alarming that most of this fandom who ship Imogen and Laudna (especially on twitter) don’t realize the unhealthyness thats going on in their relationship? They literally see two women to are affectionate with each other and say “ENDGAME!” “GIRLFRIENDS!” “MARRIED!” “KISS KISS KISS!” Then they focus on quotes that are kinda alarming, and Imogen’s Jealousy is pretty fucking Alarming! Saying that they are in love and just haven’t realized it yet. (Don’t get me started on that one blog on here counting down the days “till imodna realizes their in love.” I find it so fucking annoying.) Loving someone and being IN love with someone is two different things. Also another thing! I HATE THAT PEOPLE CALL THEM LESBIANS! THE BOTH HAVE EXPRESSED FEELINGS FOR MALE PERSENTING PEOPLE! I dread the day when the campaign ends and they don’t end up together or during the campaign fall IN love with someone that’s not each other. Especially if it’s a male persenting person, because the Laura and Marisha will be harassed and the shippers will yell Queerbait, also the men hating/haters will be in full force. 

Hi anon,

I agree with most of this; I'm answering under a cut in the hopes that people who will be upset by an answer will be able to avoid it, without me having to explicitly discourse tag it and in doing so throw it to people who troll that tag to get mad at things. Also this is SUPER long and covers a lot of the thoughts I've had percolating on the CR fandom/shipping culture in general.

I think I and a lot of people who primarily deal in meta/analysis in this fandom have been inching ever closer to a lot of the points you've made here, and I am generally very willing to be the one who snaps and says "yeah has anyone noticed the emperor has literally no clothes on like what the fuck".

Let's start with the end and work backwards: It's happened before, it will happen again if Laura and Marisha's characters do not get together, and it's irritating, but like, I will take a good story and the consequences of a shitty segment of the fandom rather than the path of least resistance every time. I almost said something to this effect on the positive vibes ask last night, but like...there will always be people who are hateful and stupid on the internet, so you may as well stand in your own truth rather than fear their consequences. (Not that I don't respect the choice to quietly avoid harassment; I am the way I am because I know at this point I can take a pretty hard hit and shut it down, but that has not always been the case.) Anyway, people called an actual canon ship between lesbian characters queerbaiting last campaign, so it's not like those accusations hold any weight or need to be taken seriously; outside of their tiny circle, everyone thinks those people are idiots.

I do, as a bi woman, hate the tendency among hardcore shippers to erase bisexuality. They do it because a bi character's competing ships cannot be as easily dismissed as 'obviously can't happen, they're gay or lesbian', and they don't care how biphobic they look doing it. You are absolutely correct: Imogen and Laudna have both indicated interest in men or masc nb people. (Others have also pointed out that people tend to exclusively use he/him pronouns about Ashton when they are being critical of them, so they don't care how transphobic they look doing it either, apparently; also I don't think Ashton identifies as a he/they lesbian but there are in fact people who do identify as such so like...if your goal is to eliminate Ashton/Laudna as an option by saying Laudna is a lesbian, against all evidence to the contrary, you also need to make a number of presumptions about Ashton's sexuality and gender identity as well.)

This brings me to a tricky section about fandom in general but I think it's worth saying. In the real world, homophobia and transphobia are very real. They negatively impact our lives in heartbreaking and deadly ways. It is still the norm in most US media for the bulk of relationships shown to be between a cis man and a cis woman, and for protagonists to be cis and straight (note: also often able-bodied, male, white, etc but the focus of this discussion is queerness so I'm not covering all axes of oppression). However, in many fandom spaces, queer characters and ships are the fan favorites. Tumblr's userbase does skew heavily queer, and additionally, tends to skew towards women. In other words, a lot of things that are very true in real life do not hold in fandom spaces.

Which is to say: we're in a situation where an F/F ship is the massive juggernaut for the fandom right now. It does not mean that lesbians (or bi women who enter into relationships with other women) are not oppressed in the real world; it does mean that within the highly specific space of the Critical Role fandom, people are more likely to be in favor of this ship than not. It also means that a lot of the people who aren't into it are not homophobes, but are queer people - often even wlw - who are saying "I would like F/F ships! I would like them to actually be good." Like, to me, the only difference between Imogen and Laudna and every M/F canon relationship on network TV that's made me go "you're telling me they should be together, but I don't see it" is that they're both women (and I would bet a large sum that for a lot of people, this isn't about the dynamic, but purely about the gender of the people involved, ie, if Imogen were a man played by one of the men in the cast people wouldn't ship it, where as I personally can comfortably say I'd ship any of the canon ships from past campaigns regardless of character gender. This also admits that biological essentialism is fake and that Exandria is pretty gender equalthough, which some people don't want to do.)

Part of why I've been so frustrated is that, at least from my perspective, the overwhelming majority of hate and harassment I've seen within the fandom in Campaign 3 - and in Campaign 2 - has been from people who have shipped Marisha and Laura's characters. There has, in fact, been pretty considerable hate as well as measured criticism levied towards M/F ships (we're seeing some with Ashton/Laudna here, but both Fjord/Jester and Caleb/Jester, the latter of which I actively dislike and have openly criticized, received pretty vehement hate last campaign and most of it came from people who shipped Jester with Beau) and M/M ships (less harassment per se but people who shipped Caleb with Jester said some truly awful things about Caleb/Essek; also while I have not, you know, harassed people, I have said essentially the same things about how Taliesin and Liam's characters are shipped every campaign despite often having little connection as I have about Marisha and Laura's. I just don't talk about it as much because while I think and have said that Ashton/Orym is basically nothing - and that Widomauk, which most people vaguely classify as M/M, and for that matter, Percy/Vax, all are basically nothing - no one who ships those has called me a cunt or reblogged my posts in an abusive manner or called me out for the grave sin of preferring canon to fanon, so I respect the ship and let ship of it all.) For that matter, the bulk of hate towards Beauyasha came from people who shipped Beau and Jester. Like...I am confident there are people who dislike this ship specifically because it's between two women, and they are homophobic, but that is not the quarter where I think most of the criticism on Tumblr or Twitter is coming from.

So let's get to the last point. Why do people ship two women simply because they're standing next to each other? Why do they ignore countless red flags - and I am specifically talking about treating Imogen and Laudna's relationship as healthy and loving; not about shipping it in general. I cannot stress enough that if you treat Imogen/Laudna as some kind of toxic Briarwoods situation and are into that, I support that entirely.

There are a few reasons. First and foremost, I think a lot of people project onto characters rather than letting the characters provide them with differing perspectives. I find this deeply sad. It's not that you can't draw parallels between your own life and that of fictional characters or see yourself in them - you're supposed to! But it says something depressing about your empathy if your qualifications for which characters speak to you are only those who match your demographics. Like, I've said before, but my favorite characters from past campaigns are Vex and Fjord, and they have a lot in common! If you relate to one based on their themes of Who You Are In The Dark and the mask you present to the world over a face you don't particularly like, you will probably relate to the other! But also...I am a cis bi woman, I am not a person of color as both those characters are often considered coded to be (though am an ethnic minority), nor did I personally experience extensive emotional abuse and poverty as a child. I think there's value in wanting to see people like you! But also...representation is not just "I want to see people like me"; it's also "I want to humanize people who are not like me". If you cannot relate to someone simply because they don't match your gender or sexuality, then that's a really shallow and cold way to interact with the world. And, specifically in relation to queerness within Critical Role: this is a world that has consistently been depicted as not having homophobia or transphobia. I understand wanting to explore these themes and seeing characters who have experienced them, but like...this is not the media that will reasonably have a one-to-one portrayal of homophobia or transphobia, and you often will need to bend over backwards and project a lot of stuff that simply isn't in the canon to read that into them because the worldbuilding simply doesn't support it. And, to be clear, you can do that; but at that point you're applying a lens that only you can obtain, so you shouldn't be surprised if few people come along with you. (I also think it's kind of dumb to watch a show with 5 cis men on it, four of whom are married to women, and be mad that the story has men in it and that those men sometimes are attracted to women; unpacking this would easily double the length of this already incredibly long post though.)

So: this sets a stage for people coming into the show saying "who looks like me, or can I make to look like me" rather than engaging with what's actually going on. Part of why I've been hesitant on Imogen and Laudna the whole time, though started out much more open to it, is in fact that it was heavily shipped from quite literally the moment that Laura and Marisha were indicated to be playing two women who knew each other from before. We knew nothing about their dynamic other than "existing friendship". So I think a lot of people put the cart before the horse and started shipping, and I do think - and I could be entirely wrong - a lot of them, deep down in their hearts, know that they are twisting their interpretations to match an idea of these two characters that has increasingly been proven not to be true onscreen. Like, I think a lot of people kind of realize that Imogen is putting Laudna in a horrible position here; I think a lot of people realize that their so-called 'unconditional' love that transcends words means there's no room to resolve or even express conflict. Perhaps they don't, but like, I'd like to give people the benefit of the doubt. It's just...I think that because this ship is so all-consuming within the fandom, and because so many people have staked their identities within the fandom on it, they don't know how to leave it and are scared of retaliation if they do.

This is backed up by the slow shift I've described - Imodna started out with "they're already girlfriends" or "they're already in love but just haven't said it" or "what could ever happen other than they become ever closer and eventually kiss" (as witnessed by these questions) to "they realized they were in love during the campaign" to "Imogen is in love with Laudna but Laudna isn't aware" to "god remember how they used to talk, I'd give anything for it" to "I guess a QPR is okay" (which is itself bizarre, like, the issues I see in their relationship are still just as much issues in a nonsexual partnership as a sexual one; honestly, it's not a healthy friendship though it is an interesting one and the problem's I have are not going to be fixed by kissing.) Like, it's not the normal evolution of feelings one might have about a ship as the show goes on and more information is revealed, or rather, it's a ship that's becoming less and less confident as time goes on which is the opposite of how canon ships tend to go. (Which, I need to stress, does not discount that it could not be canon; it's just that I think it would require a pretty profound shakeup and conflict to do so). The signs and signals are becoming more and more tenuous and the shippers keep lowering and lowering the bar.

Since I've already brought up past campaigns and ships, let's do it again for the sake of illustration; this feels like how people who shipped Caleb and Jester went from ENDGAME to "Caleb is pushing away Jester to protect her" to "I think Laura is biting her lip when she's looking at Liam! This is a SIGN" even in episodes where Jester was like, actively making out with Fjord, to, and I am not making this up, posting pictures of the CR shop showing Laura in Caleb merch as evidence. Or how the bulk of Vex/Keyleth shipping in TLOVM rested on a scene in the trailer where Keyleth was staring dreamily and drunkenly into space while Vex was across the table only for the show to reveal Keyleth was staring at Vax. Like, all shipping does require a certain degree of cherrypicking, but there is a point where you are focused only on subtext and never text, and while that was how one had to interact with queer stories in the past, it's ridiculous to be doing it on a show where Marisha has openly RP-ed Beau eating Yasha out. Like, if they wanted to show two women being romantically involved, they will. (There's been a lot of Xena comparisons thrown around, and like...not that Xena isn't an important part of the history of depicting F/F relationships in media, but it is also a syndicated show from the 90s and couldn't show an explicitly lesbian relationship, and Critical Role very much can and has.)

I do think there are a subset of people who don't realize how unhealthy this is. Like...this is a whole psychological thing that I am unequipped to unpack, but I do think there are people for whatever reasons genuinely do believe that love means never having to say you're sorry. I am hoping this is because of youth and inexperience, because being able to communicate and advocate for yourself is a crucial part of relationships, as is the ability to express and resolve conflict. As you've noticed, the people who ship this have all said "well, obviously, Imogen won't betray Laudna" - but we don't know that. Honestly I think it could go either way. But they have to make that assumption to keep shipping it, because if Imogen might betray Laudna, then that does mean that there would have been more meaning and value in Laudna speaking up and that conversation was deeply flawed.

I also think some of this comes from unconditional love being an unreasonable expectation foisted upon us all at large. There are always conditions, or rather, you might always in some way love someone, but there are conditions under which you'd leave or boundaries you will draw. You can love someone who (for example) is dealing with an addiction but still refuse to let them drive while intoxicated or steal your stuff to pay for drugs. You can love someone who cheats on you but still want to end that relationship. I mean, while fear, self-doubt, and resources/logistics are all factors in people leaving abusive relationships, it's also true that a lot of people have some affection for the good times and that is a factor as well. Love is not a simple on/off switch. You can feel multiple things at once - honestly, that's what Ashton basically says this past episode, that they both love and hate the party! I think Imogen and Laudna do genuinely love each other, though I don't interpret it as romantic; I just also think that there's a lot of stuff they don't like about each other but are unable to express, and which will only become more and more of a threat to a potential romantic (or queerplatonic) relationship if left to fester unresolve. And, to be honest, I suspect real-world homophobia and fandom purity issues are part of why people are so unwilling to discuss why Imogen and Laudna's relationship is unhealthy; because it means admitting that queer relationships can have most of the same problems as straight ones, and possibly admitting that you still find an unhealthy relationship interesting and want to see it played out.

[beevean]

Especially the justifications ranging from "Sonic is neurodivergent-coded" to "Sonic is canonically neurodivergent" in Prime grind my gears. I'm certain many of the same people are gushing about how awesome it is that Sonic Prime is CaNoN tO tHe GaMeS... as in, the games where Sonic:

knew that simply defeating and sealing away Chaos again would do NOTHING except make its hurt and anger only worse.

gave Blaze a kind and supportive pep talk, acknowledging what she had been through because of her pyrokinesis and duties as Sol Emerald Guardian and offering her his friendship with a reminder she can count on the people she's got to know during her adventure.

defeated Merlina but expressed sympathy with her hurt about her world ending while sharing his own philosophy of needing to live life to the fullest, without any call-outs about her attacking him earlier, boasts about defeating her, or scoldings about her negative view on it all.

Immediately came rushing back from Cannon's Core in the ARK even though he was seconds away from foiling the entirety of Eggman's plan with the fake Emerald because Eggman and Tails informed him Amy was in danger.

And those are only the examples I know for certain on the top of my head, without even touching upon everything that happens in games like Sonic Battle and Sonic Forces. It's not even that Prime!Sonic is particularly nasty or rude, he clearly adores his friends, but he can't read a room to save his life and he is legitimately just stupid. Which is clearly done because it can be used to write jokes, but he is stupid, in a way that a properly-written game!Sonic could not be even if he tried. And you mean to tell me the Sonic from the above examples is the occasionally-insensitive constantly-dumb hyperactive chatterbox that Prime presents him as? Please.

(I'm sorry, I figure you might have gotten tired of Prime discourse now, but in general the whole He's Totes Neurodivergent fandom perception annoy me, because they use that card to completely disregard any (in my opinion valid) counterarguments about any poor portrayal...)

Oh wait I forgot to add: the reason I came up with those examples is apparently because people think that Sonic (aka Prime!Sonic) has low empathy. Stolen from some probably-shady and possibly-unreliable site on the internet whose definition of empathy does otherwise seem to check out: "In general, empathy is the ability to understand or sense another person’s perspective, feelings, needs, or intentions, even when you don’t share the same circumstances. It can sometimes involve acting on that understanding, including offering help." And I ask, in what world does Sonic from the games lack empathy?????? He's literally the most empathic pep-talk-giving perspective-seeing help-providing understanding sweetheart on the entire planet with that definition!

I remember reading a post that proposed that Tails had high empathy and Sonic had low empathy, before Prime was a thing. And I had your identical "bruh???????" reaction. Sonic has low empathy? Literally where. Show me proof that any version of Sonic struggles to empathize with people. My man is actually pretty good at understanding others, as you accurately pointed out.

Anyway, I don't have ADHD and even I am getting annoyed at how it's been reduced to "hehe i'm soooooo silly and quirky and kiddy 🤪". If it's not Sonic, then it's characters like Tangle who has pretty much become a womanchild and fans defend her because she's "neurodivergent-coded".

Also, speaking of differences between Prime and Canon Sonic, while the latter was also relatively slow to the uptake to accept that he was not meeting his actual friends in Secret Rings and Black Knight, it was still not as ridiculous as the former, who apparently could not recognize that he was in the third different AU in a row and still was all "oh Tails am I glad to see you!".

And apparently Apple Metal was built to be like Sonic but way more obnoxious about it, which prompts Sonic to say "if I'm half as annoying as you I need to change". Which. *sigh*

and i'm pretty sure there was a boom character like that, but boom apparently sucks ass now while prime is the best western show ever. okay

[ca-suffit]

First off - I really appreciate what you do here, I'm new to fandom spaces and the things you post about have crystalized what bothered me in this fandom, which has made the experience of sifting through it much easier, knowing why some people's takes make me wildly uncomfortable and why I wasn't convinced by the big blogs big loud voices yelling at me what to think and how. There's an objectivity to your words that takes me out of the shipping war, book nostalgia, societal issue-blind mindset a lot of loud people here flaunt like some intellectual commentary, when it's not.

That aside, I know you mostly comment on fandom racism, but I've been confused for some time with how this fandom deals with transgender AUs. I know that a while back there was a lot of heated discourse and some big blogs saying that Louis shouldn't be feminized, dismissing critique of patriarchy which the show makes so clear, and misinterpreting Lestat's place in the familial structure etc. Now, I'm not talking about that, I wholeheartedly agree with Louis being a feminine (and maternal) figure in regards to gender roles, and with his general demeanor, as well. Though he is more subdued in that sense and gets misinterpreted, due to people used to something more outright like Lestat's flamboyancy.

And I know a lot of fic was written at first to spite the people who were uncomfortable with the notion of a clearly feminized Louis, which brought out MPreg, A/B/O, breeding kink, crossdressing, GNC, and even trans (FTM or MTF) iterations. I've read some great work involving most of those (though I've never wanted to check out any applying to Lestat, since most of them seem ridiculous) which was careful, mindful and made sure to respectfully use real life sensitive tropes, such as transness.

But I've also seen really crude, insensitive, and outright unconvincing characterization of an FTM Louis. Empowerment through writing is great, and I know transmasc writers can vent through the process, but some work has had such blatant fetishization of trans men, and it gets lumped in with praise along other, more serious and deserving fics. Not every FTM Louis is empowering, and I just can't get behind people writing a trans man that's turned on by being called a wife, having his genitalia spoken about in an outright feminized and crude way, AND ENJOYING THE THOUGHT OF GETTING PREGNANT.

Now, I know that various people's dysphoria allows for different things, but the amount of trans men that actually have a single positive thought about pregnancy, their female genitalia being spoken about, or having womanly roles forced upon them in relationships, is so low that writing about it without consideration becomes quite offensive. If you want a mindless smut one-shot of a pregnant or willing to be Louis, go for him as a cis gay man with a breeding kink, for A/B/O, bogus science, or honestly, fucking anything besides him being an FTM.

And I say this especially because I know it's not just trans men reading those crude and smutty iterations, it's also, and mostly, people who have hurt me and many other transmasc individuals with their disgusting chaser behaviour. Talking about it brings up many hurtful memories and I won't go farther for risk of becoming too subjective and affected, but I think trans AUs really shouldn't be treated with as much ease as they are.

first, thank u for the compliments!! I don't rly hear nice things here so it's appreciated when anyone takes time to give feedback and let me know this is doing something.

second, trans stuff is still under the racial umbrella as there's a lot of trans people of color here who get ignored in favor of white fandom bullshit all the time.

idk all the ins and outs of this but my main question reading this was.....are the fics being written by trans ppl or no? Cuz it's one thing if it's trans ppl expressing a spectrum of an identity and another if it's a non trans person using an identity to meet some kind of plot end and not considering the real implications of that. It sounds like it's the latter but I got a little confused.

[frogeyedape]

So, wow on the AFAB identifying as transfem discourse.

It's ironic how one of the objectors is like "yes I'm transfem but not a woman" is freaking out over a not-woman AFAB person using transfem too. Like...how is saying "I'm not a woman and I'm transfem" in any way saying "transfem means not fully a woman"? Transfem is inclusive of any trans people who self-identify as transfem, whether they're a transwoman who is a binary woman or a transwoman who is fluidly a nonbinary woman and nonbinary man or a transman who transes masculinity by making it more feminine or whatever

Being trans isn't about *what* your AGAB was. It's about whether your AGAB *changed*

The "trans" part's etymology: "word-forming element meaning "across, beyond, through, on the other side of; go beyond," from Latin trans (prep.) "across, over, beyond," perhaps originally present participle of a verb *trare-, meaning "to cross," from PIE *tra-, variant of root *tere- (2) "cross over, pass through, overcome" " from:

So say I'm AFAB. Assigned "girl." And what does girl mean? "A girl/woman can do/be anything" was a popular encouraging slogan in my youth, but it battled against all the misogyny of the time that put "girl" and "woman" in very tidy, small boxes. If I was assigned small-box-girl at birth and later stepped out of that box, across its boundary, might I not be transing my gender just a little? Still, I wasn't identifying as trans when I was a girl. I didn't know the word. [Tldr: i wasn't trans then cuz I didn't identify as trans then. Merely stepping outside of the small defining boxes of gender does not necessarily a trans person make.]

I was later Assigned Tomboy (hello secret 3rd cis gender where they still consider you a girl but like bad at being a girl)--Assigned Tomboy After Birth, shall we say ATAB? Does tomboy have one singular definition that encompasses all tomboys' experiences while excluding every non-tomboys' experiences? Is there a neat and tidy tomboy box that so many tomboys fall out of? I didn't fit in that concept either. [Tldr: my assigned gender changed before I even really started to grapple with what my actual gender identity was. Ain't that fucked? And no, I wasn't trans yet then, either]

I grew up, tried to step into the shoes of Woman, the adult version of my young Girl and Tomboy selves, and found Woman to be null and void. That's not me. And yet to be called Girl still when I am an adult is infuriating. I am not a child. Do not infantilize me. I am not now a girl. I am also not a woman. [Tldr: I was an AFAB person self identifying as not a woman. Still hadn't quite cottoned on to being trans, but it was definitely a part of the journey]

I rejected womanhood, studied gender and sex and bimodal distributions and decided fuck the binary and yeah fuck bimodal too, there's more than 2 ends the genders are spread between. [Tldr: I was officially calling myself trans. Just trans.]

My gender is largely null (agender), but also fluid (it irks me when I try on transfem clothing that my friends who think of me as not-a-woman see as kowtowing to cis feminity when I'm wearing a dress not as a cis woman but as a trans person who is acting unusually transfem--or, it's not unusual, I like pretty dresses, they just don't see it as much so they freak out. Just. I'm wearing the damn dress in a trans way, ok). I'm generally more masc leaning--butchy vibes without actually being butch. But I'm transfem sometimes, or just a little bit all the time, too. How is it transmisogyny to recognize the transness of my expressed femininity?

But I honestly think that's not the point of the objection. The objection is (using quotes here to represent speech, not actual direct quotes) "AFAB person calling themself transfem is transmisogyny because this not-woman is saying transfem [meaning transwoman] means 'not fully a woman.'" But. Transfem=/=transwoman. But the transfem [meaning transwoman] interpretation is like, beneath the conscious level of awareness, because it only applies to transfem *sometimes,* and the objector just...isn't seeing that. And is understandably upset at a perceived injustice. But like. It's pretty clear that there's a logical disconnect. And I think it's the implicit distinct definitions of transfem[feminine in a trans way but not necessarily a woman vs transfem[meaning transwoman] at work.

And I'd talk to the person directly but they've been receiving both well meaning and distinctly unfriendly feedback already and I don't want to add to the dogpile. I think we basically agree, even if the terminology is getting in the way: transfem belongs to trans people identifying as transfem, regardless of their current gender or AGAB. Trans that femininity! Yes!

[abyssal-werewolf]

I understand your frustration, but I can't help but feel like - and I don't mean this in a judgy way, just as neutral feedback - you're a bit too salty about this?? I'm not trying to start a fight or sound snappy or whatever, but it's just...

okay, let's start here: a huge part of the community are children, yes. that means most of the actual lifestyle-ish advice will be targeted towards folk still in school or just barely out of it. a 16 year old high schooler can't really give you advice on how to deal with your job (sorry, this sentence sounds kinda snappy but I can't seem to word it any better). I'm 22 and currently in university, living on my own with my boyfriend, we have to pay bills, manage the apartment, etc - advice for how to deal with shifts in school isn't helpful for me either and yeah, that kinda sucks, but those kids CAN'T give me advice on anything else lmao. also, from the POV of a teenager, anyone over Idk 25 (or even younger maybe) probably seems like a Real Adult and basically ancient. So naturally, those "old otherkin" are treated as community elders in a way, which makes sense because you very very rarely find nonhumans over 30 here on tumblr. doesn't mean they don't exist obviously, but they're probably on other websites and in forums. what I mean is (again, in a neutral way): if you feel weird in a community this young, maybe tumblr just isn't the right place for you. it's natural for generations to kind of, chill in seperate places because The Vibes of older and younger people are just different from each other. So, they will each find their own places and if you feel like the community here is too young for you, that's okay! but that doesn't mean the community is bad or "internet poisoned" - it's just not what you vibe with. what I'm mainly trying to say, is: I understand your disappointment, I really do, but instead of dwelling on this and seemingly forcing yourself to try and participate in a community that doesn't feel good to you, maybe you should try to focus your energy on finding places that DO feel nice and fitting.

on the definition of otherhearted: to my knowledge, the distinction is pretty clear. otherkin = identify as vs. otherhearted = identify with. I AM a werewolf but I see myself IN ravens. and about the whole "everyone had to figure it out for themselves" - yeah. that's the thing with identity after all. definitions and words can help to find ways to express what you feel, but you have to find out what you feel on your own. that does suck sometimes, true, but you saying you could learn more about yourself from a meet-up with other nonhumans than you could from reading essays just points this out. essays can give you words and insight in other's experiences but only you and your feelings can tell you what you are any which words might describe you. the same goes for coping mechanisms, what might work for others might not work for you. you can look for helpful tips online, but in the end you have to figure out how to deal with your urges at your workplace. I'm sorry, maybe I'm reading too much into your post, but that part of it just seems like you expect others to give you a definite guide on how to deal with your specific situation...

Lastly, I have to admit that I maybe took your post a tiny bit personal?? as in, I didn't feel attacked (that would be fucking pathetic anyway lmao) but I felt called to comment on it in a hopefully constructive way. Idk, something just doesn't sit entirely right with me when you call a panel someone put work into "useless garbage", just because it wasn't helpful to you personally. Also, I agree that a lot of discourse is pointless, but certainly not all of it - and you don't have to participate in it of course, but you just seem a little judgy towards people who do (and basically same thing with the comment on the "you're valid"-stuff, a huge chunk of it is annoying and useless, true, but just generally calling it stupid is... meh)

anyway, Idk if I will regret my long-ass comment or not, but to end this: I don't want to start a fight, nor do I have anything against you personally (I don't know you after all lol), nor am I angry or whatever. I just wanted to offer you a sort of different perspective ok things and also just, feedback. hopefully no bad blood after this and good day/night from your probably not-so-local werewolf ^^

Sorry for being so inactive lately... been busy irl, and have been meaning to post here more often, but also, like... I always feel a bit shy approaching the 'kin communities on here because it kind of feels like everyone is sort of... "internet poisoned"? For lack of a possibly-better word. A lot of folks here on tumblr in the 'kin and alterhuman communities are children, and a lot of more prominent community figures treated like "elders" are only about my age or younger, and it feels really strange, to be honest. There's a lot of discussion of feelings and terminology, but very little "lifestyle"? It's like there's a universal expectation for everyone to just figure everything out on their own; you get some definitions here and there yeah, but the amount of variance says much more loudly "just figure out what it all means on your own, pal". ex. Not only can no one actually explain what "otherhearted" actually means sans relation to otherkin, but it feels like I never see anyone talk about dealing with what one could call "kin feels" in the workplace, when unable to acquire your habitat, etc... Othercon is online-only, and while I'm pretty sure I'd be unable to attend an in-person event, part of me has a hard time feeling like everyone is really taking it all seriously and is really unafraid of being "cringe" when obviously it's so much easier to act like you're so confident online. I kinda feel like meeting some wolfkin stereotypes in a park for snacks and doing a group howl would do more for me than years of reading essays on tumblr ever has.

I dunno, I tried watching a recording of an Othercon panel I felt would be relevant and useful to me once, and was floored at just how... utterly useless it was. Despite its promising title, it was just shallow "you're valid" garbage and internet discourse... Makes me feel severely alienated, to be honest.

[thebisexualdogdad]

I was wondering if you could tell me about how you found out you are trans? Is just in having doubts about my gender identity recently but I’m not sure because I don’t have strong gender dysphoria. Also my therapist told me is probably just a phase but idk.

If you don’t want to or are uncomfortable just ignore this don’t worry.

Subconsciously I always knew but it just wasn't something I thought about because no one ever told me I could be. Like as a kindergartener my parents got called into parent teacher conferences many times because my teacher was "concerned" that I only wore boys clothes, hated playing dolls and house with the other girls and instead played with the dinosaurs and pokemon with the boys and generally I just fit in better with the boys etc. I always hated the idea of being a girl and wished i had been born a boy and once puberty hit I became super uncomfortable with my body and wore a jacket every single day to cover my chest from about 6th to 12th grade even in California heatwaves. Adults always told me that it was a phase, I was a tomboy and I'd grow out of it so I just ignored everything I was feeling.

I figured out i was queer first. My first celebrity crush at 5 years old was Lucy Liu in Charlie's angels and I had a total obsession with Jennifer Love Hewitt in ghost whisperer in middle school but again I just didn't think about it until freshman year of high school when the og pretty little liars came out and i saw Emily's story and went oh shit I like girls and don't really like guys so i must be gay so for many years i identified as a gay woman. Then at 19 I randomly watched a trans male youtubers coming out story and again it just clicked, I went Oh shit I'm a guy. At 21 after I started watching shadowhunters and saw Alec who i immediately fell in love with I realized I was actually bisexual and my dislike for men during my teenage years was really me experiencing severe gender envy and being jealous that i didnt look like them and wasnt percieved as a man like them.

Also at 21 I came out to two of my closest friends and one of them who i had been friends with since the first grade response was literally "Yeah I know" and I asked him how he knew and he said "whenever we played video games as kids you always picked the male avatars and most of the time you named them Dylan so your new name also makes sense."

So here's the thing, I know there's a lot of discourse about "people who don't experience much dysphoria can't be trans" but the only person who can truly know your identity is you. Everyone has a different relationship with thier body and just because you may not experience dysphoria the same way someone else does doesn't mean you aren't trans/non binary. If you feel in your heart like you are the opposite gender of which you were born, you're trans (or non binary if you feel like you are neither or genderfluid if you feel like various genders).

It's also perfectly okay for your identity to change. You can go some period of time thinking you are one gender and then later on go well actually I think I'm this gender or this gender non conforming identity now. Just like sexuality, gender is a spectrum and it's complex but it's your identity and you are allowed to identify and express yourself however you want.

[trans-clown-catgirl]

Prismasexual/Prismaromantic/Prismatic identity; elaboration below readmore. (Click for better quality!! Tumblr preview destroys image quality!) PROSHIP RADFEM ETC DNI

Alright, so! There's a problem many people like me are faced with sooner or later. Between discourse, different definitions, online arguments, answers depending on who you ask, where you ask them, etc etc; picking a label for your way of liking multiple genders becomes a bit hard. Bi, pan, omnisexual, among many others; the answers tend to feel uncertain and a bit hazy. Sometimes, you really don't wanna pick one either due to fear of saying you're something you're not, feeling like none of these quite fit you right, or just not wanting to choose at all for one reason or another; As such, I decided to start brainstorming ideas for a label that could solve these issues; as well as one I'd feel comfortable using. Prismasexual is an orientation which covers attraction to multiple genders; and nothing else. No specifics, it can be any preference, any pick of genders, anything; it's an umbrella term for anyone attracted to more than one gender. It doesn't matter how said attraction manifests itself or how it's expressed, if it's there, then Prismasexual fits the bill. Similar to Sapphic in a way; an identity that covers attraction to women and fem people in general, regardless of if it's just women, fem people, or anyone else. (Note; the original intent was not to make it resemble the Sapphic identity, it's just a comparison I felt could clear up the use of Prismatic.) Alternate names are Prismaromantic and Prismatic! For example, you could say ''I'm Prismatic'' to refer to your orientation, or you could go with Prismaromantic if you're asexual! This flag is free to use and edit! Credit for it upon use is appreciated, though! What's also appreciated is constructive criticism for the design, meanings, and overall look of the flag! If I can improve it, I totally will!

Note that I am no graphic designer; this is just my best attempt at making something I think is distinct enough and looks nice, without being too similar to other flags.

And as a finishing touch, here's the flag in a circle, because I think it looks really really nice that way

[thefudge]

Just out of curiosity, did you read JK's essay? I don't support everything in it but many parts resonated with me. Not to mention the horrific online abuse hurled at her, especially the countless, countless "choke on my dick" phrases thrown at her which are so violently misogynistic, it left me with a deep seated feeling of not only discomfort but fear as well. Idk I guess I just felt safe sending this because your blog seems more open to discussion from the other side instead of instant cancel.

i’m glad you think so about this blog and i hope that remains the case.

i didn’t have a chance to read JK’s essay until today (my previous ask about her was written before that) but here are some very, very imperfect thoughts on it:

the essay confirmed my previous take that she has inoculated herself against certain outside arguments but it’s also made me wonder about JK’s understanding of gender and sex. She is very attached to “natal women” and calling all people who menstruate “women” because of “common experiences”, despite the fact that her beloved de Beauvoir, whom she quotes in the essay extensively, acknowledged that “woman” is a social construct. JK herself at one point complains about having to comply with the rules of femininity while growing up and how it made her want to stop being female, so what is the truth? She argues that young girls shouldn’t be thinking about transitioning just because they are made to hate their femaleness but that’s!!! exactly what!!! pushing the term “woman” as sacrosanct does to girls!!! most of what JK felt in her childhood was the kind of misogyny which connects women strictly to their uterus. it made being male a better alternative precisely because of the gate-keeping of penis/vagina. a young girl who acted like a tomboy, for instance, would be criticized for trying to deny her sex, because deep down her biology still made her a “woman”. both sex and gender cannot be divorced from socio-cultural realities, because we act with our bodies and embody what we act. so, if we expand what it means to be a “man” and a “woman”, we liberate, not confine. JK wants young people to feel free to be whoever they want to be, but they must be called “women” when discussing menstruation or else (i won’t even go into the obvious addition that many cis and trans women exist who cannot or no longer menstruate).

Now, she does bring up some fair points about cancel culture and freedom of expression that I will level with, but the problem is that the nuancing she is trying to achieve also serves as weirdly specific dog-whistling. So let me address that:

(warning: spoilers for the Cormoran Strike series)

Right off the bat, we have this explanation added in her intro: 

“On one level, my interest in this issue has been professional, because I’m writing a crime series, set in the present day, and my fictional female detective is of an age to be interested in, and affected by, these issues herself (...)”  

and already, i’m asking questions. how is Robin Ellacott, one of the protagonists of the Strike series, “affected" by these issues, personally? she’s “of an age” to...what? be gender critical? there’s not a lot of that in the novels (unless you count Robin being tall and knowing how to drive well being framed as anti-girly...).  How does crime relate to it? How is she connected to this really? 

the real connection JK wants us to see because she’ll reveal it later in the essay is that Robin was r*ped in college. she’s a sexual assault survivor, which must make her critically engaged with the fate of trans women because....because underneath JK’s empty statement about her female detective....is the correlation that men “disguised” as trans women can perpetrate the same sort of horrific abuse.  she keeps making this correlation throughout the essay.

Here she talks about various people who’ve reached out to her:

They’re worried about the dangers to young people, gay people and about the erosion of women’s and girl’s rights. Above all, they’re worried about a climate of fear that serves nobody – least of all trans youth – well.

And again here:

“So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.”

This one is my favorite because it’s so twisted (here she’s listing her charity work):

“The second reason is that I’m an ex-teacher and the founder of a children’s charity, which gives me an interest in both education and safeguarding. Like many others, I have deep concerns about the effect the trans rights movement is having on both.”

“safeguarding”

hmmmm

What JK wants to spell out with these “common sense” arguments is that she fears that trans women are predatory, and the most convincing argument she can bring, ultimately, is that she herself has been the victim of sexual abuse and therefore, that potential fear never goes away. That’s a very dangerous leap to make. The climate of “fear” she mentions is also connected to cancel culture, of course. She fears women won’t be able to express their opinions online without receiving various amounts of vitriol. But you see how she has merged all three issues together? So that if you agree with one, you must agree with the others. Because yes, cancel culture often goes too far, and yes it is a real issue, but to say that the trans community shutting her down foments the same atmosphere of “fear” as boogie trans women hurting children in bathrooms and her being abused by her cis husband… that’s a veeery slippery slope. Instead of sticking to “freedom of speech” and whatnot, she keeps correlating these issues that should not be correlated (some of them being false issues, as well).  

Is there too much opprobrium around discussions of trans identity? Yes. Are there worthy discussions to be had about young women, homophobia and gender dysphoria? Absolutely. Can being trans become a fashionable trend/identity among kids, like the bygone goth and emo labels? Sure, but these discussions shouldn’t be had at the expense of trans people who have to constantly prove that they “mean” it. Because by stringing up all these issues together, JK is saying “the kids don’t know any better, and the adults are faking it”. Yes, cancel culture is impeding dialogue, yes, we shouldn’t shy away from discussing young teens’ identity problems, but if you pile up all of these things in a giant “trans women are the problem and they might be predatory too” milkshake, you won’t get anywhere.

I want to come back to this quote:

The second reason is that I’m an ex-teacher and the founder of a children’s charity, which gives me an interest in both education and safeguarding. Like many others, I have deep concerns about the effect the trans rights movement is having on both.

Beyond the (in my opinion) not very tasteful enumeration of things she’s done to help, JK’s mention of “education” there is veeery interesting. On the one hand, she probably feels that schools will try to censor “free speech”, but on the other hand, I bet she’s also concerned schools will not do enough censoring, so that impressionable kids become pressured into adopting a trans identity. You see how it flips on a dime? What does she ultimately want children to learn about this? Does she want them to be kept in the dark completely? Does she want them to be allowed to critique or invalidate trans identities without being censored? On this second point, things get complicated. Schools and institutions will naturally censor free speech.  Kids are there to learn how to express that free speech; they will be told “hey, don’t say that to your colleague, it’s not very kind” or “you need to structure your argument appropriately instead of just saying “I don’t like it””. Is there room for criticism in how schools operate that benevolent censorship? Obviously. Hell, Foucault & co. have been talking about this for decades. So what does this argument about education ultimately mean? What are we protecting the kids from? Imo, it goes back to that covert argument about sexual violence.    

Since I’m a teacher too, I’ll talk about my own experience: I brought some texts to my undergrad class about the trans experience with the goal of 1) building empathy, because literature is the grand unifier of experience and 2) showing different literary perspectives which i also included within literary theory. ultimately, the trans experience is about being human. we were learning about being human, nothing more, nothing less. if younger kids end up treating it as a fad it means that a) they need more, not less education,  b) parents and schools should work together to make them understand that being trans is not the same as being “emo”, for instance. this partially resembles the trend of white kids adopting black culture just because it’s cool, but not actually engaging with the black experience. who do you sanction for this? black people? because in this analogy, the trans community should be responsible for children not benefiting from education and parental support.

oh, I know what JK is saying. the trans community is responsible for shutting down conversations about this. it’s part of the general climate of tiptoeing around trans issues. yes, here I can agree with her that Twitter discourse either helps build sympathy or loathing for the “cancelled” person instead of seriously grappling with what that person has done. it’s the nature of Twitter and I hate it, but to go from that to saying women and young girls are in danger from other “fake” women really undermines her own argument. There are normal pitfalls as we try to incrementally do some good in this world. Cancel culture and the deplatforming and ruining of lives of certain individuals will not promote the cause and is certainly to be frowned upon, but JK will be absolutely fine. there are hashtags right now like “istandwithJK” and there’s a slew of people who support her. the misogyny she faces is deplorable, but we shouldn’t conflate valid criticism with trollish vulgarities. I don’t want to minimize the dangers of online culture; I know people have lost jobs and livelihood, but that is a discussion to be had under different parameters, admitting the responsibility of both parties (for example, maya forstater realizing that maybe saying some hurtful things about public figures and proudly talking about the “delusion” of transwomen will come back to bite her in the ass) and the fact that under capitalism, your job is always at the whim of appearances and simulacrums. essentially, you are the job. this is a state of things that deserves a larger discussion not on the back of the trans community. should we live in a world where you are allowed to say anything, free of consequences? some of us do, because we can say whatever we want in our head, in our room, in our house (other ppl aren’t so lucky), but the trouble starts in the public sphere. even if we wanted to build a public sphere where everything goes, we’d be at each other’s throats in five seconds anyway because we’re human. the most we can do is educate and correct where we can.  “facts don’t care about your feelings” discourse is often not informed by facts at all and forgets the vital importance of feelings.

anyway, that’s my incomplete take. still lots to think about and debate. ultimately, i think any fair points JK brought up were tainted by other bad-faith arguments and i wish she’d use this time to self-reflect because this isn’t a topic that should be breezed past in 3k words. nor should young trans ppl be called “adorable” (facepalm). i myself have many questions and constantly grapple with all of this, but since she’s a writer (and for better or worse, i still like her books), she is in a perfect position to investigate the matter with kindness and stop giving ultimatums. and i hope this post fosters discussion and doesn’t shut anyone down.

( forgot to mention that other nifty subplot in the Strike series about these really unlikable kids who are transabled and experience BID ( Body integrity dysphoria)  and want to have a disability. Strike is super-offended by them since he’s genuinely disabled and we as readers are meant to think they’re real pieces of shit, and while transableism is suuuuper complicated and my thoughts on it vary wildly, i do think those BID kids also stand in for other folks in her mind..again, food for thought.)

[nonbinaryresource]

Hi, so I recently started considering myself genderqueer, because I'm not exactly "nonbinary" but something about whatever my gender is is just kind of "off", like I know I'm definitely not cis, but I'm not quite anything, but I still hold ties to "female", but I don't think demigirl expresses my feelings of gender, and I feel like genderqueer fits that whole description. But on the nonbinary wiki it said it could be "anti trans" and more politically charged, when I just like it because it (1)

(2) fits my feelings. Is genderqueer really that divisive? Will I be unwelcome in the trans community? I really like the term because of how I have interpreted it, but I'm concerned I chose "wrong". I know there're no "wrong" terms when it comes to describing yourself, but now I'm worried that to others it's a "bad" concept. I kind of regret reading the wiki since it planted that doubt, but I just wanted to learn more about the history. Is there somewhere good/positive I can read about it?

I went and looked this up because I was confused myself! Here’s the quote from the nonbinary: Difference Between Nonbinary and Genderqueer

Genderqueer means non-normative or queer gender while nonbinary means gender that falls outside the gender binary model. Both of these terms are extremely similar in scope, however in practice their connotations are significantly different.

Genderqueer comes with the anti-assimilationist political connotations of queer, which is a reclaimed slur word with strong associations with a countercultural sexuality movement that sets itself apart from the mainstream LGBT community. (Note that the word "queer" is still actively used as a pejorative and hate speech in many regions.) As such genderqueer implies a similar counterculture, setting itself apart from mainstream transgender discourse. Most genderqueer people also consider themselves to be queer and there is a strong trend of rejecting the gender binary and normative gender roles with in the Queer Movement as a whole.

By contrast, nonbinary is more politically neutral in its connotations. Nonbinary was coined as a descriptive term, originally simply 'nonbinary gender', used to describe the range of experiences that fall outside of the binary gender model. There is no countercultural anti-transgender discourse connotation, nor is there a connotation of association with the wider Queer Movement. Nonbinary is intended to simply cover the widest range of identities and experiences without intending to describe their political or cultural philosophies and affiliations.

Perhaps @nonbinarywiki​ could help clear this up, but I personally feel that this is just - er, rather poor wording. I think it was just trying to come up with another way of saying "political statement”??? Because honestly, it doesn’t really even make sense to me. >_

Genderqueer is definitely not divisive as the implication above! At least in my experience, it’s certainly not “anti-trans”. It’s simply more of a specific political statement within your identity (like queer!) than nonbinary is.

We’ve actually reblogged some stuff about the history of genderqueer before!

This post is by @genderqueerpositivity, who seems to have coined the term, so definitely worth the read! http://genderqueerpositivity.tumblr.com/post/174270999318/i-coined-the-term-genderqueer-back-in-the-1990s

I coined the term “genderqueer” back in the 1990s in an effort to glue together two nouns that seemed to me described an excluded and overlooked middle: those of us who were not only queer but were so because we were the kind of gender trash society couldn’t digest.

The full piece is really touching and exciting to get to read!

Here’s a post that goes deep into the definition, as well as specifically talks about the same as the wiki above in the differences between nonbinary and genderqueer: http://genderqueerid.com/post/11617933299/the-non-binary-vs-genderqueer-quandary

To put this complicated issue as simply as possible: non-binary refers to gender that is not binary (not man nor woman) and genderqueer refers to gender that is queer (non-normative). Because gender that is not binary may be regarded as “queer” because it is not normative, it becomes easy to see why these terms have been used interchangeably. However, queer is also often used in a radical or political context, so some who may otherwise have considered themselves genderqueer may feel distanced from the term, or more closely aligned with it, due to this association. In short, genderqueer is often non-binary (except for in the case of referring to expression / performance exclusively), but not all non-binary identified people may consider themselves genderqueer for a variety of reasons, which I will discuss. 

[...]

As a stand-alone identity, genderqueer may cover the “it’s complicated” arena of gender, refer to presentation as well as personal identity, and/or be used in place of or alongside more specific identities that may be considered non-binary (androgyne, bigender, and so on). The clearest way I’ve found to describe genderqueer is using a 5-pronged definition: genderqueer identities may include those who identify as 1. both man and woman, 2. neither man nor woman, 3. moving between two or more genders, 4. third gendered or other-gendered (includes those who prefer “genderqueer” or “non-binary” to describe their gender), 5. having an overlap or blur of gender and orientation and/or sex". The downside to this is potentially incorporating individuals who would not identify themselves as genderqueer; when this may be the case, it is generally better to use the specific identity in question rather than a term that the individual or group may not prefer.

Definitely go read the whole post by @gqid, though! It’s really well written and very enlightening!

You can search through more posts in our genderqueer tag that may be of interest to you as well.

That being said, genderqueer is absolutely politically charged (which is part of why I like it so much). And, of course, as with any identity, you’re likely to run into people who will want to police your label and put it down and erase it and act like you’re just looking for attention, and that’s not because a label is bad or whatever. It’s because that person is exorsexist. And how you want to delicately step around people reacting to your identity can certainly play into how you decide to label, and there’s no shame in that.

I hope this helps, and good luck!

~Tera

[onewomancitadel]

RWBY despite being criticized as a mindless children's show has a lot of interesting ideas and I think Knightfall is one of them. It's profound message of redemption and forgiveness through which spawns love is the one thing so desperately needed in our polarized society right now. Everyone on opposite sides demonizing the other and refusing to even acknowledge your perceived "enemy" as a human being. No one willing to be brave enough to extend a hand. But Jaune is. Thats what makes him a Hero.

I'm not sure I've seen the criticism that R/WBY is a mindless children's show? Whoever said that is obviously being disingenuous, and I take major issue with kidult media anyway (which I don't feel R/WBY is). I don't think children's media should be mindless at all either, but in the case of R/WBY I think it's clear the storytelling is both thoughtful and expects its audience to be mature. There's not a tonal dissonance.

I don't really agree with your approach of grounding/justifying Knightfall and a redemption arc in a polarised society though, I don't think you can control art and peoples' reaction to it that way nor do I think the ultimate purpose of fiction is to be morally didactic - in fact, that's exactly why I take issue with you describing it as not children's media but then celebrating its didactic purpose, because didactic purpose, to me, is indelibly tied to children's media.

Intellectually I think that Knightfall/redemption arcs that it's tied to are generally more narratively interesting and make you think and in the instance of R/WBY answers the story in a thematically justified way that it has naturally built up to when people think the story is going to be some stale solution to killing Salem and all the baddies I guess. Whether that means you come to the same conclusion as everyone else is a different matter.

One of the reasons I'm cynical on this front is because it didn't matter how hard The Force Awakens or The Last Jedi humanised Kylo Ren - and we're talking on a massive scale here, a juggernaut virtual cultural myth - fanatic spaces online predominated the narrative with the idea he was some type of modern political ideologue responsible for everything wrong ever and also abusive and evil and bad and women who like him have only themselves to blame when they're abused and this is everything wrong with modern society. On a General Audience level, yes, I think there was real sympathy there, and a lot of people feel his character was at least memorable in a trilogy that ultimately failed, with The Rise of Skywalker, to express its own identity, but I don't think that overnight that indicated a change in the perception of redemption arcs, sympathising with the enemy and transgressing boundaries, or romance in general; none of these are new ideas (quite literally, with SW it goes back to Vader), and for that matter romance used to be a guaranteed hit in the box office. There's just a sentiment now that that is for stuffy girls, in a market that has divided itself through branding. You can't have romance paired with serious plot, because serious plot and action is for Audience A (men) and true romance tied to the story is for Audience B (women), and if you cross those streams you risk your investment (supposedly, because they're stupid). That's why the commitment to Reylo was tepid and couldn't end with Rey and Kylo together.

But this is exactly what I think is special about R/WBY because they're not limited by that.

I don't like the idea of a story that I think is personally - emotionally - intellectually - philosophically stimulating being reduced down to its social value. I get that it lends serious credence to a story - you can argue for its actual substantial worth by the good it does by adding to some type of discourse - but I think actually it can exist for its own stimulating and meaningful sake... whether or not there were divisive political discourse (which there has always been). On a personal level, we encounter the idea of failure and empathy every single day of our lives. Whether or not this story has ultimate higher diadactic purpose, the feelings this type of story lends - on a fundamental level, on a level that transcends whatever political discourse you're introducing - is actually valuable in a way that's hard to describe. So if anything, I feel that you're underestimating storytelling; this is the stuff of stars, not just the thing that forces me to relate to other people.

That is the way you can relate to people, though, and I think that's kind of the irony. That type of fundamental connection and enjoyment of a story that touches you on a level that is often not described very well by politics (so often people characterise politics as some abstract mass; not something that defines your community, your neighbours, your homeless, your refugees, your unions, your local member, so on and so forth... that is politics). When I talk to the older lady who lives across from me about The Queen's Gambit and she mentions she stayed up all night to watch it, that is what storytelling is for. When I tell my dad his favourite book series is being adapted into a film (Dune), that's what it's for.

I think what is so compelling about Knightfall is that in every which way, it is totally self-justified and it's something that you have to really care about and take the story seriously to 'get'. You're not dumb if you don't, not by any means, I think that if it becomes clearer textually then it will reveal itself, but even that's insufficient for some fans who are narratively cynical and self-involved. How do you tell a story to people who don't want to listen?

No one willing to be brave enough to extend a hand. But Jaune is. Thats what makes him a Hero.

But the irony of what you're pointing out here is that... that's not who he starts the story as. That's not who he starts out Volume 5 as! That's the person he learns to become. Exactly what you're describing about what people should learn is the consequence of Jaune's character arc. He's not out of the box born a perfectly good person who understands what the right thing to do is. He fails! He learns! He loses! Pyrrha, the model Huntress, dies! And he's left! Why him!!!! For what purpose!!!!!!! It's not just because he's made right, it's not because he's just a hero (or capital H Hero), it's because he learns to look closer and he learns the point of the story along the way. He's someone who cares. His superpower is compassion as an externalised force!!!!

If anything I think the point not being sold here is that... the evolution of Jaune's character in tandem with Cinder's is actually incredibly exciting. The idea that you don't just have a redemption arc, you have another character married to that arc who is learning and changing along the way - who might start to see the conflict for what it is, who himself raged at the very fabric of it, who was set up to see there was something fundamentally off here, that there's more to it - is actually so incredibly exciting on a technical level and is exactly what gets me going about Knightfall. It's not just that Cinder needs someone to reach out to her - it's that Jaune needs someone to reach out to him. The development is reciprocal, the change is reciprocal, it goes even further than they can conceive (or we do). That's why I think it's Jaune and not anyone else: because he's so expertly set up for it, to notice something's wrong and to be bothered about it, to change in his own way, to be challenged, to wonder what he's here for, exactly. It's not Pyrrha or Raven or Emerald or Mercury or Penny or Winter or Ruby (at first) or Watts or Tyrian or Neo or even Salem herself who can do it, not at all. If you're going to make Cinder's redemption arc a special case, someone's got to be fit to the task.

The heroism and the Huntsmandom and all of that are the titles they give you after the story is over and done with. Before that, they're just someone who cares and is trying.

I get what you're trying to convey in this ask, and it's a nice ask; there's only so much you can say in so many words, and I have much more space to work with to quibble, and I don't expect you to follow every post I make. But I do think, ironically enough, you're underselling exactly how interesting Knightfall is, and how interesting Jaune himself is (and Cinder, by extension), and it's coming from an angle I don't think is fundamentally something I agree with or is generally tenable. I should expect, though, if you sent this ask, you have some idea of who I am, and how I tend to reply to asks. If anything, I should hope this conveys how much more powerful this type of storytelling really is.

[androgynousblackbox]

First of all, it's very hard to even take you seriously when you claim that truscum ideology is only about non binary people, and it's never about binary people who dared to express their gender in unconventional ways. Non binary are shit on, but trans women who dared to embrace their masculinity or trans men who liked to be femenine were shat on and continue to be by those same people. It's always about gender conformity, medical gender conformity to be more exact, and that was always going to fuck over EVERYONE, not just non binary folks. Like, my person, I don't know how to tell you that some us are non binary men or women so we had to face that backlash on both those forms. Like either we don't understand what non binary is, non binary is confusing or we are just confused representation of our agabs who can't accept we just like the color pink or whatever the fuck. Fuck off with the idea that this didn't messed up entire generations of binary trans people and especially trans men. I was fucking there when this shitty discourse was at it's high so don't fucking tell me this only ever targetted one group. say "trenders" and "fujoshis" and "theyfabs" they are not talking about trans men and I feel like that's pretty obvious.

Wrong, and you would know how wrong you are if you had talked with any trans man who has interacted with queer content in fandom long enough. The amount of times my transmasc ass has been misgendered and compared to "fetishizing straight woman" is not even fucking funny. The amount of times that people had tried to say that ONLY straight fetishizing women even ENJOY queer content at all has been a staple of truscum for as long they shitty ideas have existed. Also, are you fucking for real saying that "trenders" doesn't mean trans man ever? Under what fucking rock have you been hiding lol? Like, when truscum were somehow being taken seriously trans men, especially those that dared to be GNC, were ALWAYS the butt of the joke even if they never claimed any non binary identity? The idea that truscum only ever targetted those ridiculous nonbinaries and never ended up hurting or attacking trans men is LAUGHABLE, and you either enter the discourse literally just last week or have been dismissing the real pain of transmasc people for a long fucking time. I can go right now to youtube and find at least a good portion of trans men/transmasc people all talking about how truscum ideology personally hurt them and how their shitty ideology fuck them specifically for way too long. Like, seriously, just use your head for a second. If you keep shitting on afab people specifically for claiming a masculine identity but also mock them for not being masculine enough, how the fuck do you figure out that is never going to affect trans men? If you ever read the comments is going to be a lot more people saying the exact same thing.

Calling people "fujoshis" was not a "terf move" that transmeds

It literally is, the fuck you talking about. There is literally a post of the first anti-fujoshi blogs on tumblr basically being "we believe that all trans men are fujoshi who are taking their yaoi fantasies too far", and that has been the bulk of anti-fujoshi sentiment since then. Literally hang out around those circles and I fucking promise you somewhere, somehow, is going to utter those words and a queer transmasc who heard it is going to be affected by it because, oh no, what if they are actually a straight fetishizing woman all along?!

Once again, for the people in the back: anti-fujoshi sentiments are going to feed back into homophobia and transphobia, and the only people who actually benefit from having that shit normalized are going to be the kind of people who would prefer queer people to stop existing.

Gender conforming medically transitioned binary trans men who exclusively use he/him are not getting called "fujoshi" the way a feminine presenting transmasc who uses neutral pronouns and isn't on hormones is.

Sorry to break it to you, but this is entirely bullshit. I have seen anti fujoshi people going after the most passing trans guys you have ever seen in your fucking life and talking about how he was taking his yaoi fantasies too far. Go to literally any fucking terf space where they talk about trans men and it doesn't matter how buff he is, how much surgeries he had or how deep his voice has become, if he dares to be queer you will see fujoshi being thrown out A LOT. Like fuck, I literally just showed to you a screenshot with the example on the first post, how the fuck did you missed that? Anti fujoshi people hates us ALL, they hate queer people, they hate anything that reminds them that we exist, so every single one of us is just as delusional as whatever stereotype of a snow flake truscum can draw as far they care about.

For context: this transmed (gender-//is-//dead) made a post complaining about a hashtag on twitter where a bunch of gender non conforming and non binary people participated with selfies where they dared to use make up and be colorful. According to OP this had nothing to do with wanting visibility for trans people, but about make trans people look like a joke, somehow. These are just some of the comments on said post.

Friendly reminder that when you rally against fujoshi, this is what you cause. Friendly reminder that insult trans men calling them fujoshi was originally a terf’s move, something they promoted from the start here on tumblr, and now is being picked up by transmed in order to dismiss, misgender and insult trans people who are not conventional like them. Oh, but transmed and terfs are not buddies, right? Give me a break. Friendly reminder that when you say “fujoshi” when you mean “homophobic women”, unless it’s legit ignorance, these people feel validated to keep weaponizing it against specifically queer trans men. Because, obviously, nobody wants to be a fujoshi, right? Being a fujoshi is horrible! It’s an insult, right? So why wouldn’t they use it as such when you are doing it too? If you know this, or heard about this, but keep making the same mistake because you refuse to not slap a japanese label onto western homophobic women, then, on my eyes, you are no less malicious, toxic and unsafe to have around.

[sagebodisattva]

Open Individualism and the Platypus

So let's talk a little about open individualism, the view in the philosophy of personal identity, according to which there exists only one numerically identical subject, which is everyone at all times. I'm sure that this idea doesn't sit well with the majority of you, as I'm sure most of you like to fancy yourself a special little snowflake; a unique outstanding individual who is markedly different then everyone else. This would constitute the definition of individuality, would it not? Well, let's look at it. Because it's this type of thinking that has the world divided in a major way.

We look at other people and judge them for their conditions, but this assumes that their conditions are unquestionably below, or beyond us, that somehow, because we are on a different path, that we are in a superior position; a position that is holier then thou. Now I say "condition" instead of karma, because karma is a term that comes with a load of connotations, but really, that's all really karma means: a current condition. And yeah, a condition can change based on many factors, like actions, thoughts, and intentions, which will potentially bring varying results. Causes that bring effects that result in a condition. Karma is a distinction specialized to highlight the condition of sentient creatures specifically, which is why the term was coined, rather then just using a word like condition. Like we wouldn't speak about an object's karma because, even though an object does have a condition, it can't make choices to influence it's condition.

But I bring up karma, because people toss it around so often, and recklessly, even going so far as to act like they are some kind of karma police or something. You hear and read these things all the time on the internet, with statements like:

“Karma's a bitch!”

“Yeah, fuck with me and karma is gonna kick your ass three times over!”

“Yeah, he got what he deserved, karma caught up with him!”

Can we please stop with this nonsense already? Karma isn't some punishing judgmental force that roams around the planet doling out discipline. And who are you to be speaking like some representative of karma who can warn people on it's behalf? As if you are some close friend of karma, which will make it especially pissed off, if someone out there dares to mess with you. Would you stop it? Karma is a condition, not some metaphysical weapon to wish upon someone.

There's that vindicate merciless judge, so eager to assign sentences and carry out executions. And now, able to send the karma thug to torture you in the name of justice.

“Yeah, karma's a bitch, then you die!”

Once again, we only say these things because we assume a separation. We like the “us and them”, paradigm, and engage in otherization as often as we can. But what if the person that you assume is an “other”, was really just another version of yourself? Then what? Oh my goodness, perish the thought.

“Oh no, that just can't be. I'm six feet tall. I have an IQ of 115. I am of English descent. I am a male. I am a republican. I am Catholic. I am upper class. I am an exclusive member of the secret society Brotherhood of the Enlightened Platypus!”

Sigh.

You might agree that this kind of arrogance is ridiculous to hang a hat on, but it's even doubly more ridiculous considering all of these types of identifications are patently false.

“How's that?”

That's right. These types of identifications are a steaming pile of platypus shit.

“Oh but what do you mean? Are you saying that I'm not a tall, smart, high class catholic, republican English male that's part of the platypus society? ha ha ha.”

That's right. That's exactly what I am saying. In all actuality, you are none of those things. These are little identification teats for little non-existent suckling piglets. And what makes it triply worse, and often inspires the urge to vomit all over the computer screen, is all these bickering stalwarts, engaging in venomous discourse over mundane illusory identifications. And you know what I'm talking about; as most of you listening to the sound of my voice right now, are engaged in some type of superficial attribute mongering. Whether it be along the lines of gender, sexuality, race, religion, politics, or class may vary, but one way or another, you are in some sort of camp. A camp with an erected flag. And so, no, you are not neutral. You are not unbiased. Hence, you are un-objective.

But you have opinions and express them with an impassioned obsessive fervor! And oh what beautiful farts they are! Such a vile stink; it’s grotesquely curious, yet wretchedly repulsive. The cold cruel savagely ferocious need to personify a perceived enemy, and attack them, is unparalleled. And drama, aggression, pawnage, and condemnations, quickly follow. Yeah. You all go ahead and claw each other's eyes out, I'll be sitting at ringside with popcorn. Good luck with that and lemme know how that works out for you. Much ado about nothing.

But with a little compassion, and a birds eye view perspective, you would see how any person’s life or experience, could be your own life or experience, and that the only real difference is circumstance. You can only look at someone else's life and confidently assess it, (and make bold claims about what they should do, or what you would have done, or what you would never do,) because you are doing so from your own biased snapshot. It's not accurate and it's not helpful. You can't honestly look at someone else's life, like say a serial killer, and say you'd never do that, because you are not them; you don't know their experience, you don't know their circumstances, and you don't know their path.

Same goes with bigoted presuppositions. It's ironic that many of the same people, who dig the idea that they are distinguished in their identity, also, at the same time, have the tendency to generalize entire groups of people that are deemed to be "other", and make wide sweeping generalizations based on inductive reasoning.

Oh, but it's not bigoted if it's true, right?

Bullshit. More then likely you live in a bubble.

Being from New York City myself, I can personally attest that stereotypes are false, but often appear true; not because of innate qualities, but merely because of pack mentality. Sheep herd together, and are conditioned to want to belong to the group, and hence, copy and emulate patterns, behaviors, and memes of the herd. Monkey see, monkey do. But when you get into the larger cities, where people are more sophisticated, you have more cases of so called “different people “, who all live and interact with each other, and this is where people can start to break free from their cultural bubbles and define themselves as individuals.

I know this gonna come as a complete shock to some of you, but not all Irishmen are alcoholics. Not all Asians are good at math. Some whites can dance really well. Some blacks are intellectuals. Not all Jews worship money. Not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all Mexicans are illegal.

There's only one generalization that is absolutely true: people that generalize other people are assholes.

This is why you have so many people out there that are so eager and enthusiastic to judge other people, and want to assert that superficial aspects of a classified type are indicative of some kind of fixed inner nature of being. This is the basis of contemporary bigotry and discrimination. And it's a giant lie. You are not a gender. You are not a sexuality. You are not a race. You are not a religion. You are not a person, or a human. These are all equally false identifications of illusion. And investing into them is delusion. You are awareness. And so is he, so is she, so is the he/she, so are they, so are you, so are us, and so are them. You are that which is imagining a dream; you are not any of the inventory items within a dream.

This is water. This is a good metaphor for pure potentiality, the essence of what we are. We are the same. Undivided. Non-separate. We are one. So then what is the problem? The problem starts with: this is a man, this is a woman, this is a black person, this is a white person, and this is a transsexual person. This is a platypus. Oh wow. My my, look at all these different people. This one is different then that one, and that one is better then this one. This one would never do what that one does, and that one is superior to all the other ones. Oh really. And then what does death reveal? Here's the man. Here's the woman. Here's the black. Here's the white. Here's the transsexual. Here's the platypus. Wow, yeah, you sure are different and special. You sure are distinguished from all the others.

Can you now see how complete and utter nonsense all this is?

One of the hallmarks of being deeply in delusion, is the inability to see beyond the surface of things. Pure awareness is the true self, and is what unifies all sentience. It is the selfhood that is identical within all sentience. And this is why open individualism is already the case, not a theory.

Empty individualism, the view that personal identities correspond to a fixed pattern that instantaneously disappears with the passage of time, is false, because awareness is not ultimately bound to a fixed pattern, there's no such thing as time, and the essence of our being does not vanish upon death. Only a form undergoes a change. Pure potentiality is always so.

And the same goes for closed individualism, the common view that personal identities are particular to subjects, and yet survive time. It might be said that a particular identity might be associated with a particular form, but no manifested appearance is permanent, and so has no way to survive non-existent time.

The fundamental experiencer is never erased. It is the "I" in all of us. Experiences come and go, but not the "I" that receives all experiences. The "I" recognizes all as reflections of self. Within us all, is identical selfhood, preceding the bag of meat, and the personified characterization. The "I" that is aware of all phenomena, including the persona. That, which is before being, and all comings and goings.

“I", am that.