#also while a lot of it is external and internal misogyny

[anomalys-bane]

I've been thinking a lot on why the 'GAY SON OR THOT DAUGHTER 😱😱' that was everywhere a few years ago got so popular. Its rooted in misogyny, that much is plain. It seems like an impossible choice for people in patriarchy because both options are interpreted as a person being used for sex by men, specifically being penetrated by men, or multiple men. You know that the 'gay son' in this dilemma will almost always be taken as feminine, and being feminine is being like women, women get penetrated and used by men, being penetrated is a fundamental humiliation on women's part, and now because this gay son fits the 'woman' role, he is also fundamentally humiliated. A man having sex with multiple women conquers each of those women, while a woman having sex with multiple men is conquered by each and every one of those men. Sex for women is inherently humiliating because of their internal sexual organs that can be penetrated, so women should keep that humiliation to a minimum and only let one man conquer them.

It's the way the sexual model of male=external sex organs=active= conqueror and female=internal sex organs=can be acted upon=conquered forms the basis for the subject/object dichotomy that forms the basis for patriarchy and all misogyny.

[rivetgoth]

Not sure what it’ll take to fix the massive misconception that testosterone HRT is something you take for a series of superficial / external changes and then stop. I mean it’s obviously fine to do that if you’re doing so with intentionality but all the time I see guys casually say stuff about “having gotten all the changes” or “the changes have plateaued” or “it’s not doing anything anymore” and citing that as reason to stop taking it. That just objectively isn’t how HRT works.

The external changes are great but hormones are doing way more behind the scenes than just giving you facial hair and a deeper voice, especially when it comes to aging. Individuals with T-dominant endocrine systems and individuals with E-dominant endocrine systems age differently. Fat distribution isn’t a one and done thing; those patterns continue to change and evolve over the course of your life. You as an old man on T for decades will look different than someone who has had an E-dominant endocrine system for that same amount of time. Tbh I think a lot of it is the fact that guys are accessing T at younger ages now and it’s just par for the course that young people don’t take aging into consideration lol. At 18-19 and younger you aren’t even really comprehending that you’re going to age, and for a group statistically more likely to be suicidal that’s tenfold. Lack of substantial research on the longterm effects of both HRT and stopping HRT play into this too.

That said though I think detransition fearmongering and even sort of misdirected transmisogyny kinda comes into play here as well. Testosterone as a substance that causes “permanent damage” is largely weaponized against trans women but it is also used to threaten us not to transition in the first place. The word “permanent” carries with it a lot of weight and you see all these people talk about the “permanent” effects of T but what’s lost in these conversations is what cisgender society is threateningly calling a “permanent” change is like… different than what these changes in an estrogen-dominant body do actually look like. We talk a lot about facial and body hair being a “permanent” change on T, but transmascs who stop T and trans women on E alike can report that estrogen causes these hairs to grow in softer and lighter; they won’t look how they did on T. Bottom growth is another “permanent” change that can shrink as erections soften. Your voice (another often-described-as-permanent effect) can change as E changes the body’s ability to grow and retain muscle. I think beyond splash damage from societal transmisogyny (and just misogyny in general causing a lack of understanding and dearth of research re: estrogen puberty), I’d even say some of the lack of understanding here comes from intracommunity transmisogyny & trans men not fully comprehending the level of change possible on estrogen, internalizing the sentiment that trans women’s changes are less meaningful than ours and not talking to trans women about what estrogen-based transition really looks like.

And again I’m not saying this to berate the people who intentionally go on T, know what to expect by stopping it, and do so with intentionality because they have a vision for what they want. That’s awesome, 100% valid. Do you. It’s more the wider misconception I see of HRT as something that “plateaus” and leaves a series of permanent unchanging effects while no longer doing anything else. And to overstep just a little I honestly think there are some men who would be happier if they continued to take T and are falling victim to larger transphobic institutions that have convinced them it’s unnecessary. As itskobold said on my post about HRT timelines you will keep changing forever. So it’s best to really consider what you want the layout of your endocrine system to be as those changes continue to occur.

[nothorses]

Do you think that trans men experience internalized misogyny?

From my initial understanding I believed that internalized misogyny was the misogynistic beliefs you had weaponized against yourself. Although apparently this includes the way you externalize it as well if you’re affected? Though, when people talk about trans men, they just call them misogynistic, as opposed to cis women who tend to be given the benefit of the doubt more and are told they have internalized misogyny.

Now I don’t doubt that trans men experience misogyny, and will continue to be affected by it even if they pass (though I’m sure how can shift). But it always feels as though some people believe trans men’s misogyny is more harmful than other demographics affected?

Tbh, I think "internalized misogyny" is more useful when it's defined in a more narrow and specific way than, like, any misogyny that is expressed by any woman.

This feels like a really solid "defining factor" for me, personally:

(From the Wikipedia page for "Inernalized Oppression")

I like the phrasing here of "against their own best interest" a lot. While it could be argued that any form of oppression is inherently against everyone's best interests, including the so-called "privileged" group-- and I would absolutely agree with that idea-- I think it's fairly easy to understand the difference between oppression that is perpetuated for (perceived) self-gain, vs. oppression that is perpetuated because one earnestly buys into the idea that they are inherently less valuable in some way.

I think this also avoids the tendency to define oppression as "internalized" or not based on the amount of harm caused, or to excuse certain people's bigotry because it also harms them personally.

Internalized misogyny really isn't inherently less harmful when women are the ones perpetuating it, and that framing isn't helping anyone! There are certain situations in which (cis) women have less power to perpetuate misogynistic violence or oppression than (cis) men do, absolutely. But that is a question of power to act in the first place, not the actual impact of those actions.

If anything, I would argue that I personally have suffered far more, and more severe, misogynistic violence at the hands of cis women than I have ever suffered from cis men. It genuinely doesn't matter to me whether those women were acting out of "internalized misogyny" or not.

It can be really helpful to understand the cause of someone's misogyny; why someone is motivated to perpetuate those ideas is going to inform the best approach to changing their beliefs and behavior. But that's a different question than "how harmful is this", or "should we excuse this person's bigotry".

So yes, transmascs can experience internalized misogyny. So much misogyny runs counter to our best interests. The same goes for transfems, and trans folks who don't fit into either category. I'd argue that anyone can experience internalized misogyny; including cis men, because, again, oppression ultimately runs counter to everyone's best interests.

More importantly, though, I think we need to be asking ourselves why we want to know whether someone's misogyny is "internalized" or not. What are we going to do with that information? Is it an excuse for the person perpetuating it, or do we need to answer that question in order to strategize, and push for growth and change?

[butterfly-ribbon]

the most immediate aspect of ena5 i keep coming back to is how ena lingers on how those boys asked if "she was a guy too." it comes up repeatedly throughout the event, her guilt about not knowing what to say, not reacting perfectly at the time, what she could have done differently, and most importantly how she can’t stop thinking about it – it’s exactly what mizuki hates, what she fears, because mizuki's wish was always for nothing between them to change—her wish is to not be treated in a different way from any other girl.

i think this makes sense in the context of ena feeling guilty, but it's also ena being cognizant of the fact that she can't help but fixate on the truth behind mizuki’s secret. internalized misogyny has always been a struggle for ena, despite how honest she is in her hatred of men (especially her father) – even though she clearly loves girls, that harm inflicted upon her, that victim-blaming and infantilization lead to an externalized self-loathing which she takes out on others almost in spite of herself.

ena's first focus event was about her feeling like she isn't a good enough artist for niigo and the trauma she has from her father telling her she isn't talented enough – quite literally him telling her she will never be good enough to do the one thing that fuels her existence.  her second one is fairly self-contained, less about niigo and more about her trying to go back to art class after running away, and once again dealing with the long-term effect of how her father dismissed her. her third is about learning to engage with mafuyu as a victim in productive ways and learning to recognize that her pain can coexist with mafuyu’s which is very important in the context of how ena reacted to finding out that mafuyu is suicidal despite being OWN. and then her fourth is her having the opportunity to see her father as a flawed person rather than the insurmountable idea of an Inherently Talented Artist. these four events have built up to that which she now has to recognize in the complex experience mizuki has with womanhood.

her fifth is also a very obvious parallel to the third, because while ena does very genuinely care for mafuyu and mizuki – she ends up projecting so much self-loathing and envy onto mafuyu, leaving mizuki in between to manage and deflect their emotions – even sometimes making subtle passive-aggressive remarks to get back at ena either because she can't risk fighting or expressing too much of herself and her own dissatisfaction because she would at the biggest disadvantage as the more vulnerable between the two. and when ena has to navigate speaking to mafuyu's mother, there is a recognition of how subtly insidious the woman is and how it both contrasts and parallels her experience with her father. it’s further meaningful because ena3 is about ena breaking the shell of her victim blaming mindset. the way ena treats mafuyu changes a lot from hereon, but what’s important is that isn't enough on its own. ena's growth isn't complete unless she learns to properly engage with mizuki, which she can only do by learning to engage her complex reality as a trans girl.

with that in mind, i really love to see ena acknowledging not just the way she fixates on the “what ifs” and “how she could've handled things differently” – it’s further how she fixates on mizuki's transness. what’s also even more important is that she acknowledges that this is what mizuki hates more than anything. she knows it isn't right of her. she doesn't want this because she doesn't want to hurt mizuki in the way she fears the most. this is through no fault of mizuki’s of course. after all, she doesn't deserve to have her transness fixated upon because that turns it into something inherently Other. that’s why i also like that they're willing to acknowledge that being outed and acceptance isn't simple. it can be complex and painful on both sides without it being something that decentralizes the person most affected (the trans girl, mizuki).

as much as mizuki wished she could just say it and keep going as though nothing changed this couldn't have happened either ... we live in a world where misogyny and transmisogyny are baked into everything ... it's vital for ena to engage with her own biases and prejudices when thinking about approaching mizuki because otherwise she can’t move forward with her. she can't just treat this as though it changes nothing about their dynamic because it absolutely does recontextualize so much … ena being a transmisogyny exempt girl holds fundamental privilege/power over mizuki, just like the prejudiced students do, so ena must tread the thorn-laden path, enduring pain, in order to reach mizuki and bathe her in the warmth of her light, because the pain of making mistakes and still pushing forward is worth everything.

this is ena’s turning point. it's ena talking to someone who knew mizuki back in middle school – the time when she was forced back into the closet – learning the extent of the loneliness she's always felt. she thinks back to the specific moment where student A is like "are you a guy too?" and then finally starts to understand the depth of the cruelty that mizuki has been subjected to. even if she can't truly imagine it (and while we're on this topic, i think this is yet another way the writing acknowledges that mizuki is not a boy and that this is abuse). it also isn't fair for ena to continue fixating on mizuki's transness in this way while wallowing in her own misery, since in doing so, she would be centering herself when the one who was the victim in that moment was mizuki herself.

ena might've messed up, but it wasn't out of bigotry or actual like... looking down on mizuki. she acted in a way that she ended up regretting in a very messy situation and i think that's meaningful too, because again she's done that in many situations with mafuyu and genuinely felt bad about it after the fact. ena is messy and her way of loving people ... she can be so ... rough sometimes, y'know? but she always shows a willingness to learn from her mistakes and interrogate her own behavior. even in my footprints, your destination she keeps pressuring mizuki to talk with her about her problems for most of the event and it's not out of any ill intent, but it's not a good approach because this kind of thing can easily veer into coercive territory and that's particularly traumatic in the context of a trans girl being forced to come out? ena obviously didn't mean anything bad by it because she didn't know or understand the gravity of what she was dealing with, and she was genuinely concerned for mizuki's well-being and wanted her to know that she has someone in her corner who's more than happy to hear her out, but she's also brash, demanding and hot headed so it was a good opportunity for her to see things from a different perspective, leading her to adopt a more patient and understanding approach for the first time? this event builds on this in an interesting way specifically because it isn't afraid to explore how a cis girl like ena needs to unpack her own biases before she's able to connect with mizuki again, but what makes this even better is that mizuki doesn't exist to fix her or make her a better person – mizuki makes ena want that herself. ena doesn't become a better person because mizuki acts like a manic pixie dream girl for her (if anything she constantly fails at this in ena's presence because her mask starts cracking around her a lot), but ena strives to better herself because she can see those cracks and she wants to provide mizuki with genuine support. she wants to be someone that mizuki can truly rely on and drop the facade around because she loves her so much.

mizuki is also being allowed a more mafuyu role here and i think that's compelling insofar as a deconstruction of mizuki's facade and how it's rooted in a fraught engagement with transfemininity in the history of anime and manga.

i also really love this because it’s a callback to the locked room from mizu5. once again, the reason ena finds mizuki is because she knows her better than anyone else. this time there are no boys to co-opt mizuki or interfere with both of them. she ended up avoiding going to school directly and this being the reason ena found her … it's like an answer arc to mizu5. the locked room of mizuki’s heart and how ena has the key to that, finally, after making effort to understand her. this could also be seen as a reference to the hermit cards and the lock upon mizuki’s heart.

[chekhovs-blender]

is Saxon queer with comphet behavior? Sorry I am new if this has been discussed already you can point me to the discussion.

sorry for not responding sooner anon! a really interesting question i'm afraid i don't have a definitive answer to. i'm probably going to say very obvious stuff while yapping too much so i do apologize. it's also 2 am where i live so-

sorry ×2 if this doesn't actually answer your question lol, i'm notoriously bad at this stuff.

the thing is, Saxon constructs the world through dominance and sees everything almost exclusively through its lens, be it through physical 'excellence' (high t bde, the pump, the protein shakes *put a pin in that pt. 1*), financial wealth and work culture (Saxon 'loves working', which also brings him the desperately sought after approval of his father, albeit a half hearted one, at least that we get to see) or sexual aggression/untowardness (grabbing his dick in front of Chelsea, his 'let them get all messy' comment although i think that was all bark no bite & generally treating women as sexual objects and prospective conquests and nothing else *put a pin in that pt. 2* etc etc).

the slimy and vapid masculinity he performs is quite different to Timothy's though and it, to me, reads like a commentary on generational difference too. Saxon's dominance is first and foremost selfish and self-serving, while Timothy's role is the one of patriarch. obviously this is due to the simple fact that Saxon is in fact not tied down and whatnot but he certainly doesn't look like the type to do it any time soon anyway. i just think the contrast of 'top dog' and (stern) provider is neat. although both of their roles are highly questionable and crumble by the end of the show (it's, in a way, a big part of Tim's character arc too).

although this desire to dominate is a big part of his character Saxon also takes a certain pleasure in the feedback that others are lesser than. this might seem like the same thing, true, but there's a difference between the more internally focused viewpoint 'i am better at this' than the externally focused 'they are worse than'.

he also constantly emphasises 'ownership' of his siblings while infantilizing them as much as he can - he refers to Piper & Lochlan as 'my little brother' and 'my little sister' throughout (this might seem like normal older sibling behaviour but considering Saxon is, well, not normal, I'm inclined to read into it a bit, *put a pin in that pt. 3*).

i find it possible that he is viewing them as extensions of himself. especially lochlan. *pin 4*

the question of possible queerness and comphet does rear its head naturally, i think, but there are limits to the interpretation for two main reasons and the stuff stated above. 1) the show captures a snapshot of the ratliffs' lives so a lot of it boils down to speculation and audience consensus (think the generally accepted tumblr/fanfic headcanon that Saxon was in a frat) & 2) a lot of what could read as comphet here also sits comfortably in the space reserved for commentary on (the crisis of) modern masculinity because, as a man, i've personally suffered from the socialization Saxon exhibits and have met many fail-Saxons (aren't they all lol) in my life so his behaviour could simply be heterosexual but utterly maladjusted

to add, the ratliff family history needs to be taken into account as well. the glimpse we get into Victoria's side of the family, we see how Saxon's behaviour is positioned and normalized, especially through his mother's actions (smth smth internalised misogyny) as she is the one who readily encourages and plays into it ('actresses and prostitutes' etc). there is also the question of family dynamics and how isolated the ratliffs are. the siblings, but i'd wager Saxon especially, as the eldest son, have been told their whole lives that they are 'better than' (Victoria's family seems to be quite well-off, Timothy's side was politically and financially important for NC) and that others are beneath them, that they are the lucky few and so on and so forth (think Victoria's speech to Piper at the end and also the little comments she makes about how beautiful and whatever else her children are). which probably did nothing to help them become functional, well adjusted human beings lol. there's also the offhand comment Victoria makes about her own brothers, especially Babe (the spitting thing) that makes it clear this is also a cyclical, familial blurring of boundaries and just ups the borderline incestuous dynamics of the ratliffs and how insular they are.

to go back to Saxon, all of this just accumulates to make him a person practically incapable of emotional vulnerability & real emotional connection (especially outside the family unit, but to be for real, also inside it). he sees almost every interaction as a chance for one-upmanship and opportunity to strut his feathers. a lot of it serves more to reflect his own worth back to him than to establish two-way communication (his little 'she's famous' about Jaclyn certainly reads that way, that he sees in her only the status she would confer onto him, although humiliating women together is basically a bonding ritual for Saxon and Victoria it seems). and in case of his siblings, he needs the constant feedback of Lochlan choosing him over Piper, he certainly looks for the validation of his own superiority and expects that from his brother like it's a given.

i think he takes pleasure in playing mentor who'll guide Lochlan into the world of men for two reasons. it's like a game he gets to play and he'll win no matter what. the desired outcome is obviously to have his ego stroked (heh) constantly, which Lochlan mostly performs without fail, but also to mold his brother into a picture of acceptable masculinity (you've got ammo, the insistence on getting him laid etc). although he is frustrated when his advances are rejected (like Lochlan refusing the protein shake), Lochlan quickly acquiesces (*pin pt. 5*) and Saxon probably gets the pleasure of comparing himself to his brother who's failing to be a proper alpha man and coming out on top (heh) but also the pleasure of finally pushing his brother to go for it and in that way, dominating him too.

now. the problem of saying saxon is definitively queer is - for the aforementioned reason of patriarchal socialization of men wherein they're expected to be dominant and hyper-sexual to a degree although Saxon takes it to the extreme - that the sole homosexual activity happens between him and his brother. and that carries the baggage of family dynamics, masculinity and everything else, and on top of that, possible queer desire. which makes everything a whole lot more complicated and muddy.

i'm of the opinion the text (and certainly the subtext!) is clear enough so a reading of Saxon as queer could be supported, but it is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for many other interpretations, mainly non-sexual ones when it comes to the threesome in episodes 5/6.

to gather all the pins and talk about them now.

if we're talking comphet i guess we're playing the game of 'is it comphet, plain ol' misogyny or a little bit of both'.

Saxon's relationship with women is highly fraught and the only woman he seems to hold some respect for is Victoria. is it because she is the only woman he cannot in any way, shape or form view in a sexual light? and because of that it leaves more space to conceive of her as an actual human person? perhaps. his comments about piper's sex life are quite obviously meant to unsettle the viewer, demonstrate the impending minefield of his relationship with Lochlan (who isn't sufficiently perturbed by it, but normalizes it or at least tries to, probably because of a history of blurred boundaries with Saxon honestly and because they're both guys. dudes. bros. and guys act like that in front of each other, don't they?) and his need to shape Lochlan into a younger version of himself really.

the thing is, Saxon's focus on this performance of confident manhood clearly stems from a place of deep unacknowledged insecurity and if Lochlan is receptive to it, that not only serves to show Saxon he is 'doing something right'. if he can forcemasc his little brother (i deserve jail time for this) that must mean it's a desirable mode of expression.

if Saxon's relationship with the women of his family is fraught, other women never stood a chance. the interesting part here is that he emphasizes his interest in Chelsea, a woman he knows is 1) in a committed long-term relationship with someone else 2) highly critical of his behaviour. he frames it as a challenge but it could also be him playing delusional 4d chess with himself, excusing any failure and fumble that would threaten his perception of himself through the 'i like it when they're mean to me' mentality and the expected rejection so it doesn't hurt as much (it could also be a subconscious coping mechanism for not feeling attraction to women but i'm not sure how much i'm willing to buy into it in this case OR a subconscious desire to be actually challenged and questioned in relation to his behaviour but that seems like a reach for most of the season too). he also shows some initial interest in the women he keeps pushing onto lochlan, first the 'boat women' he introduces Lochlan to (and he does it in a way that makes his brother seem cutesy, pinching his cheek *which could mean nothing* practically using Lochlan as a possible accessory to his own sexual conquest, i really don't think you could believably argue he's actually trying to set Lochlan up with them as he paints him as young, inexperienced and passive. it most likely serves as an ego boost among other things). he also shows interest in Chloe obviously, being close and touchy while Lochlan performs the magic tricks and later when the three of them hook up. he also emphasizes Chloe's sexual experience to his brother, saying she's a bit older, mature and that that would do Lochlan some good (smth smth Saxon's preference in porn, smth smth teacher/student). to me it reads as this weird concoction of vicariously living through Lochlan whom he views as an extension of himself he gets to boss around, but also a way to connect with him because as the king of all redpill asshattery, he's chosen the language of sex as a specific (and really the only) tool to get closer to his younger brother.

that brings me to the other point. Saxon really prizes control, control of image, of what others get to see etc. he usually makes the first move, is an active participant, be it fumbling women or performing that weird dominance ritual by strutting around naked in the room he and Lochlan share (by doing it, he's almost emphasizing it's his space first and Lochlan's second, that if there is any adjusting necessary it's for his little brother to do). this is why i find certain shots endlessly fascinating (the mirrored ass staring scenes for example, quiet moments of complete vulnerability, wherein neither are aware they're being watched and therefore cannot control how they themselves and their bodies are perceived + again. the mirror scene but at the end of episode 1 where Lochlan basically takes up the challenge Saxon puts in front of him and does a bit of a power play in the form of the prolonged stare). Saxon hates relinquishing control. which really sucks for him because it happens in episodes 5/6 over and over again.

first, when he's peer pressured to take drugs, and second, well, the whole yacht fiasco.

and if he's really fucked in the women department i'm willing to bet that man has not had healthy, normal relationships with men his whole life. he desperately and transparently seeks approval from Timothy, the parent who is sort of in charge of enforcing and policing the role of man in a more palpable way than Victoria does (smth smth it's the opposite for Piper, who's daddy's girl through and through but is strictly gender policed by her mother).

when the inhibitions are lowered, by way of drinks and drugs, it opens a whole other mode of communicating closeness and intimacy Saxon had probably never experienced before, especially with men. smth smth you contruct intricate rituals to touch the skin/bodies of other men (the role he takes on for correcting Lochlan through enforcing gender norms for example, the constant touches *Saxon initiates* - think the moment he pushes Lochlan into the pool the first time or how he steers him around, guiding him by grabbing his shoulders for example, telling him 'drink this' etc).

but the mindfuck is, his role gets more passive as he becomes the recipient of touch throughout the night of the full moon party. Lochlan is the one who reaches out on the beach, he's the one who, although obviously not sober and clearly egged on by two other *adults* mind you, chooses to kiss Saxon. he is the one who, at least working with the flashbacks of that night, initiates the hand job.

and it's a double edged sword. Saxon's whole narrative of himself hinges on dominance and being the one who does and the opposite happens, he becomes passive and the one things are done to, he isn't acting out on desire per se (which is a fact he uses to try and forget the whole thing later on), but is moreso the recipient of it. and that entails vulnerability he hadn't encountered before. on the other hand, if he is unwilling to admit a part of him got off on (sexually or non-sexually, both can be argued, but definitely touch/intimacy starved) being what he perceives as submissive and therefore lesser than, he can throw all of the responsibility back at Lochlan ('worship me, but don't *worship* me' etc.). futhermore, the way the flashbacks are framed (digression but - the fixation on the ingestion of liquid, the alcohol, the protein shakes especially, the clam Lochlan drinks out of are also highly suggestive, smth smth blowjob brothers are real), especially in the hand job scene, i don't think it's too far out to say Saxon was highly implied to be on the spiritual receiving end of the whole... ordeal. as in, Chloe can be seen as proxy, Lochlan 'fucking' Saxon and losing his virginity to him through proxy, connecting with him through proxy whatever. Chloe is there to connect them in a way, but disappears into the background when push comes to shove, she has to sort of nudge Lochlan so he pays more attention to her during their encounter, and i think there's certainly a charged quality to those mirror scenes on the yacht - Lochlan sauntering around, perhaps having performance anxiety or possibly just being unable to perform at all if Saxon isn't there, Saxon observing the kiss between Chloe and his brother intently etc.

after that night there are three standout moments that give me pause and make it harder to ignore a full-blown incestuous reading of their relationship. for one, Frank's monologue, for two Chelsea's doubling down on 'no drug in the world' which signals to the audience that there is perhaps something more beneath the people pleaser explanation. for three, 'his worst nightmare was his erotic fantasy' spiel Chloe imparts during the party.

if Saxon is indeed not straight (which, labels are complicated and i do not think he'd realistically view himself as queer in any way even if he did fuck men lol), what happens between him and Lochlan is this double safety blanket because the incest covers the gayness by obviously being the bigger taboo by a longshot, the 'accidental' (narcissistic?) gayness and the incest are denied by one another (he sees Lochlan as an extension of himself and his pet project, and if he tries to buy into Lochlan's explanation of events, which seems like the temporary solution he opts for (probably helped by Chelsea's little intervention), he can repress any desire he has for men further because the incest didn't happen because of it, but in spite of it as he's responsible for fucking up the boundaries, so it can circle back to not just not being gay but also not being 'real' incest. 'it's not a thing, it's definitely not a thing' etc). again, the framing is so interesting because it feels like the show itself is acknowledging all this but outside and independently of the characters (adding to this - the kiss from Saxon's perspective which reads more intimate and deliberate, and frankly, romantic to me, the gentle sweep over the skin, possible neck touch etc.), further spelling out something the characters themselves are unable to fully accept or speak into existence.

either way, he can't really escape the long awaited confrontation with his own emptiness and yearning for a more spiritual connection (the beach scene in the finale wherein he sees what Chelsea and Rick *seem* to have). but again, it's a question of whether it is only that or a more complicated and messed up version of it he and Lochlan sensed and shared.

to me, Lochlan's queerness is much more palpable and can be disentangled from Saxon, but it's an integral part of the reading of Saxon as queer. otherwise, a lot of his behaviour can be chalked up to toxic masculinity, to put it bluntly and simply. bro culture always walks the thin line between homosociality, homosexuality and homophobia but it's all coated in masculine artifice and irony so. and again, my opinion, not fact.

but yeah, i choose to read Saxon as queer because i like seeing him suffer more.

putting this here cause where else can it fit - i am personally a fan of viewing Saxon as also morbidly self-aware, his titty flex at the table and his 'let them get messy' in particular feel like intentional vapid rituals that he knows send a signal to the people perceiving him. he's performing this facade, knuckles white desperate clutching to it until he's rattled by Chelsea and then obliterated by Lochlan. he shows how much he gets it by focusing on how Lochlan chose a wrong way to worship him. he understands he thrives on the attention his brother gives him, only stepping out of his role as mentor ('no one is going to make you a man') when it threatens his concept of self (be that related to his potential queerness or not). i don't think he intentionally groomed his brother obviously and i believe he's starting to understand the extent to which he messed their relationship up by the end of the show, although he opts to try and forget about it (again, is the other can of worms his queerness, desire for his brother, both, neither? eh. i have a preference).

anon i'm so sorry this is such a half-lucid screedy (screedish? whatever, adjective form of screed) tangent and utter non answer but that's all i have to say. i probably forgot something but it's 3 am now and i gotta go catch some sleep. bye!

[keptalivebymagic]

Writing Robby in fic is so hard because like, by all accounts, the man isn't very likable. He's holding onto a trauma from 5 years ago so tightly that it still has him experiencing regular panic attacks. Folks are tiptoeing around him all day because they all acknowledge it's gonna be tough for him, which I think is kind of insane for an adult. Needing some compassion on the anniversary of the death of your mentor is one thing, but being straight up volatile when 5 years have passed is wild.

Honestly, overall his emotional stability is atrocious for a guy with his seniority. While he's got good intentions, he's got some internalized misogyny that isn't even subtle. (Also he dated Collins when she was a new resident, a person who is his direct report!! But I can't even tell if the narrative is condemning this or not. I kinda think "not".) (This is part of another thing I struggle with in a lot of workplace-anchored films and TV shows. The people writing these stories don't know what a workplace is like.) (Also insane that Robby suggests she ended things with him. Babe, you should be embarrassed.)

Honestly, Noah Wyle's otherworldly amount of charisma and warmth is all that's keeping me from wanting to fight Robby. I get that all that we've seen of him is one of the worst days of his life but McKay wasn't surprised by how he treated her re: that incel kid, which makes me think he isn't above irrationally riding his residents just because he's in a bad mood. And this was after he had already admitted to McKay that he was in the wrong with regards to how he interpreted the risk the kid posed (this is me setting aside how he treats Samira as a special case; she has higher aspirations than McKay, she's acknowledged as being a star student, and the story presents her as an external projection of Robby's self-loathing).

[viridianevergarden]

“Elain is weak”

“Elain is plain”

“Elain is boring”

“Elain has no personality”

Really? I’m convinced that people either glaze over the page any time Elain’s name is mentioned or they completely forget out of their own ignorance and convenience.

(This is long so read at your own peril, mainly a lot of receipts from the books for proof)

This is where the internalized misogyny really becomes externalized at this point.

I mean- Elain is the epitome of the common woman at the moment. Of course she’s not some battle hardened warrior. Of course she’s not some head strong fighter that actively goes into the face of danger to save the day as a hero.

She’s a woman who wants a normal life, or at least, the most normal she can have it.

She wants to love and be loved by someone of her choosing. Thats normal.

She enjoys more “feminine” hobbies or activities. Thats normal.

She helps the people of velaris by acts of service. Thats normal.

She wants to help her family any way she can.

She is normal.

Normal is good. Normal is relatable.

I think that some people’s brains have been plagued by the case of “every female main character should be a strong warrior” disease and hate Elain because she doesn’t currently fit into that mold. Thus she’s deemed uninteresting.

They want another Feyre or Nesta copy out of her. They want her to wield a sword and have the power to dominate whole territories and rule a court or two. Yet Elain doesn’t want that.

But even then Elain isn’t weak. She’s not boring. Elain has a voice.

Every rose has its thorns to protect itself.

Here’s a few big examples:

ACoTaR, ch. 40

Context: The queens just left the sisters’ manor after their first negotiation.

And it was Elain—Elain—who sighed and murmured, “I hope they all burn in hell.”

Omg she cussed. Elain showing outward hatred and opening her mouth about it? That’s new.

ACoWaR, ch. 21

Context: About tracking the cauldron, Elain claimed she will find it if Nesta cannot. Nesta protested immediately.

“Why?” Elain demanded. “Shall I tend to my little garden forever?” When Nesta flinched, Elain said, “You can’t have it both ways. You cannot resent my decision to lead a small, quiet life while also refusing to let me do anything greater.”

Elain cut in sharply, “I am not a child to be fought over.”

Elain finally bearing her fangs to Nesta? Nesta flinched at her words.

ACoWaR, ch. 74

Context: during the war, Elain saved Nesta and Cassian’s life from the King.

Elain stepped out of a shadow behind him, and rammed Truth-Teller to the hilt through the back of the king’s neck as she snarled in his ear, “Don’t you touch my sister.”

Weak huh? I mean if she was weak, I don’t think she would’ve wielded the blade. Let alone step out of a shadow with it. Yet she had the courage and will to do so. (She will protect what she holds dear even if it means she has to kill for it, even if she doesn’t like spilling blood or causing harm).

ACoFaS, ch. 18

Context: Feyre talking Elain about Lucien, Elain standing her ground on her decision.

Those doe-brown eyes turned toward me. Sharper than I’d ever seen them. “And that entitles him to my time, my affections?”

“He doesn’t know me.”

Her mouth tightened, the only sign of anger in her graceful countenance. “I don’t want a mate. I don’t want a male.”

She has boundaries and she sticks by them. What a surprise. Using her voice.

ACoFaS, ch. 58

Context: Nesta finally came to solstice on her own accord per Cassian’s request. Elain greeted her and pleaded that Nesta does not upset Feyre since it’s her birthday. Nesta cussed Elain out without a thought.

And then Elain burst out laughing. Howling, half-sobbing laughs that sent her bending over at the waist, gasping for breath.

Elain held up a hand, wiping her eyes with the other. “You’ve never said such a thing to me!” She laughed again.

Elain being elated that Nesta had the balls to cuss her out? To be mean to her? Must’ve been a breath of fresh air from the suffocating overprotection. If anything, I’d feel intimidated that she laughed. Confused like Nesta. Elain has never laughed like this before.

ACoSF, ch. 76

Context: Feyre on her death bed during childbirth.

And when Elain began praying to the Fae’s foreign gods, to their Mother, Nesta bowed her head, too.

Elain was desperate enough to pray to The Mother and the Fae gods for help. For comfort. Shows some semblance of development in her journey of acceptance of her new life. (I don’t know why people think she refuses to accept her new life, the NC is her home)

ACoSF, Azriel’s Bonus Chapter

Context: Solstice night, Elain gifts Azriel earplugs with a humorous meaning.

Azriel unwrapped the box, glancing at the card that merely said, You might find these useful at the House these days, and then opened the lid.

Elain’s mouth twitched into a smile. "Nesta wouldn't appreciate the joke.”

Elain has the humor for making sex jokes lol.

• • •

I could continue adding more but I think you get the point now.

I don’t want her to be like Feyre.

I don’t want her to be like Nesta.

Elain has a voice and she has used it time and again.

She has plenty of character and I’m sorry if you don’t like it. She’s shown hatred, assertiveness, compassion, elation, acceptance, and humor throughout the series.

Just because she’s soft spoken and less combative than her sisters doesn’t make her any less than them.

No one can make you like a character except yourself. However, if you’re going to bash a complex character and say there’s no sustenance to her when she’s been shown to have obvious development and presence, then that’s an issue lol.

She’s a very fleshed out character and we haven’t even gotten to her story yet.

Even without military or magical prowess like her sisters, Elain has personality and I find that a lot of people including myself can definitely relate to her.

SJM merely set the stage for Elain.

All she needs to do is begin her Act.

[puppypalice]

On Transmisogyny

First off, this post comes from my own experience as a trans woman along with discussion with other trans people, mostly fellow transfems. As such this post comes entirely anecdotal experience.

Furthermore I must give special thanks to @lemon-etiquette as an in depth discussion I had with her over text was the primary inspiration for this post.

Finally this post comes from a very western perspective. I’m a white trans women from the imperial core and can only talk about my experiences. I am excited to hear those experiences of trans people of colour and trans people of the global south.

Now with the disclaimers out of the way. This post wishes to define transmisogyny. Transmisogyny is a word thrown around a lot in trans spaces recently but without a common definition. The term transmisogyny was first used by Julia Serano in her book whipping girl and it is described as the intersection between misogyny and transphobia experienced by transfeminine people. While the framework in whipping girl is generally excellent I have noticed another phenomenon that can describe transmisogyny that is in my opinion worth further discussion. That is the conflict of transsexual identity and transgender identity.

To say that gender is an ever evolving cultural construct should not be a controversial take in transfeminists spaces, and logically as such being trans must evolve in a similar way. Transsexuality is an identity that came around in the mid twentieth century. It exists as a sort of third gender category and is fairly exclusive to amab people. Being transgender on the other hand was more a development at the end of the 20th century into the 21st century and can be applied to anyone no matter they’re agab. The primary difference between the transsexual identity and the transgender identity is that being transsexual is much more external while being transgender is much more internal. What I mean by this is that transsexual is an identity pushed onto an individual by the broader society while being transgender is an identity that comes from an individual. As such from this framework transmisogyny can be defined as trying to force the transsexual identity onto a transgender person.

From this mode of analysis we can understand why transmisogyny primarily effects transfems. How and why it happens. Why some transmasculine individuals push transmisogyny. How effects transmisogyny have on transmasculine people. And even the origin of the transgender identity in itself. First it must be understood that transmisogyny is primarily society pushing the transsexual identity into transgender people. As transsexual identity is seen as something exclusive to amab people not only are transmasculine people erased but being transgender is also seen as something inherently mutually exclusive to womanhood. While transmasculine people are broadly ignored because the transsexual identity inherently excluded them transfeminine people are othered and scorned. Why do some transmasculine people uphold transmisogyny? Simple, as generally misogynistic transmascs will use transmisogyny as a tool to push transfems out of trans spaces. In a sense, transmisogyny is just the most convenient way for misogynistic transmasc to express their general misogyny.

Finally we must come to the origin of the transgender identity. As the transsexual identity develop first and was pushed onto to people who would be considered transfeminine today, transgender identity was developed by those transgender people to better express their own internal identity. This is why transfems in many ways are at the front of trans culture. Because it was transfems that forged the identity. Furthermore transmisogyny in a sense is a reaction to transgender identity, it is an attempt to force transfeminine people back into the oppressive transsexual identity, it is an attempt to push transmasculine people back into invisibility. It is an attempt to exert control over gender queer people to more easily marginalize them. Why is the reaction so strong? Because the transgender identity is a revolutionary blow to patriarchy.

[waitmyturtles]

Hello,

Some of your Only Friends meta sparked a question for me: You've referred to the impact of purity culture on how the boys (particularly Boston) are viewed both within the show and by fans watching. I was raised evangelical Christian (don't worry, it went poorly), so my associations with purity culture are quite specific to promise rings, abstinence-only education, and that sort of thing. However, you seem to be working from a much more expansive view that includes purity culture's downstream effects such as slut-shaming, heteronormativity, pressure to perform monogamy, etc. (and in at least one case you also linked it to colonialism).

Since your definition of purity culture is so much broader than mine has traditionally been, I'm curious: What exactly do you mean when you use the term, and what are the parameters of purity culture from your perspective?

I've been kind of squinting interestedly at your usage and trying to reverse-engineer your definition from context and it finally occurred to me that I can just ask you lol

(also I know tone can be hard to gauge on the internet so just to be safe: I'm in no way trying to start a weird fight about the meaning of the term; I'm just interested in what you're saying and seeking to understand it better)

Thank you!

Bonebag

HELLO @sorry-bonebag! WHAT A QUESTION! I don't think this is weird at all -- I think it's the fascinating basis of a conversation.

I'm not sure that I'm going to have a central, singular answer for you regarding how I view and/or define "purity culture." I think, as I generalize (massive emphasis on my generalizations in this answer) society's lack of acceptance for open sexual conduct and engagement, that we're dealing with a lot of elements of how power is managed and distributed among humans. For example, if we roll back to, say, the creation of Christianity as a religion, we have to ask: WHY does the religion have what it says about sex? Controlling sex means controlling people -- it means controlling who gets born, and who gets to pair with each other. Controlling sex means controlling behavior, and creating submissiveness to a religion allows a smaller group of people massive power over larger groups. Christianity (as an example) is a modern expression of a primal biological urge that humans have to create groups and gain power for survival. So, first and foremost, to judge someone else for having sex in modern times gives that judge a sense of power over someone else.

In a judgement against sex, and people who have unabashed sex -- let's use Khai from Theory of Love and Boston as examples -- what assumptions/judgements/behaviors are leveraged as we condemn these men (and women, and non-binary individuals) for having lots of sex? From my lens, we have the following prejudices playing into this:

Misogyny Internalized homophobia (on the part of the person being judged) Externalized homophobia (on the part of the people doing the judging) Biases against nontheistic people Jealousy (for the ease in which some people can come into sex) Competition

and so many more. All of these prejudices can and ARE leveraged to judge people for having sex, because judging people for having sex gives the judges power in greater society, as greater society ultimately looks down on the practice of having lots of sex.

I think a fantastic example of this is when Sand was talking about Boston to Ray in this past weekend's episode. Why the hell would Sand even have any business talking about Boston to Ray? Because condemning Boston's "slutty" behavior will give Sand a sense of power for Ray to acknowledge.

By calling another person a "slut" -- a person like Sand gains an upper moralistic and ethical hand. All while Sand is the person that Ray is sleeping with as Ray cheats on Mew. Calling someone ELSE a slut allows Sand (and, let's be honest, Ray, too!) to escape accountability for his own questionable behavior.

And that's what I'm calling out in my posts, especially my Morning After meta from yesterday. If a meta writer is condemning Boston for having sex, or is interpreting that SandRay have only slept together once, to fulfill some kind of shipper fantasy -- I'm going to write about those judgements in my posts, because I don't think those judgements are fair to a show that was very open and honest, at its premiere, about its premise that it would be digging into issues regarding sex and toxicity. I think "purity culture," as we're calling it, is a means by which the fandom wants to control the sexual behavior of Asian queer men. Much of the fandom here on Tumblr is Western, and as an Asian-American, it also gives me the jibbles that a Western audience would want to control with power, the behavior of Asian queer males, a much smaller demographic than a wider Western audience. That's where I bring a colonialist accusation to the table. To me, all of this keeps coming back to power. (I write about this in that post that talks about colonialism. Shipping really worries me. To force two young Asian males into a relationship fantasy -- and then to push that fantasy towards monogamy and a restriction of sex. I mean. Whoa. I very much see colonialism and racism in there, as non-Asians push Asians to behave in prescribed ways.)

This conversation circles back in part to the exhortation I made at the start of OF's premiere, that as much of the fandom as possible should watch Gay OK Bangkok. Jojo Tichakorn's and Aof Noppharnach's GOKB depicted Asian queer males in sex, love, pain, and careers. In this show, there were no condemnations for slutty behavior. (I mean, Pom expected Arm to fall in and out of love, but Pom wasn't being judgmental about it -- he ended up being there for his friend in a hilar way. Anyway!) A specter of morality and ethics, the Greek chorus or peanut gallery of chirping about not having sex did NOT permeate the show. It was just -- Asian gay males living their lives.

Only Friends is bringing up sooooo much about how the characters within the show, and the fandom external to the show, think about, talk about, and judge sex. Having these conversations, for me, is lifeblood. As an Asian-American, I WISH I could have had these open conversations about sex when I was a growing teen. Alas. The culture in which I grew up -- one that valued virginity, purity, and one that condemned sexual experimentation -- prevented me from being open in conversation about sex. I'm thankful that I grew up more and more independently as I got older, and that I had the intellectual capacity to understand and process when I was being judged, myself, for having sex. Because we've all been there, those of us who have had and enjoyed sex. We've been condemned for it, judged for it, every single one of us. We've been made to feel guilty about it.

And even as someone like Boston gets JUDGED, in every episode of OF, for HAVING lots of sex -- I SO appreciate his existence as a character and a narrative device, that he exists as a mirror for OTHER characters, like Ray/Atom/Sand/even Mew/even Top -- who do not hold themselves accountable for either similar behaviors, and/or for behaviors that are far more questionable than simple having sex. Top violated Mew's boundaries in episode 8 -- flat out. And Top's not been held accountable for a second. Top still has power, he still has an upper hand.

This was a long answer, @sorry-bonebag, but TL;DR: POWER. Power and accountability are two elements of humanity that I am forever fascinated by, and I love that we have a brilliant showmaker in Jojo to help highlight this in his art.

I very much hope I touched upon a kind of answer for your question, but at least you got to read some of my deeper thoughts on this topic! THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS CONVERSATION!

[battyaboutbooksreviews]

🦇 Fly With Me Book Review 🦇

Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐

❝ They were mirrors in a way. Both of them watching their loved ones suffer. Both unable to help in any meaningful way. Both coping--one with work and the other with a list. Both scared shitless of hurting the other one. ❞

❓ #QOTD What are you afraid of? ❓ ⚠️ Content Warnings: Terminal illness, chronic illness, misogyny, toxic relationship, grief, traumatic brain injury

🦇 ER nurse Olive Murphy's fear of flying doesn't stop her from getting on a plane to honor her brother, but it seems her fear is misplaced. A medical emergency forces Olive to leap out of her seat and into action, only for the flight to get redirected. She would have missed the marathon she was meant to run at Disney if not for Allied Airlines pilot Stella Soriano; a gorgeous, type A woman who captivates Olive with a glance. They share a magical day at Disney together as the video of Olive saving a man's life goes viral (after all, she did TECHNICALLY save Mickey Mouse), prompting an uptick in positive press and sales for the airline. Stella sees it as an opportunity to earn her long-deserved promotion and asks Olive to play the role of her fake girlfriend as they generate more press. Can Olive stand playing a fake role when her heart is already on a one-way flight?

[ Instagram | Literal | Goodreads | StoryGraph ]

My Thoughts:

💜 Get ready for a sassy, steamy, sapphic love story bound to soar into your heart. Andie Burke's debut novel has a little of everything; an insta-crush, fake dating (complete with a binder full of rules and research!), sharp and witty banter, plus some real and raw mental health rep. Between their anxieties, family responsibilities, and messy emotions, both Olive and Stella are relatable main characters you can't help but fall in love with. Sparks fly from the moment Olive and Stella meet, and Olive's mega-crush is adorable without making her seem adolescent. We gain a lot of insight into both characters' lives despite the fact that the story sticks with Olive's POV, which isn't always an easy feat. The prose is descriptive but not overly flowery, but it's the character development that really flies off the page. I absolutely adored Olive's best friend, too (imagine Felix from Orphan Black and get ready for ALL the gay sass).

💜 Burke does a wonderful job of normalizing mental health conditions without banging mental health rep over our heads. Olive's symptoms are as much a part of her as the heart-eyes she wears when Stella is in the room. After her (toxic) ex broke up with Olive because her anxiety disorder and panic attacks were "too much," Olive is afraid her symptoms will eventually scare Stella away. Meanwhile, Stella's responsibilities as her father's caretaker (who has Parkinson's) create the cracks in her type-A facade and show us why she's so committed to earning her promotion. Both characters encounter misogyny as well. While some readers might feel that there's too much going on, Burke carefully stacks these issues atop of one another. That's life; we're all juggling multiple conflicts, both internal and external. Read the quote I selected again. These women are mirror images of one another. Their struggles, while different on the surface, make it all the easier for them to empathize with and support each other. There's also no perfect, easy solution to the problems these women are facing because, again: that's life.

🦇 A part of me does wish this story split the POV, allowing us to see Stella's perspective. Keeping the focus on Olive ensured Stella's feelings for her remained hidden, but...come on. We all know where a sapphic romance novel is bound to end: with a sapphic romance. The "fake dating girlfriends with benefits" situation is where the story really gets messy. It's difficult to believe that Stella doesn't have romantic feelings for Olive at that point. The miscommunication trope is still my least favorite, but it lingers much too long in this one, leading to a not-at-all surprising third-act breakup. Even so, this remains the best sapphic romance I've read so far this year.

🦇 Recommended to fans of the fake dating trope, serious character development, and a heart-eyed, healing MC.

✨ The Vibes ✨ ✈️ Fake Dating ✈️ Bisexual MC ✈️ Sapphic Ship ✈️ Panic Attacks/Depression/Mental Health Rep ✈️ Debut Author

🦇 Major thanks to the author and publisher for providing an ARC of this book via Netgalley. 🥰 This does not affect my opinion regarding the book.

[cenotaphized]

men are allowed to be ugly and yet loved, while women are not.

this is a double standard that is so normalized in society. it's not just unfair, it's utterly dehumanizing. men can be average looking—or even considered 'ugly'—and yet, still be adored, admired, or even romanticised if they have charm, status, or a good sense of humor. society tends to allow men complexity and value beyond their looks. but women? they are pressured to be beautiful first, and everything else—talent, kindness, intelligence—comes second, if it’s even noticed. and even when a woman is beautiful, she's also expected to have it naturally. not through surgery or other aesthetic enhancements.

it tells us that a woman’s value is her appearance. while a man’s value can be his personality, his ambition, his talent—even his brokenness.

if a woman doesn't meet conventional beauty standards, she's often seen as unworthy of love or attention. even strong, talented, or brilliant women are reduced to "not pretty enough" if they don't fit the mold. a lot of women are taught from childhood that beauty is currency. compliments revolve around how “pretty” a little girl looks in her dress, not how smart or creative or funny she is. women grow up trying to perfect their bodies, skin, makeup, clothes. and it’s not just for themselves, it’s because they've internalized, deep down, that society won’t treat them kindly if they don't fit the beauty standard.

meanwhile, men aren’t just allowed to “let go” of their looks—they’re often romanticized for it. "rugged." "real." "unconventionally attractive." that double standard gives them so much more freedom to exist as they are. in contrast, women are trapped in an entirely different system—one where appearance is not just noticed, but evaluated, policed, and tied to their worth. this is where beauty privilege comes into play. while beauty privilege is real and gives some women certain benefits, it’s actually not as sweet as it sounds.

beauty privilege is a product of misogyny.

beauty privilege sees a woman as being worthy of kindness, support, or even basic decency only when she fits society’s beauty standards. in other words, being treated well isn't a right—it's a reward, handed out to those who are considered attractive enough. beauty privilege might look like power or respect from the outside—people complimenting you, being kind, offering help—but it’s not real, stable empowerment. it’s not because they value who you are as a whole person. it’s because they like how you look. so the treatment you receive is conditional—it only exists as long as you meet a certain beauty standard.

i’m trying to point out the underlying belief that drives all of this: that women are only worthy—of care, love, attention, or even respect—if they’re beautiful. not if they’re kind. not if they’re smart or funny or hard-working. just… beautiful. that’s what society teaches, and that’s where beauty privilege comes from. so instead of true empowerment—where a woman is respected for her full humanity—beauty privilege is a shallow, fragile kind of advantage. it disappears the moment she age, gain weight, or don’t fit the ideal standard anymore.

this system is harmful to both women and men. while women are expected to be perfect and valued by their looks, men are judged by their social statuses and valued by his wealth.

for women, the pressure is deeply physical, intimate, and often starts frighteningly young. her body, face, and femininity are constantly under a microscope. she's expected to be beautiful, soft, but not too bold. attractive, but not threatening. perfect, but effortless. it’s exhausting—and dehumanizing. men, on the other hand, are often valued based on external achievements: wealth, status, power, or how many people "respect" him. he's taught to suppress vulnerability, ignore emotions, and "prove" himself through dominance or success. that’s its own kind of trap. but, the bar is significantly lower for men, especially when it comes to looks and basic decency.

this lopsided standard breeds entitlement. many men don’t feel the pressure to improve themselves emotionally or mentally because society already rewards them for simply existing by as males. they're not taught to question how they show up in the world. because the rules are unfair and much easier on men, some men start to believe they deserve love, respect, admiration—even if they don’t work on themselves. they expect it.

men often don’t try to meet their best self because they don’t have to. some men don't feel the need to grow emotionally, be kind or introspective, question how they treat people. for example, a man might be rude, immature, not emotionally aware, and not take care of himself—but still say:

"why don’t women like me?" "i deserve love."

he thinks he’s entitled to a partner or attention—even though he hasn’t put in the work to be someone worth loving. that’s entitlement.

society gives them that cushion. women have no cushion—only expectations.

[smukkits]

Been idly thinking about my gender a lot lately, and I figure if I'm going to ramble about it publicly anywhere it should be on tumblr. But I think my main frustration with gender presentation and how others inevitably perceive my gender is that to me, all physical external gender markers feel like a performance. Hair and clothing and posture and speech and makeup are all just things. Intrinsically they are neutral. They are only given meaning when put in the larger context of culture and society. Sure when I dress more masc it has a certain sort of vibe that feels "boy" to me. But it's the same feeling of putting on a show that I feel when deciding to dress very femme (used in the sense that it is perceived or associated with femininity) Neither of those things are "me" or even particularly a part of my identity. It's all just play. Putting together outfits and dying my hair and all that is like a hobby. It's an expression of myself, but in the same way making art is an expression of myself. It's things I like and that make me happy and communicate my thoughts to the rest of the world, but it's not me. I very rarely see my body as me, but rather a beautiful thing that I'm happy I get to have. But what I would consider myself is elsewhere (In my perception, emotion, memories, connections, thoughts.) So when I'm dressing myself for anything other than necessity I'm only concerned with gender markers in the same way I'm concerned about picking out something that I think will match the occasion or be a reflection of my interests and personality. There's usually an inherent superficiality to it because, as I said earlier, it all feels like performance regardless. Then of course the frustration comes from the disconnect between what I feel is a very queer internal experience, and the way I am perceived in the world, as "Woman (but kinda goth sometimes.)" And I feel this immense pressure from within myself to conform to that sort of genderqueer/nonbinary/androgynous look so that other queer people can recognize me as someone like them. And while that would also be performance, it's not usually lined up with a performance that makes me happy. I love having long hair, I tend to prefer wearing skirts and heels, there's very little in men's fashion that appeals to me (that's within my price range.) Often when I dress up very femme it doesn't feel like I'm trying to embody "girl" either. It feels much more like "not-girl in girl's clothing." Like I'm cross-dressing. Not in a way that it feels incorrect for me to be dressing femme, but in a way that feels somewhere between subversion and drag. But no one sees that, from the outside it's just girl dressing like a girl. Maybe most of this just comes down to the fact that I receive vanishingly little validation for my gender. Pretty much my partner and one friend are the only ones who really seem to "get it." (while most people are at least respectful and supportive) Though to be fair to the rest of my friends I also don't talk about my gender much because putting it into words makes it all seem rather bothersome and pointless. It maybe sounds like I'm just coveting the trans experience and letting internalized misogyny convince me that Woman=Bad. But prior to having the words to describe non-binary genders I've either been wholly ambivalent or somewhat rebellious against my assigned gender, so I know that it's more than that uncharitable notion. I guess overall I just don't feel like I have the words or the label to really express how I perceive my own gender, so "non-binary" is close enough and people know about it so I don't have to explain gender theory to coworkers or random people I meet. I think the closest I could get is philosophically agender but physically genderqueer/gender-fluid? Like I don't really believe in gender or feel gender for myself, but they're fun to play around with so why not?

This of course isn't even touching on the fact that my ideal body plan is completely unattainable, like only exists in sci-fi/fantasy unattainable. Which makes me both very sad and fairly insecure that what I really want for my body may never happen in anyone's lifetime let alone mine.

Not really sure where to leave this, just felt like I needed to type it out!

[junepersecond]

Thoughts on the Alt-Right Pipeline as a Trans Woman

tw: use of the term “nazi”

There’s this stereotype or inside joke that a lot of transfems had a “Nazi phase.” This is of course a gross mischaracterization, but it touches on a phenomenon of pre-transition fems being on the alt-right pipeline as “boys.”

For me personally, I was on that pipeline. I consumed “anti-feminist” content, and I watched people like Sargon of Akkad with his “feminist owned” videos.

This content provided reasoning (and an enemy) for why I felt so terrible as a “boy,” as well as anger at the idea I was privileged or better off for it. I was profoundly miserable, and all of the privileges that are afforded to men in society were either fully or partially denied to me as a non-traditional “boy” (read as subtly queer and feminine), or when administered to me felt more like burdens and pain than any privilege.

This content also manifested a sort of pseudo-internalized misogyny. I felt an inexplicable anger at women, specifically queer women, for daring to say that I had it better when they were everything I wanted to be (of course I was not conscious of this reasoning and therefore only felt the anger).

Wrapped in this was also the desperate attempt to hold on to professed “masculine qualities” such as emotional suppression and reason. These enabled me to deaden the misery that I felt while keeping this feeling of superiority over women that embraced femininity (which was, to me, a failure to avoid, similar I believe to the existence of pick-me girls who put down other women for men’s approval).

The confluence of my budding sexuality and the pain and fear that caused (both from internal and external sources) during this time created a desperate attempt to hold on to that emotional suppression, which further reinforced these negative constructs.

I eventually forced my way out of this pipeline as my sexuality made these ideas incongruous in my mind, but I retained aspects of that mindset and for many years until I discovered the root cause and transitioned.

The phrase is not really a good way to describe this phenomenon, but I believe it’s meant to bring ironic levity to a period of intense pain. But of course, people disavow treating any transfem with the benefit of the doubt, especially when this phenomenon can be used to further reinforce the perception of the “original sin” of masculinity that taints her forever

The “Nazi phase” can be better put as, “A period of adolescence in which a young transfem is suddenly beset by masculinity and is drawn to a pyrrhic solution in a false war against a false enemy.” But that’s kind of a mouthful.

---

[blackswallowtailbutterfly]

Things that are true at the same time

1) Romantic relationships are presented as the be all and end all of human relatonships, especially to women.

2) Given how other animals pair up, there is probably also a biological drive to find a mate.

3) Humans have proven time and time again that they will risk anything to have a chance at a romantic relationship, including external violence (for interracial relationships, homosexual relationships, relationships outside of marriage, any other relationship not approved of by family or the state) or internal violence (thousands of women are killed by their current or former husbands or boyfriends each year).

4) However, it is entirely possible for a human to have a fulfilling life without a romantic partner, and plenty of people have done so--women are at their happiest in their mid 80s, which is after the life expectancy of men.

5) Danger due to external violence and internal violence is not the same.

6) There is no social pressure to specifically be in a homosexual relationship while plenty exists specifically for a heterosexual relationship.

7) Opposite-sex-attracted women will often be shamed for their choice in relationships but it’s not to do with their opposite sex attraction.

8) Same-sex-attracted women will often be shamed specifically for their same sex attraction.

9) Even though OSA women are often shamed for having sex with men that people in their lives disapprove of, they are also shamed for not having sex with men, and lesbian women are shamed for not wanting to have sex with men at all.

10) When the risk is of external violence, it is the society that must change to accept relationships that are not inherently harmful (homosexual, interracial, etc.).

11) When the risk is of internal violence, the options are limited: A. have high standards and watch for red flags and hope you get lucky, or B. just don’t date.

12) Telling people to just not date regardless of the reason is not likely to be listened to.

13) That doesn’t mean it should never be said.

14) A small group of people on the internet telling you not to date someone with whom there’s a risk of internal violence is not the same as being threatened with external violence if you date someone.

15) The external societal pressure on women to date men far exceeds any “pressure” in radfem circles not to do so.

16) Telling you not to get a pet bear isn’t the same as telling you not to get a pet cat or dog. The latter might make it more difficult to find a place to rent (external). The former will literally be the one to destroy your home (internal).

17) Using misogynistic language isn’t cool, no matter who’s saying it to whom.

18) It’s also not nearly as commonly used in radblr as people are saying.

19) It doesn’t excuse homophobia or more misogyny as a response.

20) It is okay to take a break from this site sometimes. A lot of people here who are at odds would have a perfectly civil and productive discussion in person (not everyone, but a lot). Please take a walk outside, and put what you see here into context. No one on this website has any control of your life decisions.

Full disclosure: I am a heterosexual woman, I had sex with a man over the winter holidays. He is very likely the last man I will have any such relations with, but I trust him with my life and I will continue to have a handful of such encounters with him each year unless I feel I can’t trust him or he wants to stop. Nothing I read on radblr is going to change that. I had sex with him on Thanksgiving weekend too. And on the week I took off in the summer. I’ll probably have sex with him some time this spring. What radblr has done is validated my not feeling safe dating anymore men after my rape several years ago. My standards have raised considerably and I feel no shame for having them. I accept that I may never find a romantic life partner or have any children but realize a fulfilling life is still possible.

Take radblr as a balancing act: liberal men tell you to have sex with lots of men (and some women too as long as the men can watch) and that you’re a prude if you don’t, conservative men tell you to have sex with one man only and that you’re a slut if you have sex with more than one. Both tell you it’s wrong not to have sex with men at all (even nuns are called brides of Christ). Radblr simply says, hey, whether it’s one or it’s many, men are dangerous and it’s safer to not have anything to do with them. Difference is women in radblr have no power, external or internal, to enforce what they think you should do. Men do, both external and internal, and they use it frequently.

You can have sex with men if you want to have sex with men! You can date men and hope to find your unicorn, I hope you do too! But it’s no bad thing to hear, in what is a small space on the internet, “Hey, consider not doing this risky thing” in a sea of “Do this risky thing this way or else” and “No, do this risky thing this way or else”. It’s okay. It’s literally okay to be told “We don’t think you should do this” and still do it. And if the day comes where you don’t want to anymore, at least you know you have a--again--small place where people won’t shame you for that decision.

[maaarirurero]

After reading many brilliant thoughts by others about it, I’ve managed to put my own thoughts about AMC’s IWTV and race in order and write it down. I’m only talking about the tv series because I’ve only recently started reading the books and it’s been a while since I watched the movie, so I won’t compare them. I’m also a white European woman so I’m sure there are things that I’m missing, but maybe I can still contribute something.

-------

One thing that was a big take-away for me while watching this series in regard to how it talks about race, is how you don’t have to be a racist in order to profit from a racist society and your place within white supremacy.

Or in other words: Lestat expresses how strange and stupid he finds the racial hierarchy that he encounters in America (and surely doesn’t believe in the race theory of the time, contrary to the other white rich men Louis has to deal with on a daily basis) but he still profits from his place in a racist society.

The show explicitly shows us that neither Louis wealth nor his existence as a vampire allow him to get away from how he is perceived and treated. And Lestat doesn’t get it. Because he sees himself as an individual. Someone who is neither connected to humanity, nor to whiteness. But Louis doesn’t get that luxury.

I think what upsets some people is that because in this adaptation Louis (and Claudia) are Black suddenly Lestat can also no longer be seen as an individual but also as someone in the context of how he is racialized = white. And that‘s something that makes us white people so uncomfortable when we are forced to do it for the first time (or the xxxth time, if we don’t learn to work through it...), because we are so used to seeing ourselves purely as individuals. And it really enhances the story in my opinion. Because the story was always set in “our” reality, not in a race-, gender-, or class-less fantasy world. But now race can’t be ignored. Just like it can’t and shouldn’t be ignored in the real world. Just like homophobia (external and internal) isn’t ignored in this series either. And it’s not done in a way that tells the majority audience “oh no look, sad Black/gay people.” but in a way that resonates with the minority audience (as far as I can tell) and forces the majority audience to think about why they are feeling uncomfortable and sit with it.

Over on my Twitter I talked about how wonderfully not sensational (not “oh look! two MEN kissing!”) the intimate scenes between Louis and Lestat are in this series are, how their homosexuality isn’t shown as shocking or scandalous to the viewer but treated as just two people in a (very complicated) love story. But I’m sure that someone with a lot of unresolved homophobia might feel very uncomfortable with that, and that’s good. I hope they sit with that feeling and THINK. But I’m getting off-track.

Lestat doesn’t think of Louis and Claudia as “lesser than” because of their race, however he also doesn’t see them as his equals. Which is probably because he just knows how much they don’t know and how vulnerable they will be in the “world out there”. But he also doesn’t tell them, yes because he wants to protect them, but also BECAUSE he doesn’t see them as equals.

After ep 6, I’ve seen some posts where people were upset about Claudia talking about Lestat as “massa” when she speaks to Louis, but I think it’s really just her interpreting not being treated as an equal in the way that comes most natural to her given the world she grew up in: She would read his behavior as racism and misogyny. Yes it’s uncomfortable, but it makes sense in the story and the timeline.

She emphasizes the racial context in her conversations with Louis because she knows that their connecting elements are that they’re both Black and they’ve both been turned by Lestat and thus belong to him in a way. So she does what she thinks she has to do to get Louis on her side. Because she knows she can’t break free of Lestat on her own.

And Lestat in that train scene is such a perfect performance of how you can be horribly racist and misogynistic without actively thinking that the other person is “less than” because of their race or gender, but simply by employing the tools that you have been handed IN a racist and misogynistic society. He wants to make her stay because he doesn’t want Louis to retreat back into his shell again like the last time Claudia was gone. But how does he do that? By employing the tools handed to him by a racist and misogynistic society: He uses the image of the cage and his knowledge about the abuse that happened to her against her. As a white man both of these tools (racism and misogyny) are easy for him to use in order to get what he wants, because there are systems of oppression behind his words that make them more powerful. Does he know that that’s what he’s doing, or does he just pick the low hanging fruits handed to him by the society he lives in? I don’t know.

But I mean, it’s basically summed up in Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael) quote, right?

"If a white man wants to lynch me, that's his problem. If he's got the power to lynch me, that's my problem. Racism is not a question of attitude; it's a question of power."

So anyone being angry about how “the series made Lestat racist and he wouldn’t do that” is missing a point in my opinion. I don’t think the series ever portrays him as a racist in the way that it does with the other white characters around him. The series just shows us what every white person living in a society rooted in white supremacy is capable of doing (not because we are inherently bad or whatever bs) because we live in a society that allows us to do these things, and gives our actions power if we follow the easy route and choose to act in a way that is in line with the power structure we exist in.

The racism of the time that the story Louis is telling us is set in is very overt and so we can see it more easily and it’s more easy to see why it’s wrong. So we don’t want ourselves or the white characters we love to be associated with THAT.

But rather than stopping there, we should take the lesson taught to us and allow it to reflect on how we view the story as a whole. How do we view our own emotional relationship to the characters in this context, and how do we or don’t we relate to them and why?

-------

Louis in the present is very rich and thus somewhat outside of the restraints still put on racialized people in our modern world. But I hope the series will keep the way they are incorporating race, gender and sexuality in the past story line in the present story line as well. So far we’ve only seen our modern day vampire(s) interact with one person: Daniel. So it hasn't really come up. Aside maybe from the way Daniel sees no issue with interrupting Rashid during prayer (which could be read as a comment about the way western anti-religious people often have low respect for religiosity, especially non-Christian religiosity. But tbh I don't think it's THAT deep and just another random incident of Daniel being a bit blunt and a bit rude). But I wonder how things might change once we step outside of that tower in Dubai and meet other vampires and see how they interact with the world.

And maybe there is also a comment about race in how present day Louis chooses to surround himself with a majority of non-white humans in Dubai. Now that he is in a situation where he gets to make the rules about who he keeps around, how and where he lives, and how he sustains himself, this is the environment he had built for himself. He is rich enough to exist outside of a human-made white majority power structure, and rich enough to have human blood without going against his personal moral codex.

That seems like a pretty perfect situation from the perspective of past!Louis. But even if we can say that he has achieved to break free from a lot of the restraints of a racist and homophobic world in the present day, he still doesn’t seem like he enjoys the kind of life he has now, living nearly alone in that beautiful but also cold and sterile tower...

[harrypotterheretic]

It's called "forced teaming" and TQ+ do this a lot. They take someone's actual, real world struggle or oppression and hitch their own cause to it. Because their cause is fiction and nonsense and has no validity - and the way to obfuscate that is to link themselves in other people's minds with actual valid causes they care about.

It's why the T got added to the LGB in the first place. Because being a transsexual or a transvestite has got absolutely nothing to do with being same sex attracted. If you were T and happened to be same sex attracted, then you were already covered with the LGB, and if (like so many of them are now) you are opposite sex attracted, you have no place in LGB spaces.

But, at the beginning of the 21st century that was a big push on gay rights, an upsurge of acceptance from the normies, anti-gay laws were being pulled down while civil marriages and the equal marriages were being instated.

The T hitched their wagon to the LGB star. It's the new frontier. The next civil rights movement. Objecting to adult men in women's toilets filming themselves like Lilly Tino (though he is far from the first) makes you the same as the people who say "it's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve".

They did it to BLM as well - which is why there is a brown and black triangle on the ever more ridiculous "progress flag". Ever seen them says "trans women are women the same way black women are women"? And their constant bandying around of the word "intersectionality"?

They take the reality of women of colour - that the misogyny they face also comes with a side of racism, and that the racism they face also comes with a side of misogyny and they cannot escape this double bind - and make it about them.

They can absolutely fuck off with that racist bullshit. No, black women are not women the same way that men are. Black women actually are women. End of sentence.

And they do it with individuals who have DSDs (Difference in sex Development - for some people with these conditions, Intersex is an offensive term... this has not stopped the "I" being added to to TQ+ without their request or permission).

DSDs are useful to the trans movement because, in the case of some very rare DSDs, a person can look entirely female, externally go through what appears to be a female puberty (breast growth, hips widen, no facial hair, voice doesn't break) but they never get their period. And when the tests are done to see why this has happened it turns out they have internal testes instead of ovaries and a condition called CAIS (Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome). This means their body cannot process testosterone and therefore they do not go through male puberty or develop a penis. They look like a woman and their external genitalia looks totally normal for a female. They were told they were a girl when they were born and raised as a girl and no one suspected anything was wrong until they were a late teen and still had not attained menarche.

They are an XY individual who has always been considered a woman, and who is externally indistinguishable from a woman.

It genuinely would be unkind (and unsafe) to insist these people were men and make them use the men's toilets and changing rooms.

And from the existence of CAIS individuals, trans activists can claim that sex is more complicated that XX (woman) and XY (man) that we can't know our own chromosomes unless we have had them tested (a very male viewpoint, if you have had periods or - indeed - a baby, your womanhood is beyond doubt. Which doesn't mean you have to have these things to be a woman, but just that they are evidence of womanhood which means a chromosome test is unnecessary and most women have periods, so most women know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are women).

They then use this very rare medical condition to tell us that therefore that great hulking man in a frilly frock and lippy might really be a woman, and no we can't tell and no we can't ask.

They use DSDs to pretend that something as simple as biological sex is actually very complicated and therefore (with a bit of squinting and a great leap of logic) trans identities are valid. And men can use women's facilities.

Forced teaming

They don't care whether or not people with DSDs want to be involved in this (and actually they have asked time and again to be left alone). The "I" has been added to the TQ+ and now - conveniently - anyone questioning it is a bigot.

If anyone is interested in learning more about actual DSDs, their movement to advocate for themselves and how this relates to the trans movement I suggest you check out the wonderful @MRKHVoice blog which is run by a woman called Claire Graham who, unsurprisingly given the name of her blog, has the DSD MRKH syndrome.

The interesting thing about DSDs is that rather than disprove the sex binary they actually shore it up. They are not "between the sexes" (which is why intersex is considered offensive, as it suggests they are). They are either "intersex male" or "intersex female". As in some DSDs only affect women, and the others only affect men. They are variations within a sex, not a different sex or somewhere in between.

Here are a few which prove the binary:

MRKH is a female DSD - it is where a woman is born without a uterus and has a shortened or absent vagina. She still has XX chromosomes, and ovaries, a vulva and goes through female puberty.

Klinefelter Syndrome - is a male DSD, where the boys chromosomes are XXY. They are externally and internally male but the extra X chromosome can mean they have wider hips or develop small breasts, their gentials might be smaller, and puberty is delayed. They are still very much men, albeit with a medical condition.

46XX - another female DSD, usually caused by a lack of the enzyme that helps produce cortisol. Without cortisol the female fetus produces more androgens than normal and this can cause their clitoris to grow larger and their vagina to close up. This can be corrected with surgery, and is the DSD that I think Lady Colin Campbell has (she is called Colin in the same way that Princess Michael of Kent is called Michael - she uses her husband's name in order to use the title - not because she has a DSD and so uses a boy's name).

5ARD - Another exclusively male one, This is Caster Semenya's and Imane Khalif's DSD. Again, due to a problem producing the correct hormones, male children are born with ambiguous genitalia and often mis-sexed as girls, and raised as such. At puberty they start to develop as normal boys. They have internal testes and Semenya has fathered children with his own sperm. Immoral talent scouts actively look for boys like Caster and Imane, knowing that they will dominate any women's sport they are put in. This is quite a useful DSD for the trans narrative - not only the kerfuffle around Khalif last summer - but because little girls who suddenly turn into boys are very useful for the "born in the wrong body, what would you do if tomorrow you woke up and you were suddenly a boy/girl" trope. It is, however, a medical condition and one that the boys themselves have to navigate, trans people do not go through the same thing at all and them hi-jacking it does nothing to help those with 5ARD.

Turner syndrome - Where a girl is born with only one X chromosome. This can cause her to have a shortened life span.

Differences in Sex Development have absolutely nothing to do with trans people. In the same way that Diabetes has nothing to do with trans people. They are a series of rare medical conditions, which affect those who have them but tell us nothing about anyone else's identity.

Trans activists have forced teamed with them - hijacked their narrative against their will and used their stories to bolster their own claims - because they hope both people's lack of knowledge of DSDs and their natural sympathy for people who have them will help them accept trans narratives and not ask too many questions, convince them sex is too complicated and they just don't understand it all, and reinforce the need to "be kind".

Even that dread trans phrase "assigned at birth" has been stolen from the DSD community.

But they have nothing to do with each other.

A trans person could have a DSD, the way a trans person could be LGB, and in which case they can belong in both the T and DSD communities but that does not mean the communities are the same, or should merge.

As with the LGB, people with DSDs have struggles of their own totally distinct from trans struggles.

So when they are brought up as part of the trans narrative, the answer is "Intersex is considered an offensive term by many, please don't use it. People with DSDs have repeatedly asked not to be included or used in this argument. Your point is irrelevant (and probably factually incorrect)."

But do check out Claire's blog if you want a better depth of knowledge for next time this comes up

genuine and honest question why are intersex people involved in lgb/lgbt/lgbtqia? being intersex is a biological reality and a birth defect (that is NOT . bad . it's not your fault nor is it something to be ashamed of) and not something like being gay or lesbian ? what