#and that are written by authors that aren't horribly transphobic!

[averymcrgan]

are people seriously upset that the new Harry Potter show isn't going to have the OG cast instead of being upset that these damn books are being made into a show and the piece of shit author is just going to get more money she can use to spread her hateful and incredibly harmful beliefs?? 😒

[achaotichuman]

Booktok/Fandom Rant

Alrighty, this one has been sitting in my drafts for a while now. I debated not posting it, but after some careful thought, I think I can't just let this rot in my brain any longer.

Before I start rambling, I want to say I am not attempting to attack anyone. This is just a few examples of a wider issue I see popping up, where people (often cis men) are taking the valid issues that people are having with booktok and using it as an excuse to be sexist.

And just a disclaimer, if you happen upon any of the posts that I briefly reference in this rant, get off your high horse, and don't point them out. You aren't a hero for intentionally trying to cause unnecessary drama with people who you don't know.

I saw a post where someone was pointing out the number of excuses people pull out to justify objectively abusive relationships, just because the MMC was conventionally attractive. And whilst that is a fair critique, what is not even slightly fair is to go and lump all female readers into this pile of people who act that way.

"Female readers are crazy. Female readers are saying this. Female readers are saying that" is a... wild thing to say.

The reason these issues exist within certain genres is rooted in sexism, lets not start piling on top of that.

(Before anyone starts saying, "You're overthinking this", that post is just one example of many more I've seen that use similar language. Along with the people on booktok that outright accuse women who enjoy erotica as "porn addicted")

I hate booktok, there are so many reasons to critique it. It revolves around an algorithm that only pushes forward very specific books and authors that meet a set of criteria, most notably, the MMCs tend to be abusive assholes, the books often have to have (or at least are marketed as having) a high volume of sex scenes, and often include very performative feminism. Leading to books that don't revolve around romance, are less graphic or showcase issues in a way that doesn't appeal to an aesthetic, not being pushed to a wider audience and then being buried. Thus, a wonderfully horrible cycle is born.

However, whether it is well-written or not a lot of these books touch on or directly revolve around feminism and the societal oppression women face. So, it is a very bad idea to turn around and use misogynistic language to describe the people who do enjoy these books.

It is possible to make a point and criticize the way these books and the (more often than not) misogynistic way they handle relationships and FMCs, *without* being misogynistic yourself. The constant droning of people hoping on Booktok discourse and accusing women who read these books are being "addicted to porn", is not a valid criticism, it is an excuse to be sexist.

Another issue I have come across with the last few weeks is, I have noticed there being a staggering amount of obviously throwaway accounts flooding the ACOTAR fandom. I've seen them in both the "pro and anti" side, so it's a fandom wide phenomenon. And the thing most of them have in common is that their posts are weirdly worded. Often they are extremely aggressive, openly shame or name call people for no real reason and seem to just exist to cause arguments.

Now, don't twist my words, I am not trying to make a point of "People are making accounts just to hate on characters" you can do with your blog what you please. What I'm noticing is that these blogs are using or promoting sexist views or, like in the case below, making homophobic or transphobic insinuations.

This issue of fighting fire with fire, it not limited to the issue of sexism. It absolutely goes across the board. I saw a post where someone had an (AI) photo of Tamlin and underneath said something like "How could you possibly think this man is a LOSER? WEAK? A TWINK?"

First of all, how dare you insinuate Tamlin was not a twink loser boy in his Rhysand era, and second of all, all you are doing is saying that referring to a fictional man as a twink holds weight as an insult. Which is super icky.

In conclusion, think before you post, and if you do think to allow your words to marinate in the ol cranium for a while, and you're *still* using language that feeds into sexism, homophobia, transphobia etc then you need to think about *why* you think its okay to say this.

Anyway, y'all give me your honest thoughts. I am likely to have some serious blind spots here, so I'd be happy to discuss your guy's views. I just really wanted to make this point because I feel like this issue is getting worse and worse.

[hidden-among-stars]

I do think it’s important to clarify in your OP about the house bill that this is anti-trans legislation first and foremost. while it’s of concern for alterhumans, it is very deliberately being proposed as a way to frame trans people as animals & target trans kids—the author of the bill doesn’t actually care (and probably doesn’t know) about alterhumanity.

This bill will be used to prop up transphobic laws, and probably isn’t intended to be passed at all. I don’t think removing or ignoring that context is appropriate.

- a trans therian

I was going to make a reblog about this exact thing, but I'll say what I was going to say there here instead because I think it's important to make sure everyone gets the chance to see this. This is going to be long because I tend to ramble. TL;DR: Conservatives are not framing transgender people themselves as animals, but their arguments about/beliefs regarding people who identify as animals are absolutely deeply rooted in transphobia, which itself is deeply rooted in a fear/hatred of any "divergent identity." These two concerns are very closely entwined and are part of the same fight (the fight of "just let people be whoever they are"), but are not in and of themselves the same in the sense that this lawmaker is trying to target transgender folks with this specific bill. What makes this bill particularly concerning is the fact that it treats nonhuman-identities as their own separate issue, along with the media coverage it has been getting, which could easily spark other more "viable" anti-"furry" bills to be written and potentially passed in more conservative states across the country. However, this is not a time to panic, but rather a time to be vigilant and start thinking about how we need to prepare to defend one another against whatever comes next.

The fight for trans rights certainly still needs to be at the forefront of our minds, and we also need to be watchful for this threat that is creeping out from the cesspool that is the conservative need for any kind of new "monster" to blame society's problems on.

-Sincerely, another trans therian.

The whole "litterboxes in schools/students identifying as cats/animals" thing started with conservatives who said "if we let people identify as another gender its only a matter of time before people start identifying as animals." These people are well aware that transgender does not mean somebody who identifies as a different species - their concept of nonhuman identifying folks absolutely is rooted in transphobia, but is not in and of itself necessarily about transgender folks.

Reality is, anti-trans legislation and anti-"furry" (read: therian, otherkin, transspecies, etc. - though furries who aren't part of these labels would ultimately be affected as well) legislation are two sides of the same coin - but they are still two distinct sides. That coin is the "divergent identities" coin (and really has many facets, not just two... so... perhaps more of a "divergent identities" cube?), as I'll call it. Anything that isn't cis, het, christian, human-identifying, etc. would be considered a "divergent" identity - a disorder, an illness, something to be cured, something to be eliminated.

Yes, anti-"furry" clauses have up until now been wrapped up with anti-transgender bills. That's conservatives trying to, pardon the horrible cliche, kill two birds with one stone - but one bird they are assuming exists/believe exists because of a sensationalist story, not because they necessarily know it actually exists. Make absolutely no mistake though, now that even the slight possibility of nonhuman identifying folks is on their radar, they are going to work to - in their mind - prevent it, and "cure" (read: eliminate by whatever means they feel necessary) it for whoever already fits that description.

Up until now, it's been a side issue. Something to just tack onto anti-trans bills. The fact that some jerk of a lawmaker decided that it was a strong enough issue on its own to create its own bill is concerning because this marks the first time that it is being treated less like a hypothetical or a side problem, and more like it's own separate issue worth addressing.

However, these two are part of the exact same fight, and cannot/should not be considered entirely separate. The fight is not just about "let trans people be trans," the fight is about "let people be whoever they are." That includes being any sexuality other than allo-het, that includes any religion other than christian (not necessarily an "identity", but still), that includes being anything other than cisgender, and yes, it includes identifying as any species other than human. The focus has recently been particularly targeted at trans folks, but remember that before it was trans folks, it was anyone who wasn't straight.

Conservatives always need a "monster" to defeat. They rely on the outrage of the ignorant and the bigoted in order to get what they want. Its why so many of their talking points aren't really about the economy or infrastructure but instead are about things like abortion, "illegal immigrants," non-Western nations in general, religions that are seen as "foreign" or "satanic," and any identity that isn't considered "normal." The reality is, issues like poverty, poor infrastructure, and prevalent violence are issues that can't just be solved in a day - but humans like quick fixes, so some folks (especially conservatives, though they're certainly not the only ones) think if they can blame all of these issues on anyone who is considered an "other," then many people will be quick to follow them in trying to eliminate the "other" and just push aside all of the real problems that continue to, in someway or another, benefit the people in power.

It only takes one conservative with even half a braincell to decide to google "people who identify as animals" after seeing that a bill was penned to target this specifically, to discover that we therians/otherkin/transspecies folks/etc. really do exist and that the identity is starting to gain more traction especially among youth (thanks, TikTok). I don't think the guy that penned this bill is that one conservative (this dude apparently once tried to create "bigfoot hunting season" so. y'know. i don't think he's doing much research about anything lmao), but with the media attention this bill has gained, it's only a matter of time.

HOWEVER - THIS IS NOT A TIME TO PANIC. I literally cannot stress this enough. Panic is not the response we need to have, but rather vigilance and preparedness for the day nonhuman identities eventually do find their way into the spotlight so that we can be ready for whatever we need to do to fight back against whatever future bills may follow.

[problematic-faves-appreciation]

Sorry to bring up "Uglies" again, but this discourse has been so infuriating, and I promise it is relevant to the theme of your blog:

Not sure what it is about the movie, but it showed previously unknown lows of media literacy (which is impressive), and one that is particularly... interesting to me is how people have reacted to Laverne Cox, who for those not knowing her, is a black trans woman who is not just a quite famous actress, but also an outspoken advocate for queer people, playing the villain Dr. Cable.

Dr. Cable is the de-facto leader of the city the movie takes place in, and a cyborg super soldier. This dystopian regime, and that is where the issue lies, mostly relies on beauty culture to keep people under control, though that is far from the only thing. Specifically, people get plastic surgery at sixteen to eradicate discrimination based on looks - and the scary part is, they succeeded at least at the surface, making this world indeed almost feeling like an utopia. Almost.

I can see how this can be misinterpreted in a transphobic way if you really want to and disregard most of the canon and message, which is that forcing people into uniformity based on arbitrary standards is bad, which very much is a statement against cisheteronormativity. The series doesn't have any canon queerness because it was published in 2005, and for the movie presumably from a mix of wanting to stay true to the source material and desperately trying to make it more mainstream appealing, but it feels quite queer subtextual.

Now comes the really infuriating part: The people I saw being the most worried and the most aggressive about Laverne Cox playing Dr. Cable were not TERFs and other fascists. Now, I haven't combed through the entire twitter tag because I value my sanity, so there probably are some who indeed realized that they could misinterpret that for their advantage, but the transphobes I saw didn't got into the plastic surgery ankle. They just spewed the usual uncreative bullshit they always say ("thats a man" etc).

But left-leaning people in the tumblr tag... "Forced into plastic surgery by a trans woman for the woke agenda" - You wanted to miss the point so badly, buddy... "Hmm, a trans woman forcing children into plastic surgery and brainwashing them, is it just me or was that written as a piece of fascist propaganda" - It is just you, not just was it written in 2005, Scott Westerfeld (author) also is an outspoken queer ally since at least 2003, where he featured a sapphic couple in his space opera "The Risen Empire" and since then he has tried to use his platform to help queer people, including going on several fights with fucking J. K. Rowling over trans advocacy.

It just is this age old problem of "if you write a minority as anything than a perfect hero, you are a bigot or at least help bigots". Which feels so condescending.

Now, I know that actors are obliged to market their movies, but again, Laverne Cox is a very famous actress, and also she does queer advocacy since what, at least ten years? I don't even know her, but it feels so condescending and insulting to her insisting that she must be too dumb or brainwashed or something to notice that a role could harm her community. She doesn't need the money, and she would have had the power to just step out. On her instagram, she is quite enthusiastic about the role, even saying that she looked forward playing such a character for once.

Another layer of this is that most of the people complaining about her playing Dr. Cable aren't even trans. A small number are, but the majority are just cis people.

It just feels so icky.

Now, I know most marginalized people don't feel this way, but when I personally see a villain with my identities (who isn't a caricature of said identities, but just happens to share them) I feel empowered, not insulted. Being a horrible person, making bad choices and going on power trips is part of humanity too, and by insisting that all minorities are only ever allowed to be perfect, you do not just infantalize them, you strip them of their humanity, counter-intuitive as that sounds.

Dr. Cable is not a trans caricature. In the book we don't even know if she is cis or trans (and also not what her ethnicity is). Her main arc is that she thinks she needs to protect this utopia with all means necessary, stripping away parts of her humanity in the process and getting more and more brutal and paranoid until her hubris brings her downfall. That is not a trans-only story.

It is not even a woman-only story. In fact, this is a kind of villain arc women are hardly ever allowed to have. Yes, I am aware how this brutality can intersect with harmful trans and black stereotypes, but also she is such an interesting character, and it just doesn't feel right to say that black people or trans people should not allowed to have interesting villain characters.

.

[galaxysplove]

I wanted to get your opinion on something.

So I found this in the tags of one of your reblogs.

#and NO free advertising by doing fan works#I know the second is the one that will be more controversial but it is what it is#the real reason people are chill with fanfiction now is that fan works are recognized as unpaid advertisement for source material#so people who still think fan works are okay are naive at best

I don't agree with this, because as someone who has written fanfic, you can't expect someone to delete a series that they've worked hard on, or are working hard on. Like I have a fic that I've been working on for nearly over a year now. If the author of the book is a horrible person, and I find out after all of this time and effort, I'm sorry but I won't be deleting it.

I don't support J.K. or anything she does. But if people expect thousands of people to delete their work because she's transphobic and has done horrific things, I think they need to try harder to see from the other perspective. This isn't me downplaying things btw, I just don't know how to put it into words.

Because some of the things I've read, people are like:

Oh wow, these people aren't deleting their HP fanfics, they must be transphobic.

When really it's more like:

Wow, these people have spend hours of their life writing these works, they probably don't want to delete their hard work.

Sorry for the rant, I just wanted your opinion on the thing.

Can you tag me in the post because I don't agree with it either I have also written hp fanfics. What probably happened is I rebloged (no idea if that's spelt right sorry) and didn't change the tags (idk if that's even how that works I haven't really gotten the hang of tumblr yet). In the future I will definitely have to be more careful with the tags because most of the time I don't even read them. Very sorry if I offended you 😔

[waitingforeddyneddy]

i saw what writer they were talking about (and the horrible messages they got, trying to belittle them and generally being super mean) and i have never read anything from them, simply because i don't find any character besides kate and anthony interesting at all so i don't lose my time with fic that isn't exclusively about them, but i do remember back when i was more into the b-fandom that one of the author's friends was obsessed with why people liked simone. first she said that it was because they were self-inserting and then that they were fetishizing simone (because god forbid someone finds beautiful people who aren't white, it must be a fetish!)

i also remember when one white author wrote a kamasutra fic and people went for her throat because it was racist (thing i don't disagree with)

i also remember one person who on twitter asked about one dude who had accompanied jonny to some public thing and people were calling her a crazy stalker and then went to do the same on her ao3 account and she deleted or something

i think there's certainly a need to call out toxic behavior like leaving harassing messages to authors, because one thing is criticism and another one is to just be mean online. but the fact that any criticism about how misogynistic people actually write in this fandom, claiming that it is just period accurate when it's just a narrative choice, is deemed "hate" is annoying

as you said there is a substantial difference because one thing is to leave troll comments, one thing is to try to get an explanation as of why the kanthony tag is filled with some filth written by people who clearly want to engage in rage bait

that kamasutra fanfiction...I remember the author explaining that the goal of the fic was not sexual at all, still people attacked her and didn't give her the benefit of the doubt

it's too bad the same people chose to remain silent when edwina lovers chose to write the most passive aggressive and transphobic shit about Kate and Simone's looks and got praised for it

[antifa-stray]

This is an interesting point for JKR but I'll get back to that. Something that stands out to me is that you pointed out the thing about no such scrutiny for media depicting straight white guys and I think that that's actually something that not enough people are talking about.

I am very much of the viewpoint that fiction is not reality on a 1:1 basis and if boogity shmoogity writes something on Ao3 that you personally don't like then everyone is better served by blocking and moving on than harassment. However it is also absolutely undeniable that if something is circulated LITERALLY EVERYWHERE in fiction then yeah that's gonna affect people. For example, the misconception that all straight white men are bumbling racist sexist homophobic idiots. It's been so saturated in our culture to the point that it's EXPECTED of straight white men whether they want to be that way or not. And I think THAT could actually benefit from some criticism. But people performing this kind of woketivism where any kind of thing that has LGBTQ, POC, etc. MUST portray them as these shining clean cut heroes or risk the wrath of ReddTwitBlrGram to the point where they might as well not even have those traits anymore because GOD FORBID WE SHOW THEM INTERACT WITH THEIR CULTURE THAT COULD BE SEEN AS RACIST. GOD FORBID THEIR RELATIONSHIPS BE SHOWN AS ANYTHING BUT UWU PERFECT THAT COULD BE SEEN AS HOMOPHOBIC. GOD FORBID TRANS CHARACTERS DON'T PASS/DESPERATELY WANT TO PASS BECAUSE THAT COULD BE SEEN AS TRANSPHOBIC. It REEKS of the "Get down, you're giving us 'respectable' gays a bad name" logic that only serves to divide our community further. Show me trans women with thick bushy eyebrows and deep voices. Show me sunshine lesbians that get beat down by life and keep getting back up. Show me gay people who are just tired and need a break and don't always handle it well. Show me more lesbians who want to be good and want to be kind but it's hard because all of their girlfriends are shitty to them. Show me people of color who love their culture and their favorite foods are their own culture's traditional dishes and they make fun of food that isn't theirs. Give me more messy. Please.

Now, on to J.K. Rowling. While you probably could find hour long videos about those other people, here's a screenshot of what happens when you look her up vs the others

Now granted this is nowhere near as bad as I thought it would be but still, HALF of her results are negative (I know the 'new book' result might not look that bad but trust me it is. Mads Mikkelson and others have openly come forward and supported her but they aren't receiving anywhere near the same harassment she is. Or Seth MacFarlane who's written WAAAAAY worse than her, and we don't see people crying for HIS head in the streets. Now, for Lovecraft and Tolkien I know death of the author is easier when the author is, y'know- dead. But just because JK Rowling says that everyone who still dares to enjoy Harry Potter secretly agrees with her doesn't mean that's actually true. I mean for fuck's sake, Daniel Radcliffe and Tom Felton have both spoken out about that.

So yeah while I do think that JK Rowling is absolutely a horrible person, I do think that you're right in there being some form of misogyny at play. DEFINITELY not to the degree she makes it seem where she's done nothing wrong and people are only hating her because how dare she be a woman, but I do think that some people are harassing the fandom way too much. Just to be clear, I have no problem with people calling for death of the author with Harry Potter. My problem is with people who do that but then call for the heads of ACTUAL QUEER AUTHORS because they dared to do representation "wrong". This has been all over the place but basically the commonality is: actual queer people matter more than nitpicking, whether it's the authors (Vivziepop, ND Stevenson, Rebecca Sugar, etc.) Or the fandom (Harry Potter). Now personally? I don't care much for Harry Potter as a character or a series but the fact is it is a genuinely amazing universe. So how about you actually fucking support the trans people who like Harry Potter and the Queer creators like Vivziepop and ND Stevenson. "Oh but liking Harry Potter is betraying trans people!!!" No, harassing trans people who like it is betraying trans people. We need to band together and actually be a fucking community. Support queer people. Support queer creators.

Something that will never cease to piss me off is people screaming about death of the author with HP and then having the fucking AUDACITY to say that media made by queer people for queer people needs to have no problems and the creators need to be the best people in the universe or it's illegal to consume. "Ohhh but Catradora has problems :(" SO? It's still one of the best written shows and a massive comfort ship written by a TRANS LESBIAN who regularly donates to BLM and queer charities. You can do fucking worse. Vivziepop is an independent QUEER LATINA artist who puts love and effort into her work and people are trying to cancel her for crimes that IF true, are MINISCULE compared to companies like Disney. And we don't even have proof. These are massive victories for the queer community. The people who fought and bled to get queer voices heard would be jumping with glee to see these openly queer stories and y'all are nitpicking over nothing. Pathetic.

[think-queer]

This... Ask is just... Awful...

To start: it is incredibly unfair to blame anyone for another person's transphobia. Especially in a situation like this where Vaspider's post is being framed by TERFs without their consent.

Someone doesn't see a facebook post and suddenly become transphobic. This person's mom was already transphobic and is just trying to use an excuse. And this person is blaming Vaspider about it instead of holding their mom accountable for her own actions and beliefs.

If you don't believe me then look at the asker's pinned post:

Its a screenshot from a group called "resisters united" and if you look them up you'll find it's an organization of blatant TERFs. One of the more recent articles on their website (there aren't many articles) is from 2019 defending the TERFs who protested pride. They also proudly display retweets of the "LGB" alliance which is another blatantly transphobic group.

I bring this up because I want you to actually think, why was this person's mom following this facebook account unless she was already a transphobe?

The reason it's important to understand that this person's mom is already a transphobe is because of confirmation bias. Because anything about rape or rape culture can be read as support for transphobes if it's being framed by transphobes. TERFs seek out posts that are about rape or misogyny and twist it into being transmisogynistic, even if that was no where in the original text or intention.

If you actually know anything about trauma then that post reads as a pretty straightforward explaination of PTSD and psychological triggers for people who might not have experienced it. But transphobes can and will take anything they can and twist it to fit into their worldview.

And while it is important to do what we can to avoid feeding into TERF retoric, it is incredibly cruel and honestly pretty ableist/saneist to act like any discussion of PTSD is unacceptable because it could be used by transphobes. Because any discussion of PTSD could be used by transphobes, not matter what the intention was. I could make a post about how eating certain food can trigger my PTSD, and a TERF could still make that into a metaphor for transmisogyny. If you see a post like this being framed by transphobes then ask yourself: how could this have been said that would have made it impossible for transphobes to use it? If you can't think of anything then you have no right to get upset with the original author. And if you can think of something then you should also consider the context of the original.

Speaking of context, I'd like to draw your attention to something about that original post:

It is almost 10 years old at this point. It was written to combat the constant cries of "not all men" during any discussion of rape, to explain how trauma can make people afraid of anyone or anything that reminds them of that trauma. The social context of this post does in fact matter and pretending otherwise is dishonest. Because the context is why it is worded the way it is and focuses on the things it does.

Anyone who thinks this post is proof of their transphobic beliefs would already believe that trans women are men, they would already be horribly transphobic. Anyone who isn't already transphobic wouldn't assume a fear of men applies to trans women, because trans women aren't men.

Showing up in someone's asks with a wild accusation and then blocking them is also just a generally terrible thing to do. Especially when you're accusing someone of contributing to the oppression faced by themself and/or their loves ones.

Lastly I just want to genuinely ask: what was the purpose of this ask? Vaspider isn't the one trying to use this as a transphobic argument, and it's incredibly unfair to ask them to apologise for someone else taking an old post out of context and trying to frame it as a support for transphobia. This post is also extremely old, so deleting it isn't going to do any good. It isn't going to make the screenshots disappear. Maybe it this post was actively being reblogged by TERFs you would have a reason to contact Vaspider and let them know it's being used like this. But Vaspider has made their support of trans people extremely clear.

Even if this post could be considered transphobic on its own, which I don't think it can be, it's 8 years old. People grow and change, and this culture of attacking people for things they did nearly a decade ago is actively dangerous. If you're 18 now then that would be someone demanding you explain a post that you made when you were 10.

Understanding dogwhistles and avoiding the language of TERFs is important, but that language is constantly evolving and changing. Things that might be dogwhistles now might now have been 8 years ago. Tactics that TERFs use now might have been different 8 years ago. You cannot expect people to go back and edit every post they've ever made whenever TERFs change their language or tactics.

Removing this post from its historical context is dishonest, blaming someone for their words being used in a manipulative way is cruel, attacking discussions of PTSD because they could be used against us is horrible, and this ask is just awful.

my mom is using your dog post to explain why trans people like me need to die

>  I don’t want that ask posted or replied to by the way. I just wanted it known.

I’m sorry to hear that your mother is misusing the trauma that I, also a trans person, shared with the world nearly a decade ago. I’m not sure why you needed to send this to me and then tell me ‘I don’t want it posted or replied to.’

This wasn’t okay of you, and I’m setting a hard boundary about that. You don’t get to come into my inbox, and tell me ‘my mother is using your writing to hurt me’ like some sort of accusation, and then tell me ‘I don’t want it replied to.’

What your mother is doing is not okay.

What you did is also not okay, and I’m going to tell you that I don’t appreciate it and don’t want you to talk to me anymore, ever again, until the heat death of the universe.  And no, my saying this and your ask are not equivalent. You came to me, said hurtful things, and then said ‘you can’t respond.’ That’s not all right to do to someone. You came into my space. I am going to respond so that I can set a hard boundary that I don’t want people to do that to me. 

I don’t want to talk to you anymore. Please leave me alone.  Forever.