#and also essentialist. tbh.

[doctorwhoisadhd]

i like how all the explicitly trans characters in the dw universe are handled super well except the ones written by russell t davies 😑

[alacants]

Heyyyy bestieeeee so you’re obviously the foremost expert on Spanish tennis and also obviously I trust your a/b/o opinions sooo for no particular reason (👀👀) can you share your thoughts on the Spanish men’s designations ??

(You may have already touched on this in which case I apologize for my lack of prior research lol)

😘, flyerskay

dying i tend to think of myself as "cockroach carrying the memories of a dead civilization" but much like juanki i am very susceptible to flattery AND i find the timing of this ask extremely intriguing. ^__^ so for No Particular Reason i hasten to share some thoughts. 

i've talked about my blorbo and his poor little meow-meow at uhhhh well at length. there are a few notes about other armadas in that post but i will take this opportunity to expand upon them. at even more length.

—assuming you meant Classic Spain. actually wait based on the mental rundown of present spain that i just did that's clearly a talking point—no alphas in the current lineup. which is obviously why they're not winning (eyeroll). whereas previously if anything they maybe had TOO many alphas around sometimes. sure, there was drama, but they won a bunch of davis cups! (rba could arguably be an alpha but i've immediately taken a shine to this angle so let's say he's not. pedro and pablo are absolutely not, marcel is not, and carlos is OF COURSE the most successful omega on tour post-roger. there are some stans on twitter who desperately want him to not be an omega to prove a point and get deep into web weaves about how he's clearly demonstrating alpha traits you can see it in his eyes but it's an ultra-niche minority of secondary gender essentialists, everyone else takes one look at the kid and is like "...lmao.") 

ok so classic armada thoughts, in decreasing order of normality:

marcel: on the fence between beta and omega. early marcel would have been, like, the ultimate haters' proof point that omegas can't take the pressure. otoh he is also such a good little team player… ok i'm thinking he's a beta and at first everyone's like, are you sure he's not an omega. but once he grows into his confidence he becomes a different kind of proof point, the one about how betas are inherently suited to doubles. (maybe not good for breaking stereotypes but good for his tennis career.) 

marc lopez my beloved: tiny alpha. marches to the beat of his own drum. shows up on his own time. makes his own decisions. lifts feli lopez to a roland garros title and rafa nadal to olympic gold. retires at his peak. tbh you could also make a very solid argument for beta, i'm a little bit on the fence. but i think in the end that accounts for the fractional differences that exist between him and ferru.

tommy robredo: beta by default. just. a nice guy! a solid player! a good doubles partner! people tend to overlook him a lot. and then he comes back from 2 sets down three matches in a row at roland garros, or calls out novak for (allegedly) faking injury, or beats roger federer in straight sets at the us open, and you're like wait. wait. where did that guy come from.

nico almagro: alpha who's not very good at it. WHICH is why he was tapped for davis cup final singles slot over feli lopez in 2012 and he flopped so bad and they lost. (sorry nico. he did flop tho. and then alex lost his job. which, fair enough.) (or, well, alex as dc captain probably wouldn't intentionally be like, hm i think an alpha is inherently a better choice than an omega, buuuuut he's a full tennis generation older, could easily have been subconscious conditioning. or fed pressure. or a mere coincidence that 95% of observers will see through the lens of a/o dynamics and consider sensible decision-making. 🙃)

rafa: ok i threw this out in my very first post and never really dug into it. but although i know omega rafa is a popular take, and i completely understand where it's coming from, i'm an alpha rafa truther. goes for what he wants, does things how he wants, does not care what you think. the entirety of manacor (if not mallorca) is his pack, and the duly elected local government is honestly kind of a little uncomfortable with this. also it makes his crush on carlos moya like. really cute. gangly teen alpha crushing on Big Cool Confident Nice Adult Alpha. then he meets roger and etc. be my mate join my pack. roger & mirka sending their kids to rafa nadal academy is going to be like THE ultimate affirmation hahaha.

fernando verdasco: alpha who thinks he's Hot Shit. he really thinks he and rafa are on the same level and they're scuffling over the same territory (davis cup team leader, spain #1 singles man). uh they are not. i never got around to making a felifer post so some background here is that for 2-3 years he was undisputedly spain's #2 singles man and i'm pretty sure he didn't think of himself as #2, if you know what i mean.* just had to delete two paragraphs about tennis because it's not relevant plus maybe someday i will make the post but suffice it to say that he did have a sharp peak around 2008-2010 and the verdasco aura was so pervasive that until i went to doublecheck my stats just now i was convinced he beat rafa in their 2009 ao sf. (he did not. but it did go to 5 sets over 5 hours.) however it turned out the peak was brief lmao. he and rafa clashed not only about tennis—fer was the one who got pretty outspoken after dc 09 about the rest of the team not getting enough credit—but also, well, ahaha. word on the street—and i do mean on the street, this was pretty well-known tennis insider gossip but not more than gossip—was that he and rafa were both into ana ivanovic. she went for fer and he and rafa were on noticeably bad terms all year lmfao.

*whether he WAS spain's #2 singles man for this entire time is also little bit up for debate. his peak partly overlapped with ferru's slump but not entirely. in this universe it's a definitely a reflection of, like, alpha discourse.

at the same time for the vast majority of this time they were definitely Friends and Bros. just... friends who fought sometimes. so. very much a two-alpha dynamic. 

(one HUNDRED percent the mere existence of omega feli makes the tension worse, like they are not fighting over him per se but the pack instincts are making things real weird. he's my friend. no he's my situationship.)

feli lopez: the most omega to ever omega. i understand that in light of latter day feli lopez, happy second marriage 40-something year old family man feli lopez, it's probably hard to envision this, but i cannot express the degree to which 2000s feli lopez was a walking talking bl manga character like. my god. incredibly touchy and unbelievably beautiful and prone to Dramatic Emotions that he blurted all over everyone at the drop of a hat. this is someone who gets soooo much validation through physical touch. and specifically through sex. feli has so many friends he's spent heats with and he loves them all so much. but the moment you bring Feelings into it things get real messy real fast.

(once again this is really material for a lore post and not an omegaverse casting post but my very favorite "oh my god you are SUCH A MESS" moment is the time in 2010 he got on twitter at midnight in miami to tweet through his breakup feelings in ENGLISH, including replying to everyone who replied to him. most of whom were—because it was midnight in miami—americans on livejournal. direct quote: "i have everything in my life besides love." anyway, it was just SO, like, Everyone Comfort Me. peak omega acting out.)

—brief digression about doubles. obviously the stereotype is that betas are best at doubles/the best doubles players are betas. they are for sure well-represented but whether that's due to innate aptitude or structural impacts, e.g. they are funneled in that direction early on, is an open question.

a doubles team that does not include any betas: lopez/verdasco, 2004-2011. there's been a lot of trope subversion so far. there is ZERO subversion here. lmao. alpha/omega, ad/deuce, top/bottom, in every way the ultimate encapsulation of the stereotype. so it's FUNNY that they spend the next FIFTEEN YEARS on and off and on and off and on and off and at one point it looks like they're both going to mate/settle down with other people only surprise that falls through too. like jesus christ things would have been so much easier if fer did just go for the mating bite yknow. (just to give you an idea: post the day before feli's first wedding, post FROM feli's first wedding, post from feli's retirement.)

(this is going to mean nothing to most non-spaniards reading this but look alba carrillo is absolutely an alpha. hahahdkfljalfjdkfld. feli really did fuck around and find out.) (ana boyer is a beta and in this au she is not quitting her lucrative international consulting job to be fer's on-tour caretaker.)

this is all classic stuff. if you're thinking about—again for no particular reason—people close to carlitos… off the top of my head, i'd say that at equelite toni = alpha, samuel = beta, juanjo = omega, alvaro = beta, pablo carreno = beta. based purely on Vibes.

and if i missed anyone feel free to ask. :D

[octodrawn]

Cringetober Day 13: Genderbend

Now presenting (left to right) Zackary Trent, Mika (pronounced Me-ka, short for Mikael) Mark, Nila Nevla, Vannie (short for Vanessa) Terrio, Rosaline Ferguson, Pepito Clark, and Benny (short for Benjamin) Ling.

These are the dumbest names I could have come up with, but they're the closest I could get to their originals. Also I got these from behind the name dot com and I've had issues with that website in the past so take their existence with a grain of salt.

My thoughts on genderbends below, if you care about that.

I know genderbending can be a little controversial sometimes, but personally, I think it's fine as long as you aren't too much of a gender essentialist about it. Like you gotta think about how a character would want to look if they were [insert gender here]. For example, I have some ocs who are both mostly masculine presenting boys in the original version. When genderbent, one of them goes super girly and the other stays pretty much the same. In the original story, the one who presents more femininely in the genderbend likes dresses and cute things in the original, but doesn't really wear them because of fear of social ostracization. Later in his life, he does present how he wants to. In a universe that he was a girl, she would definitely wear as much pretty dresses and skirts as she could get her hands on. The other character doesn't change how they look because they don't wear their clothes b/c they masc or fem, but because they just wear clothes they find comfy to sleep in, which for them is a baggy hoodie and basketball shorts. This also applies to hair and other things like that.

this is kinda a long paragrpah saying jsut go off of vibes tbh

[sokkastyles]

I have seen arguments in the past that Iroh favoured Zuko due to Zuko being like a replacement son for Lu Ten. I think you commented on the flashback where Iroh gave Azula a doll and Zuko his knife. I don't think Iroh is sexist because he bonds with Toph easily enough. Do you think Iroh would have been as close to Azula as he was to Zuko if she was less like Ozai?

Tbh I think "if she was less like Ozai" is sort of beating around the issue, which I don't think is your intention, but let's be clear for the Azula apologists in the back who want to make this an issue of Iroh disliking Azula because of clashing personalities or whatever, when that's not the issue at all. I think Iroh and Azula would have gotten along very well if Azula wasn't a cruel person who rejected Iroh from early on and then tried to capture and kill him. The only evidence before Azula literally trying to kill Iroh that he doesn't like her is that he got her a doll, which isn't actually evidence of anything except that he cared enough about his niece to get her a gift.

I know the sexism accusation comes from the gifts being gender essentialist, but that is an issue with the narrative, more than what it tells us about Iroh, because, as you said, Iroh does not ever express any gender essentialist views. In fact, he's often seen encouraging views that do not align with gender essentialism, and this is one of the reasons Azula dislikes him, even before his enlightenment, because his interests align more towards things that would be seen as unmanly in hypermasculine Fire Nation culture. I think Iroh was able to get away with some of those things before Lu Ten's death because he excelled militarily, but he still differs from the norm enough to get him labeled as "kooky." Azula doesn't criticize him specifically on the basis of gender, but those traits do align with gender essentialist values. Being strong, aggressive, and stoic are values traditionally associated with masculinity and thus it is "kooky" that Iroh is more emotional and more interested in simple indulgences, like tea, personality traits we know he had even before his enlightenment. Azula's comment that he is not a real general is absolutely gender coded because we already have those associations, whether or not Fire Nation culture specifically does.

Also, the doll. If giving a doll to a girl simply because they are a girl is so awful, where is that energy for every other time the atla universe has girls, and only girls, play with dolls? Are Kiyi's parents sexist for giving her a doll?

The response to this might be, "but Kiyi might have asked for the doll! Iroh should have known that Azula does not like dolls!"

That's when I would point back to the narrative. The narrative does not tell us that Kiyi asked her parents for a doll, and even if it did, it's still a gender essentialist narrative choice. It doesn't matter whether Kiyi wanted it because Kiyi is fictional and wants whatever she is written to want. The narrative also doesn't tell us that Azula doesn't like dolls, but it DOES tell us that she doesn't like Iroh, for all the reasons already listed. in fact, if we go by the comics, Azula did at least at one point like dolls, because Zuko compares Kiyi and her doll to Azula when she was little.

That's when we go back to narrative purpose. The narrative purpose of that scene is not to tell us that Azula does not like dolls or that Iroh is sexist. The narrative purpose is meant to tell us that Azula does not like Iroh, which is also reinforced by everything else we can point to in the narrative to show us that she doesn't like Iroh, specifically because she thinks he's kooky, lazy, not a real general, etc. etc, and her father was teaching her to be cruel to people like that. Being given a doll as a gift by uncle failure only reinforces to her what she already thought about Iroh, and since, as I said above, the things she already thinks about Iroh are things coded as unmasculine, being given a feminine gift reinforces to Azula that Iroh is unmasculine.

In short, i's not that Iroh thinks Azula should be more feminine, it's that Azula thinks Iroh should be more masculine. The misogyny is Azula's, not Iroh's.

This is also confirmed by Iroh getting along just fine with Toph, as you said. And now I hear you saying "but Toph is a tomboy!" Okay, but remember that the previous thesis was that Iroh specifically was sexist against Azula for being a masculine girl. Which I debunked above, and Iroh being just fine with Toph, another masculine girl, confirms this.

Iroh neither encourages Toph to go home and play with dolls like a proper young lady, nor does he encourage her to be strong and masculine. He has a conversation with her about letting people help her, the same things he is also encouraging in Zuko, and also listens when Toph tells him that he needs to tell Zuko how much he needs him, too.

Speaking of what Iroh teaches Zuko, the idea that Iroh thinks boys should be a certain way and girls should be a certain way is also debunked by Iroh encouraging Zuko to act in ways counter to FN toxic masculinity (I know it is not framed that way, but the things the FN values overlap heavily with toxic masculinity, even if we take the view that they allow women to be in the army, etc). Instead, he encourages Zuko to be kind, empathetic, and moderate. He also encourages the same thing in Aang, and says he is wise to choose happiness and love over power. So there's no evidence that Iroh believes boys should choose strength and girls should only choose feminine pursuits.

What we do have is Iroh valuing kindness over power, while Azula values power over kindness. That's the real difference, and what Azula burning the doll is meant to tell us.

I think Iroh was this way even before his enlightenment, to a degree, but as I said before, he could get away with that when he was the Dragon of the West because he already excelled at fitting that image without having to try too hard. This is where I circle back to what you said about Zuko being a replacement for Lu Ten. We don't know, but I think it's possible that Iroh may be the way he is with Zuko because of feeling like he pushed FN values too hard onto Lu Ten, culminating in his violent death.

Maybe the things Iroh excelled at didn't come as easy to Lu Ten? Maybe Iroh did feel like he had to enforce a certain standard onto Lu Ten, different from the one he would have chosen, had he been given a choice?

I talked before about this theory, the theory that Iroh got Azula that doll because it's what he would give to a girl, because it's something he valued and would have given to his own son if that had been considered acceptable. That a lot of his regrets with regard to Lu Ten was that he ignored his own natural inclinations in order to push Lu Ten to fit the standard he knew the FN would enforce on him, and that's why he encourages the opposite with Zuko.

As a side note, since you mentioned Toph, could you imagine Toph, even considering how much she quarrels with her parents, who do force a certain gendered standard on her, still, can you imagine Toph destroying a gift her parents got her? Toph is firm with her parents about how she feels, and leaves when they don't let her express herself, but she's never cruel to them in the way that Azula is cruel to Iroh, and Toph's parents have actually hurt her in the way that Azula apologists imagine Iroh has hurt her.

[variousqueerthings]

tbh the "male-presenting" comment on doctor who isn't such a big surprise, and kinda does highlight a moment in time rn where in more progressive circles we're still struggling with binary and gender-essentialist assumptions around what we perceive to be "masculinity as something bad" whether it be trans men, non-binary people who don't present femme "enough," intersex people with facial hair and/or other so-called "masculine" features, butches and studs, trans women who "don't pass in the right way" or aren't out, questioning people, and any number of people who exist within gender and sex squiggly spaces, and don't feel welcome because of faux-progressive language constantly trying to redefine who we can exclude and what the oppression hierarchy looks like (women+, women and nb, femmes and thems, afab and amab as shorthand replacing woman and man, male- and female- "presenting", etcetc) rather than actually dismantling/liberating these structures

the ick feeling ive seen a lot of people have with it is neat to see, but it's not a moment that exists in an ignorant vacuum, it very much does echo things we need to be unpacking irl within our own communities and it should lead people to really go into "well what is it about it that comes off as so wrong, especially as the rest of the episode is very trans positive, and are those assumptions things that exist within my own perception of trans equality"?

yeah, hope to see more inclusiveness in the show moving forwards, and also irl moving forwards, because that was a reflection

[spock-smokes-weed]

It sucks that so many Omegaverse and mpreg fics, whether implicitly or explicitly, regurgitate anti-choice thinking, or just reductive ideas around pregnancy and fertility.

The Omegaverse as a genre sits in such a weird space for me cus it’s honesty such a great playground for exploring ideas about gender, social structures, etc. But it can also just reenforce gender essentialist  thinking depending on how you write it.

Things like gender expectations, your gender suddenly being at odds with your body once you hit puberty, and people assuming things about you based off what you look like vs. your “biology”, are all these super interesting ideas to explore in a fictionalized world. But noooo it’s just copy and pasted gender essentialism.

I totally get why a lot of ppl hate the Omegaverse, and tbh I’m right there with you. But I can fix him. I know I can fix him.

[psychabolition]

im fully willing to abandon all psychiatric labels. how do i describe my experiences (paranoid/delusional under psychiatric models) without them? should i describe my processes of thought as necessary as it comes up instead? how do i accept these as the way i am?

Idk what this entails for * you personally this is just my experience.

When I was in the psych ward they thought I was schizospec in the first 2weeks of staying there and they denied me so much agency... so if youre experience w stigmatization is similiar then what I think is most important is that you are aware that you are the person who ALWAYS knows who you are and what you need best, ALWAYS. even if youre genuinely confused who you are and whats going on then youre STILL the person who knows yourself best and what you need.

a pervasive and defining pattern of institutions is the (mis)use of language (this includes all diagnoses generally and also words like "symptom" and "illness/disorder/dysfunctional") to reframe experiences in a way which shifts blame onto the institutionalized/pathologized person and, crucially, shifts blame away from the institution or any of its actors. this neoliberalism of emotional response conveniently absolves the institution (+ often structural violences in general) of responsibility, destroys the institutionalized person's sense of trust in their own intuition, fosters dependence on the discerning, 'objective' eyes of the institution, protects + obscures abusive practices, and prevents the formation of solidarity + connection among institutionalized people.

Part of getting away from this institutional gaslighting for me was to "avoid the circular, essentialist, and socially violent logic of "well i do x because i have y condition (which was diagnosed based on clinician observations of x)" which made me think that my brain is broken in a way requiring me to submit to expert clinical management and surveillance"! I stopped thinking things like "I'm suicidal because of my depression" or "I hallucinate because of my dissociative disorder" because these descriptive labels (=my diagnoses) cant explain anything, theyre never the CAUSE of anything. This actually made me feel way less "helpless" and all my struggles suddenly made way more sense to me because I actually started to ask myself where they were coming from instead of instantly thinking its my brain/mind thats randomly being dysfunctional. So actually you dont have to accept that "this is just the way you are" - if youre in extreme mental pain then its not your fault and there is a reason and the people around can change and show solidarity and you arent helpless against the bad societal/communal circumstances that youre in rn (like being extremely isolated or not having support or being stuck in a nuclear family situation where youre still property of your parents - just as examples).So what Im saying is, dont accept that this is the way its going to be forever for you - demand societal change.

Then one main thing that I noticed for myself is that when you stop using the psych lingo that you learned via therapy (symptom, cognitive distortion, delusion, depression, anhedonia, ...) and instead "humanize" your experiences (describe how you feel and the context in which you feel this way and all this without mentioning diagnosis or symptom-words or words like healthy/unhealthy or maladaptive, ...) you automatically connect more w people since other people relate to you more and understand you more. Because the process of being given a diagnosis is in itself Othering (especially when its as stigmatizing as schizospec diagnoses are!!) since the people around you think that theyre not qualified to help you and they isolate you by saying things like "you need to go to a professional . I cant help you." But tbh I also additionally talked a lot abt anti psych and psych propaganda w my friends so they stop thinking like that (like for example so they dont look for "warning signs" and dont tell me any patronizing bs anymore or worse, call the cops on me but instead support me and try to understand where Im coming from no matter how crazy I sound to them.).

Also I started to stop using words that dont blame me for my mental distress and depoliticize what I went through in the past (=trauma - ); that make more sense to me and that arent inherently seperating my mind/body/brain from myself.

This is a good example of someone pathologizing their experiences and how the person could depathologize them by "humanizing" them.

I personally like the concept of neurodivergency. Ik that a lot of people use it to simply mean adhd and autism nowadays but it originally meant "everyone who deviates from neuronormativity ( =whats societally deemed normal to think/feel/do based on your assigned gender/age/socioeconomic status/...)". I like this concept bc you can deviate for any reason from the norm and this norm deviancy can develop out of awful experiences but also really good experiences or a newly developed political consciousness that critiques the status quo. People who are neurodivergent arent only people who fit a criteria for a DSM or ICD diagnosis anymore, theyre just anyone who differs from the norm in thinking/feeling/acting. This way "neurodivergency" also includes people who suffer more severely than others under the current societal hierarchies (=patriarchy, isolation /living conditions under capitalism, police, legal justice system, psychiatry as an institution, amatonormativity ... ).

also for me personally depathologization of my experiences literally included coming out as queer lol. My queerness was pathologized via personality disorder labels by telling me Im confused about my identity and that my disorders are actually causing this norm deviancy. Which is really dumb when you think about it because my personality is obviously "causing" my queerness lol - all I am is my personality! I basically suffered conversion therapy as sb whos asexual and agender which I thought was helpful back then bc I was suffering under heteronormativity/amatonormativity/allonormativity/ generally under the gender class system and thought that its somehow my fault bc I wasnt able to see these norms being reinforced in my social surroundings and in general society. This is why I like the concept of seeing neurodivergency as queer and queerness as neurodivergent (=its called neuroqueer lol). This post explains it - maybe this is also relevant to you without knowing it. I also didnt realize at the time that this is what they were doing to me.

also I personally started to stop seperating my experiences by my different diagnoses (aspd, dissociative disorder,depression, drug addiction) and view myself and my experiences as more whole and connected .I also dont seperate myself from other people who are labelled as mentally ill anymore (or people who dont have a label like this )- I think the most helpful thing for me would be to find language with other people who are labelled as mentally ill that transgresses diagnoses. Bc we ARE all experiencing very similiar things we just think we dont bc we call it by different psych lingo -names but i guess this new language can only develop with an actual Mad Community . Similar to how the feminist movements created words like "patriarchy, pink tax, male gaze, ...".

Also "Unmasking" similiar to how people who are labelled as on the autism spectrum might be a cool way to feel more comfortable w yourself and connect more authentically with others. (just google it theres lots on the subject, you'll be able to come up with what this would mean for yourself easily.) To me, when others around me accepted me as I am it was also easy to accept myself. I couldve never done this alone in my room just by idk "thinking more positive thoughts about myself" or whatever psychs always tell us to do.

One thing I tended to do when I first tried to get away from the psych labels was calling everything I struggle with "caused by Trauma" and tbh 1)not true and 2) this is the same framework of thinking as the biomedical model (=which says that mental health is no different from physical health) since it also makes all my struggles into an "inner mental health problem" that I need to solve alone for myself and that I personally am responsible for recovering from at fault for suffering from.

Also one last thing that just came to mind: I think a new interpretation of your experiences might include a more communal and whole perspective. For example I call myself an anarchist instead of calling myself aspd/sociopath nowadays. This gives me a new "social role" , a new perspective on relationships to others and some experiences that I called "symptoms" before are not only not reframed but not included in this new identity of mine. Another example is a woman I visited a while ago and everyone called her "the seeing woman" ,shes someone that people go to because she has a very unique perspective on things . I was told she can see the future but idk about that haha .But shes definitely also "neurodivergent" ,if you want to call her that .

This is literally everything that just came to my mind! its everything Ive personally done to reject the pathologization from psychology. What i think is that we can only achieve liberation with another and through each other and that if we're able to imagine it together then a new world and a future where we all have a place in is definitely possible .

[bitsofsciencelife]

As usual, my mind has been blown after watching a video essay from Alexander Avila about how "conservatives" invented gender, my world has shifted. I've come to the conclusion that this modern dividing sex and gender as completely separate and exclusive terms is bad actually and has damaged our ability to accept fully the lgbtq+ diversity, especially in the gender spectrum. Gender theory actually has transphobic, misogynistic, gender-essentialists origins.

Because if we understood from the get-go that biological sex is actually so much more diverse, we would find ALL gender identities a natural consequence of this diversity and not as a human construct only. For example, if we saw the way non-hetero sexuality could be evolutionary advantageous in human communities (maybe with the care of the young like it happens with other species) or simply a random natural variation; or how not rare being intersex actually is, how a lot of people don't even know they're intersex and they might live their lives without knowing it, how in trans people certain parts of the brain show very small gender differences that match their gender identity more than their sex assigned at birth (we don't know the cause tho, more research is needed and this might also be related to sexual attraction); how the ammount of queer people has stayed basically consistent throughout human history, etc. And that's just humans. The diversity in nature is insane. (Humans are part of nature, btw. It could also help us fight this idea that we're entirely separate to other animals when we're also animals. That superiority is not doing anybody good.)

If we knew how much nature and biology don't care about our gender norms and ideas, I think it would be easier for young queers and conservatives to see how this "gender thing" is not just "woke identity politics" or a new human social invention. When we understand that this wonderful diversity has always been part of nature and humans, it becomes easier for the general public to accept queer people.

Imho, sex education when it comes to gender should start by stating the fact that queerness is inherent to both nature and humans. This is not to say we shouldn't discuss gender discrimination, gender expression, or acknowledge that gender is a social construct as well, distict to each human society, but separating gender and sex into neat, barely related categories is not what will liberate us and it's not a good strategy to teach about queerness. It hadn't really helped us that much so far, tbh.

Speaking from experience, it was that fundamental understanding of how much sex in humans isn't binary or divorced from gender, that made me finally become an ally to trans people (and eventually accept myself as nonbinary too), when before I had been raised conservative and I had very bad takes on the subject, I can tell you that.

I'm not saying this will solve all out discriminatory problems, obviously not, but it might help a little, especially in sexed. Biology does NOT support binary gender essentialism, never has, never did. And conservatives have been mad about it for decades.

[orion-nottson]

I shamelessly believe in the Decepticon cause tbh. Like sure, their honors gotten dulled and replaced by Megatron's hunger for power. But you can not deny their cause. It started off with good intentions. Like all they wanted was to rebel against an unfair, overpowered council and have equal rights for their people.

Plus, it's clearly stated pre-war Cybertron was horrible and plagued with discrimination. I hate to be a Megatron apologist. But if I was a cybertronian in the great war? I'd choose the Decepticons too.

(Pretty sure I'd regret it later tho)

i do believe i've had this ask marinating long enough. (you taste scrumptios btw! 😋) so please enjoy this mini-essay. i've been thinking about it for. years. oh authoritarian fascist regime that is the decepticons, how intensely you've strayed from your original goal and manipulated your followers via appeals to social frustration and promises of identity... oh megatron, you never stood a chance did you? the power got to his head! 😃

...truly a you either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain the dark knight christopher nolan moment in the studio today...

So, the Decepticons are often framed as the unambiguously evil "bad guys", and the Autobot cause is unanimously righteous and just for standing up against them. The Great War is often labeled as a fight between good and evil, that there are two sides that are fundamentally and morally different.

I think this is a disingenuous characterization, and very essentialist too. It omits a lot of internal history and nuance that many TF series employ (maybe with the exception of classic G1, which was your average 1980s military propaganda cartoon for kids) when attempting to answer the questions: What happened for the war between the Decepticons and Autobots to start, and for it to become how it is? Why are they fighting?

A lot of TF series throw in this backstory that the Decepticons were essentially, at the beginning at least, revolutionaries. As you said, pre-war Cybertron was rife with discrimination— Cybertronian society was plagued with severe class determinism, manifesting in cultural elitism and the institution of slavery. Inequality and unfairness were givens. There was a strict, immutable caste system with very very little class mobility (if, really, at all).

In TFP, Megatron was a slave— He had no rights, was oppressed and controlled by the elite upper class, forced to perform manual labor in mines, and was not a recognized citizen. Later, he did "climb the social ladder" to become a gladiator, but he was still, ultimately, a member of the lower caste, a nothing. Gladiators are still just as expendable, replaceable, and morally worthless as a slave. His function simply switched from forced manual labor to forced violent entertainment, and in both roles Megatron was oppressed. It's then also implied in TFP that, at the start, many Decepticons came from similar backgrounds, being members of Cybertron's oppressed and marginalized.

So the movement starts with, admittedly, very good intentions; All Megatron wants is to be recognized as an equal, to be free, to have control over his own life. He values self-determination, autonomy, and freedom. Megatron wants others in his same position to be able to choose. He wants to exist in a society not at his expense, but because he is a valued member of it. A valued member, like Orion Pax.

Orion Pax does not come from this background. He is an archivist living a very comfortable life as a member of the socially sound, from Cybertron's capitol city no less, Iacon. He isn't wealthy or a noble, but he's genteel and of an acceptable function. Orion Pax is civilized. He's one of the good ones.

This is the foundation for all the reasons why Megatronus of Kaon and Orion Pax of Iacon would eventually split, leading warring factions, calling themselves by different names. Yes, they believed in each other enough to be dear friends and allies. Yes, they called each other brother.

No, they were never equals. Orion Pax didn't have much to lose; he had the safety net of a good upbringing, a good step on the societal ladder. Megatronus could lose everything. He tasted freedom and opportunity and decided he'd never go back as long as he lived. It would be like willful suffering, a misery of knowing everything he could never have.

It shouldn't come as a surprise, then, when the ideology shifts.

Megatron is consumed with jealousy when Orion Pax is chosen to be a Prime. Of course its the respectable and civil Iaconian clerk that the Council chooses to become a Prime, this position only attainable by those worthy of it, because the level-headed and moderate Orion Pax makes a better poster child than that brutish, angry extremist Megatronus. Orion Pax is the reasonable one, he's the better orator, better at appealing to the sensibilities of the upper class because he's a member of it.

Megatronus, to the system, is still just a gladiator, a slave. He just talks too much. Is too loud, too opinionated. Didn't conform to the status quo. Why should they reward disobedience? That would set bad precedent, you see. We don't want more people to question things, don't want them to ask for more than they deserve. We all have our place in the world, and Megatronus should've learned to stay in his.

"Be more like Orion Pax, Megatronus, he does things the right way."

This decision solidified two absolutes for Megatron:

One, that Cybertron's elite will stay the elite, and everyone below them will stay below them. The caste system can no longer be changed or dismantled or reformed— It is too powerful, too deeply engrained. It must be destroyed entirely.

And two, Orion Pax was never his friend. And Optimus Prime, who stands in his place, can never be his ally.

Optimus Prime is a mere extension of the Council's will. A pawn who will never seek to disobey it.

Megatron is betrayed on two fronts: Once by the false promises of his homeworld, and then by the person he thought was his best friend and dearest ally— His brother. He realizes he has to now rally his forces around the idea that true freedom, individual self-determination and self-actualization, will come only from the elimination of Cybertron's corrupt government. If it cannot be fixed, it must be reborn.

The Decepticon cause arises from the failures and disappointments of a skewed, unforgiving, impossible system. The cards were always stacked against Megatron and his people—

"Don't you see, fellow Decepticons? They have always kept you weak. Starving! Take what should be yours— What is yours!"

It's easy to see how 'bots in Megatron's position are drawn in. They feel the heavy hand of oppression too. They have wants, needs, and desires that won't be met by elites and nobles who care less than slag about them— Take Optimus Prime and his newly-formed Autobots for example: They want the Decepticon cause to fall back in line, to keep their heads down, to conform and stay quiet.

The Decepticons are galvanized by Megatron, their frustration and sorrow weaponized into action. Any true Decepticon would follow Megatron's lead— He is their hero, after all, and he is a hero that fights back.

It's time the Decepticons bite the hand. It's time they start making noise. It's time they take down the Council, the elites, the Autobots, and Optimus Prime— All who oppose their freedom.

See... it's easy to get drawn in.

It's harder to escape.

(So yeah. You'd regret it. It should've been a warning sign that you had to start calling him Lord. Isn't that what you were fighting against in the first place? Power corrupts, after all.)

[shabbytigers]

new apartment share may have been a mistake tbh. roommate is a bigger slob than i am. i’m undomesticated myself and pretty tolerant but it’s low-key nerfing the kitchen for actual use, the sink will be like two inches full with standing water and food gunk from dumping out the fry-up pan, the solution to garbage can full is start another bag next to it, which again i can sympathize with and am not necessarily above this, but it’s a one or two day measure not a definitive one and also i draw the line at spillover and/or broken or and/or multiple such bags

the problem is like

this is addressable if i simply address it, right. just take the damn garbage out and just deal with the sink and lo the kitchen will be serviceable if not optimal. you can’t expect other people to change but these tasks are in theory not a big whoop

two issues, however

one: eye have a nope field around this shit also. same fucken hat, mine’s just not as big

two: am in unfortunate brainworm infested loop where i’m like “see, a woman would simply clean the kitchen, either with or without complaining about it the whole time.” and like. A: what the fuck is that thought and why is it a constant battle rooting out bits of gender essentialism from under furniture in the mind palace, shoo, begone B: i’m not a woman C: but socialization … B: which obviously didn’t take, look at the state of us C: yes, we appear to have settled at the worst possible venn diagram gender interface where we have both the magnificent aversion and ability to ignore AND also the societally instilled guilt and shame about it D. both you fuckers stfu, the actual problem we have here is that roommate does actually perceive me as a guy and i am super not interested in behaving in ways that might change that? and like. i don’t make the rules or personally put the gender essentialist gremlins in the baseboards. but here we are. so how about that situation for a laugh

reasonably sure if the kitchen were nice i would feel okay about living here. it’s just too much of a dial-up on squalor. i’m aiming at something more like genteel decay. i recognize that that distinction can’t be relied on, but idk can i maybe have any honeymoon period like at all, ffs

anyway the real answer is obviously to hire my cleaner to fix it, he already fixed the bathroom and it’s gr9. the kitchen is more problematic though. like the bathroom is much more maintainable than the kitchen which will fuck itself in the ass in like two days. idk. all of this would be easier if i got fucking paid ever :)

[hertwood]

maybe this is a dumb question but this is the second time i’ve seen someone say something about race/ethnicity in regards to 4b and i’m still confused how it would negate its cause or intended purpose. like if only white women were participating it would mostly only be targeting white men because that’s who white women partner with the majority of the time. and it wouldn’t require like 100% or even majority participation in order to send a message. but also like i don’t even think the point is entirely to send a message it’s also just for women to know it’s an option to not be in a relationship with the people who are their oppressors under the system of oppression which is the patriarchy. idk i just have never understood why south korea being a fairly monoethnic country would make a difference in this case. like it wouldn’t work the SAME in the united states but it also doesn’t seem like it would be a bad thing. if anything the fact that mostly white women would be participating might actually be good because they would also shoulder the blowback from the men who were mad about it. it just seems like i’m seeing the diversity of women used not as a tool but as a reason not to take any action or actually doing anything subversive these days and it’s frustrating. tbh i could be reading you all wrong though and i don’t want to come across as confrontational i’m not actually annoyed with you just annoyed in general lol. anyway i’m curious to know your thoughts

Hi. If you're still here waiting for my response to this i'm gonna answer this in good faith. The funny thing is I think we're on the same page with several things! As I said in my original post i think it's great to encourage women in this country to decenter men and swear off dating, have kids with, etc etc! I think it's an important conversation to be having that being with men a) isnt required for happiness and self-fullfillment and b) may be unsafe to pursue at this time.

BUT. and any people of color are free to chime in here i literally just had the OH moment abt this watching this tiktok: in south korea, because it is very monoethnic, the difference in privilege between men and women is much more clear cut and straightforward. (Not to say there aren't any other marginalized groups OR other ethnic groups in korea, but 97% of sk is ethnically korean) But when you come to america, because there is such greater racial diversity that makes the line of oppressor and the oppressed not very clear cut. I'm not saying we have to play oppression olympics there just has to be a lot more nuance. There are plenty of white women in this country that have more privilege than men of color and thats just the truth. This sort of nuance is not going to affect the korean 4b movement because of the country's large monoethnicity.

also just from a generally speaking point: if your feminism is not also actively anti-racist, it is not and will never be For All Women. so i absolutely encourage anyone who wants to decenter men in their lives to do it, but that CANNOT be the end of your activism if you actually care about ALL women you also have to be sticking up for women of color, queer women, trans women, disabled women, undocumented women ALL the other marginalized groups that will be negatively affected by trump.

and you should also be wanting to help and support marginalized men too! even before the election i was seeing 4b get traction on tiktok and it was really buying into this gender essentialist, all men are evil cut all men out of your life ideology, which i think it objectively BAD. Radical feminism is BAD. the idea that men are inherently bad and women are inherently good is BAD.

and that's what's really off putting about it all to me. yes sure, decentering men is good, but it by putting it as the "4b" movement it's attracting really radical and bad ideas imo. the korean 4b movement is also SUPER TRANSPHOBIC. when your movement is borrowing for literal terf ideology its hard for trans people to feel allied by yall.

in conclusion yes please sure dont date marry sleep with or have kids with men! that's a great choice to make in these times for your personal safety! but 4b is a bad ideology to be sharing terminology with AND there is much much much more meaningful activism to be done!!

[unhetalia]

NO YOU'RE SO RIGHT the way native Americans are written in the series, especially in the first installation, is so odd to me. They're, like. all kind of evil?!?!??! or at least ambivalent, which, like you said, isn't Wrong per se because the idea of the noble savage IS still offensive and puts natives on a pedestal for no reason beyond being native and being subject to colonization, but like... maybe you shouldn't portray THE white colonizer and his people who are arriving to colonize native land as the only good characters in a sea of solely natives. That's why I lowkey fuck with Osha tbh, like I think she's unfairly hated on and played too much of a villain role.... yeah she's evil but like, I think she needs someone to balance out the hate she receives from every other character, especially when apparently like everything England does is actually not bad or didn't even happen, so it's okay.....! ALSO--ok this is going to get so specific, but I have literally 0 people to talk to about this, so I'm rambling, sorry--the part where Alfred says that he was glad when he found English because it was easier for him to speak/remember than Oneida always made me ??? 'cause it feels like it implies that English is, like, The innate American Language when it's not?? at all?? idk it just feels very essentialist in a way, like Alfred is Inherently English/Anglo-Saxon even though he represents almost every other kind of person and culture possible. It also feels like the story/the author hones in on biology and biological connection too much in that vein, too, where it's like Alfred's biology suddenly dictates the languages he can speak even before he knows they exist, the things he does, the interests he has. There's no way he didn't have a grasp on his NATIVE language!!! That's literally the language he was raised to speak, bfr.... You can forget native languages, but it's not really played as something he really cares about missing, so it feels more like English is just better! which I dont like Ok ramble over sorry <3

No it's ok! Tbh I'm also mildly Osha rights because I think she loved Alfred but the grief and anger and pain twisted it all up and caused her to lash out. JUST like how Arthur's grief and anger and pain made him lash out at Alfred for hundreds of years! I think if you tilt your head Osha can be redeemed and it can easily be proven how much she loves Alfred.

I guess there's also that implication that Alfred is not fully European despite his looks and if we're talking about biology I wonder if Alfred could biologically be Osha's as well as Arthur's? I don't think the writer will go there, but Osha raised Alfred despite what everyone said and did her best with what she had and I truly believe that!!!

I've forgotten that scene about English being easier, but I agree - and I also think it's wild that Alfred can't speak Spanish after all these years, especially considering how intelligently he's written (which I love).

I think what the fic does amazingly (and what I hope in the future with Osha) is showing different perspectives and showcasing how people's views aren't always right. The build up to the reveal about Alfred not remembering Rhys, and even how the author will show Matthew thinking one thing about Alfred, and then contrasting that with the viewpoint of someone else and therefore showing the reader that what they think isn't necessarily right. It's so masterful! I could only hope to write in that way one day! And I can only DREAM of completing 800k worth of fic.

[ilynpilled]

do you believe jc’s endgame is to die together?

i think i have communicated much of this already, but let’s just say i am more open to the possibility than most jb/jaime ppl, but i am not at all as certain of it happening as most ppl in general fandom seem to be, and i am also not a huge fan of it personally. here is my perspective:

yeah, it is explicitly integrated into their belief system. it faded from jaime’s, as he did abandon her, and already often contradicted it through moments of being ready to recklessly die, or his passive suicidal ideation, but it was always present as a key aspect of their ‘destined lovers’ delusion. the thing with me though is that i dont really think this is how george tends to do foreshadowing? he does love to be unpredictable. and i have seen this argument many times before by other people who doubt this being their trajectory. not to mention the whole idea seems to get deliberately deconstructed over time.

jaime comes to the realization that she was the stranger (and we know he is cersei’s stranger, but she does not think he means death). he starts treating the relationship very differently (george says they are “effectively estranged”), and their fate is no longer entwined in his head. them saying they will die together is telegraphing that is very in your face. i mean the text is telling us what would happen explicitly. is that supposed to be deliberate and meant to be a tragic irony? i can see it working from that perspective maybe. but i think this aspect would still be effective without the double death necessarily, even though i can see how the wording may be deliberate here, i just have certain thematic gripes with it. we know these two are not supposed to be reliable narrators when they say this. their relationship is a twisted attempt at self-love. again, i get that there is a subversion happening with cersei being killed by him for one, but is the belief system supposed to end up “endorsed” by the text from the pov of jaime’s character, even if it is tragically ironic? what i am saying is that ig i would be more certain of it happening if cersei did not keep repeating it explicitly atp while jaime is completely contradicting it simultaneously. if they are supposed to doom each other, what is really the point of that divergence? of the deconstruction of such a narrative in jaime’s head? why not send jaime back and have him not make those kind of key choices? jaime’s arc is supposed to be about choices (“whatever he chose…”), and defining his own fate and identity (like you do not even have to believe it is about exploring redemption to get this out of the text), so i really still cannot help but dislike the idea that this is set in stone despite everything that he keeps doing and the choices that he keeps on making. like there is an essentialist aspect to this belief system that i would prefer to be subverted honestly from the perspective of his character. i want all of these choices to have some kind of result (the letter, oathkeeper, the pit, rejecting her because of certain ultimatums even before the cheating reveal, abandoning the pursuit of the brotherhood for the vow to cat in adwd). + the hand that held her foot could have very well been the one that got chopped, so there is symbolism there. he is not tied to her. and that hand loss and “change” is constantly emphasized when it comes to JC. and i really do not want jaime to die before having some kind of confrontation with bran tbh. and i have talked about the widow’s wail thing before. if jaime is gonna wield it (which i think there is a set up for), then he would have to come out of KL alive with it. the weirwood dream also has them separate. her torch being the ‘only light in the world’ is replaced by brienne’s sword’s fire being the only one still burning in his darkness when the ghosts rush in.

this is another argument that i have seen before, and see validity in. george does write that belief system as something that has an element of ‘sociopathy.’ like of course it isn’t meant to be ‘romantic’. and jaime is also growing out of it. his relationship with a lot of characters now, brienne included, is a testament. i do not at all mind if jaime dies down the line, i just really would prefer it if there is some form of triumph over the self when it comes to his ending. i also atm cannot imagine how it would go, and what would cause jaime’s death, and how they would “leave the world together” logistically with the valonqar prophecy existing. so while i think george might be capable of executing it in a way that i could like, and i see that tragic irony working out, i still am not crazy about it as a concept atm for all the reasons above. we will see.

[starrbar]

Isn't it funny how when rad-antis do their cute little "PSA" thing, and their target tries to defend/explain themself, the ones doing the callouts take common, true, scientifically-backed statements and call them "red flags"?

I've seen so many posts going "Oh god guys, we'd better watch out for this dangerous person. 😨" and their evidence is just a screenshot of the "Fiction doesn't equal reality" bullet on their profile/Carrd, or a similar statement in a rebuttal against claims that they're a Literal Child Rapist™ because of their Pixiv bookmarks.

Like, "how DARE you say the most obvious response to the garbage I'm spewing that's been debunked time and time again?" Next, they'll be saying that citing doctors and professionals to back up their points is a "red flag". xD (I don't remember the exact wordings, but I 99% sure I've actually seen one of them say something like that.)

And okay... to play devil's advocate, this makes sense when you consider, for example, how phrases like "free speech" and "anti censorship" mean very different things coming from a Conservative vs. a Progressive, and those are also simple concepts that I think should be supported for their true meanings, but it still looks quite ridiculous when you start saying that phrases like "anti-harassment" and "fiction ≠ reality 1:1" are "proship dogwhistles", as if there is no context in which those statements have any merit.

(and then I started ranting)

❝ No, of course, only CHILD PREDATORS think that abusing and bullying people is wrong, because the ONLY time anybody ever gets bullied is when they've done something to DESERVE it, right?? There are no people on this earth who hurt innocents. Justice is always served. Therefore, "anti-harassment" is a pro-abuser stance! ❞ /s

❝ And obviously "fiction ≠ reality" is always code for "I just really like Stonetoss comics and drawing porn of child actors, but those are just pictures, so they don't mean anything!" It's definitely not like many people who make the former statement would immediately recoil in disgust and block anyone who uses it that way. Nah, we're all just secret predators who formed a club where we worship sexual abuse and bigotry. ❞ /sss

See, that, up there, is why I've started specifically referring to "radical antis" because they ACTUALLY embody these extreme stances, and they have repeatedly blown my mind with how exaggerated they can be, but they're 100% serious.

If you're an anti and the above obnoxious strawman doesn't apply to you, you may very well be just fine. But I'm really just tired of essentialist dickheads spear-heading one harassment campaign after another in the name of "reducing harm", and sadly those people take your genuine beliefs and warp them to create those situations.

I'm sorry you have to be associated with them tbh! /gen

I genuinely don't know how things ended up like this, but unfortunately there are people with genuine, valid concerns about fiction's affect on reality who aren't being taken seriously because a bunch of abusers take those concerns and mangle them until they're unrecognizable, probably on purpose so they can justify torturing other people for fun.

Sad day for survivors all across the board, huh? :/

[bitchoftruth]

more (sora's opinion on) gender stuff

the scene ends with fuuka telling him he's fantasizing too much (presumably because she thinks he is idealizing women), but it cuts before she elaborates I posted this in detail because I think people are curious about the details of the gender stuff in this. Honestly a lot of this feels once again classic ryukishi to me, for better owrse. And we are also reading from the pov of 10 year olds in this scene. Who do not talk like 10 year olds at all but... I don't think we are supposed to take *all* of this as truth within the fiction of the vn. ...

The most glaring part to me is "I was born a boy and I gotta live as one". I don't think this vn even considered trans people existing lol. The only way to change your gender is some magic reincarnation. Anything else isn't even considered as an option. Guess if you want to you could argue no way this lil boy would know of trans people. But ryukishi does. Honestly I think that's why he wrote "i dont regret being born a man" above even though its almost immediately contradicted. Like drawing a distinction between being trans and whatever sora has going on. whatever sora has going on to me just seems like being more mature than his peers and not enjoying gender expectations tbh... this kid needs to stop being so preoccupied with gender and chill... actually i think the vn does have a great opportunity to go, "see, gender roles are stupid and hurtful and not even accurate" with all this buildup. But I'm afraid a lot of this stuff is going to be played straight instead. It also just doesn't seems like something that he would write I could just make fun of, boys are like monkeys, girls are like kaleidescopes , I am trying to read it more closely than that. Since pretty much all commentary I saw on this vn is that. ANYWAY I meant to leave commentary on this minimal, I only posted so many screenshot so people know what the vn actually entails rather than just "its gender essentialist/transphobic" (which is not a wrong assessment)

[naisaa]

i wanna zoom in on that last sentence for a minute because we should also investigate why we expect nonbinary ppl to look androgynous or why our idea of a 'passing' nonbinary person is someone who looks androgynous in the first place tbh!

because like, please consider what that word means and who/what we think of as androgynous: if you're picturing a mix or perfect blend of physical 'male' and 'female' characteristics (a bio-essentialist premise, so, off to a bad start) possibly to the point of being unable to tell which ones dominate and therefore (here's your fallacy!) being unable to determine a (binary) gender on sight—maybe that should be a clue that you're on the wrong track re: your conception of nonbinary genders.

and going a bit off track now, bc the correct answer is to kill the bio-essentialist cop in your brain and to accept that you cannot definitely know everyone's gender just by looking at them but. bc it's interesting to me. i do still think a lot about whether it's even possible to take the bio-essentialism out of the concept of androgyny at all? like especially when it's commonly assumed to be the ideal appearance, or in the worst brainworm cases the natural form of nonbinary-ness (as it's own singular 3rd gender AND sex, which. im prone to tangents but this is a can of worms im desperately trying not to open rn). anyway i'd love to hear other ppls thoughts on this bc here's where i always get stuck:

1) we could try to define androgyny as physically determinable as neither male nor female (so: emphasizing the absence of [binary] gendered characteristics over the merging/combining of them) but i feel like that's a pretty weak modification... it still presupposes the existence of inherently female and male physical attributes.

2) so alternatively maybe: a blend or balance of femininity and masculinity (not exclusively tied to physical appearance) where neither dominates. which i also don't love because we're still stuck with a binary that either pretends or, in some cases, successfully manages not to be based on appearance.

the problem i always end up at is that i can't think of a way to define androgyny as something that's outside of, rather than inherently tied to a gender binary (be it male/female or femininity/masculinity), which means it's somehow still a very gendered term/concept that is both commonly considered to be the sort of neutral AND (because of that? or the other way around?) a combination of "both" genders, hence the prevalent idea of nonbinary = androgynous.

trans people do not need to pass as cis before their identity/gender is taken seriously. sure, it’s great for some to be told that they pass, as it can feel amazing to be told you are seen the way you identify but that isn’t the case for all. some may prefer to be seen more feminine/masculine (just like cis people do) and that’s okay!! they should still be respected!! it’s the same for nonbinary folk and anyone that doesn’t fit as ‘man’ or ‘woman’, they don’t have to look androgynous or the way you expect them to.