#and i hate having that kind of conversation with tme

[jade-curtiss]

The odd thing is most people do know how to make neutral sentences and will make neutral sentences most of the time, especially if there's an ambiguity. But in the last few months, I've noticed a certain rise in people doing what come across as "accidental" misgendering, and it's especially in public settings in happens. At first I thought I was just being overly anxious or self aware, because discussions regarding that are always shrugged away as an "accident", but...which I considered might be the case, but then other people told me they were going through the same problem, with the same sudden rise, while putting a way bigger effort I do to "pass" than I do. Like in my case I usually just find it awkward to get called "m'am" on days I have a visible beard by people with a higher voice I do, and if I perform feminity I know they'd call me "sir", because that also happen. And in context, like, I'm a bit pissed at anyone who tried to convince me those things were "unintentional", because in every situation I remember, what stuck to me is that those were all situations in which the person deliberately wanted to rise something up. And those situations were all in working situations, in other words in situations in which I had to really tone down any kind of reaction, and given my reactions (or forced lack of in most cases), it was never in good faith and always very intentional (and some of them were openly degrading but...aight lmao, apparently they didn't knew better, of course.

[velvetvexations]

Hey velvet, glad to see you’re back. I’m sorry you got powerjacketed by your own sisters and allies— you’re an easy target for exclusionists and crypto-radfems/transradfems because of your discourse alignments. I may not agree with all of your positions, and at times do believe you could be more receptive to other transfems’ points, but you dont deserve to be harassed out of your own safe space.

Please don’t feel the need to put yourself out there for your transmasc siblings. You got off pretty consequence-free this time, but i imagine much more severe hearsay could easily spread about you if you dont prioritize your safety more. being a transfem with an opinion on this site is hard and i wish you the best ❤️

If it helps any, I literally had tears in my eyes recently because I had a really nice conversation with a self-identified TMA for the first time. I'd talked before about how it would be easy for good and rational people to adopt a system that disadvantaged them but it would be more inherently selfish to do so when it advantaged you, but in retrospect maybe that WAS wrong of me to say. Maybe I WAS being a bit transmisogynyistic, because I was still wrapped up in frustration with other transfems at least partly as a group, even if I tried insisting I didn't think it was most of them.

But I was working with the data I had at the time, which is that I was able to come to borderline wholesome agree-to-disagree conclusions with TMEs while TMAs seemed to exclusively be hateful no matter how hard I tried to approach as a civilized being (and have continued to do so, despite declaring I'd give it up awhile ago), or if I did start out confrontational was specifically because they had takes completely unrelated to gender that smashed my berserk button, at which point that eclipsed anything else.

But then I talked to a TMA who made a post I thought was unfair, and they were like "yeah sorry I was just venting if I was talking about this in a way that was actually trying to spread awareness I'd have worded it better because I agree with you that it's a situation where the problem is people trying too hard to be respectful and the best way of actually dealing with that if one was to attempt it isn't getting angry with them".

And like! That very brief interaction wasn't even about TMA/TME, but they just had it listed as an identifier, and that made me completely reconsider the way I'd been viewing transfems, even if only a portion of transfems involved in an extremely specific discourse. Because I'd seen such a range of self-identified TMEs, from asshole pickmes to people who were just genuinely trying to be good allies, but here at last was a TMA I just disagreed with over TMA/TME language.

So I literally cried over that.

I mean, I didn't investigate her blog. Maybe if I looked into it I would indeed find that she believed in really awful things, TMA/TME-related or otherwise, but the actual content of that interaction was emphasizing that kindness is important when one is feeling that "TMEs" are making well-intentioned missteps so it still gave me a measure of faith.

The other thing is that something I had been worried about was my deep lore that made me a bit obsessively paranoid about dragging back up, but I talked about that a little while ago (cw for CSA) and since then I've felt safer about Velvet Nation being understanding and caring since I've already brought up the context of everything that happened.

And, also, as much as I do love people and try to live the Superman quote in my pinned post to the very best of my ability, I also have a bottomless need for attention, so.

[khamomile-kitty]

i agree that homestuck is full of racist shit, but it that were the “real reason” that “most people” don’t like it then they’d have to show up for the similarly racist Doctor Who, Supernatural, Our Flag Means Death, Stone Butch Blues, Dykes To Watch Out For, Avatar The Last Airbender etc etc need I go on? Like Homestuck is racist & it’s good that some people are acknowledging that but isn’t it kind of worrying that the level of of scrutiny people apply to it is not applied to literally anything else made by cis people.

from my perspective, the racism is a convenient rationale for people who just find the fandom annoying to moralise their distaste of the comic (you must’ve seen the recent bout of anonymous a bunch of trans women got for even mentioning that they were analysing Homestuck’s racism)

like again I totally agree Homestuck is inexcusably racist in places but isn’t it kind of suspect that you don’t see transmascs getting anons about The Romcom About Real Slave Traders Being Gay with the same fervour that trans women gently praising Homestuck get sent atrocious levels of hatemail?

i really think the exceptionalism of “wow, Homestuck is so shockingly racist way more than anything else!!” lets a lot of people ignore just how commonplace racism is in fandom & in the source materials of many of these fandoms; I think diverting literally every conversation about the transphobia Hussie & transfem fans of the comic have faced into “well Homestuck is exceptionally racist, so…” waywardly normalises transmisogyny *AND* racism.

like we don’t need any more people adding to the pile of transmisogynists saying, “wow isn’t it a weird coincidence how transfeminine white people are soo much more racist than other white people? i probably shouldn’t examine where this is coming from and just accept it as true”

Ok so we’re heading into weird territory. Ppl DO criticize those things you mention as being racist?? Like there’s obviously ppl who refuse to engage w that and do stupid fuckin shit like fund a zionist, racist tv show that ENDED w over a thousand dollars, but there’s VERY MUCH ppl who have BEEN pointing these things out as racist.

I really think you are thinking of this the wrong way. This is heading into “It being made by tma ppl means the racism isnt as bad” territory, which I know isn’t what you meant, but the idea that media by cis ppl must be criticized and brought up first in a conversation about bringing up the racism in media made by tma ppl is like. So do you not want us to acknowledge that??

Also. Inexcusably racist in “some places?” Half of the characters are racist stereotypes. The whole thing is racist? And again, you are thinking abt this the wrong way. The reason tme ppl aren’t getting sent egregious hatemail abt shit like OFMD isn’t because of ppl critiquing tma ppl. It’s bc the ppl sending the hate are transmisogynist and racist, and they’re looking for an excuse to be a shithole. The hate isn’t going to stop if we just. Stop critiquing media made by tma ppl when it’s racist? The hate is going to stop when we confront the fucking rampant transmisogyny and racism. Idk if I’m putting that exactly how I want it, I hope you get the idea.

Also, yeah maybe there are ppl who think like that (it wouldn’t surprise me, ppl pretending like their championing a cause when all they rly want to do is make it seem like they’re paying attention while slapping a band-aid over their gaping and unaddressed racism) but acting like that’s all ANYONE who criticizes homestuck is doing is erasing the black and non-black voices who have been saying that for a while now. I agree that I shouldn’t have brought it up in a discussion not currently discussing it, that was a bad mistake. I will not make it again. But acting like discussing the racism in homestuck AT ALL contributes to racism and transmisogyny is?? I don’t get that at all.

Also. ?? I haven’t heard anybody saying that, maybe that’s just me, but if they are, it’s not because they’re genuinely caring abt racism or trans ppl, it’s bc they’re transmisogynist and racist amd refusing to confront it. And acting like that what I was saying when NOWHERE did I even imply it?? Is this the same anon that asked me to take them in good faith?? Bc it sure seems like you’re not even trying to extend that curtesy to me. This ask in particular os a lot more accusatory than the last one, and I don’t really know how to respond to it other than discussing it and hoping you’ll get what I’m trying to say. Are you still wanting to have a conversation with me? Bc if not, that’s fine, but let’s not pretend it is, that’s confusing as hell. It’s kind of hard to have a conversation when one party is determined to take everything you say in bad-faith.

[foxgirlmoth]

Transmisogyny looks like a lot of things, but what I see thrown around actively on tumblr is that we aren't allowed to have a space with anyone else. Kind of a 'shove them off to the side' tactic especially if we complain. Getting misgendered by random people who think dude is a gender neutral term and being so upset when we point out that we hate it, I'd say especially if someone is TME. Saying that we can't have little terms like egg, because of COURSE that means we're somehow predatory. Trying to make more trans woman in the world??? How horrible!!

Its tiring. Before I was out as a trans woman I was able to go and talk in forums and be parts of conversations, and in general exist on the internet. Now being an out and proud tgirl just means I'm an easy target for pretty much anyone. Even a simple "Hey, please don't call me a dude" is met with so much resistance and people are either too selfish or think we're too sensitive and I just want to go a day without being misgendered on the internet. This is why trans women love to stick in groups online together and engage with fandoms in our own little spaces, not because we want to, but because its the only place we're safe from the transmisogyny rampant across the web.

[goingtolebanon]

i've seen a lot of trans people in the past few years putting tma/tme in their bio and while i think i understand the sentiment (particularly from people marking themselves as tme as an acknowledgement that they are not affected by a particular issue), it feels off to me for a few reasons:

this is just rebranded assigned gender at birth. it's an oversimplification of the actual reality of human bodies (especially for intersex individuals), comes with the implications of what you've experienced in life, and is information you don't really need to be publishing for the world to see

by saying you're transmisogyny affected, you're opening yourself up to more harassment; by saying you're transmisogyny exempt, it feels like you're belittling the things you deal with as a result of your transness because they aren't necessarily transmisogyny or shifting harassment towards others.

you're also creating an unnecessary binary; while it can be extremely useful to examine the differences between transmisogyny and the harassment trans individuals who aren't generally targeted with transmisogyny face, it's not something that seems appropriate to identify yourself publicly as one or the other: first, because it's generally more nuanced than that, and second, because it kind of just sucks to identify yourself by what hate you do and don't experience. you don't need to identify yourself one way or the other unless it's actively relevant to a conversation you're having

you cannot guarantee that you are transmisogyny exempt. transmisogynists will literally attack cisgender women (particularly cisgender women of color) that they think are transgender in transmisogynistic ways. just because someone does not identify as transfeminine or transfemme does not mean they can't experience transmisogyny. even "tme" people can experience transmisogyny

i really don't think people who are putting this stuff in their bios mean harm by it at all, and i am absolutely open to feedback/explanations if you disagree with me! it's just something that's becoming more common and i don't know if it's the healthiest way to define oneself online. please feel free to send me an ask or reply to this post if you want to discuss this

[catboldbot]

I've got a lot of issue with the whole TMA/TME thing, especially given I'm pretty sure I have now twice seen a transfem be presumed "TME" for some reason or other

but, I also think my previous thoughts in opposition to it are... not necessarily unimportant, but are not really a useful opposition. I do think it is important to acknowledge that transmisogyny is a widespread social force that impacts everyone in some way or other, and also that specific acts of transmisogynistic hate are not exclusively directed towards transfems. However, I think the fairest assessment is that (even if I don't like the implications of the terminology) the TMA/TME divide is attempting to talk about something that is not resolved by saying "transmisogyny impacts all kinds of people for all kinds of reasons", in the same way that saying trans bathroom bills also cause sexual aggression towards cis people can be a contribution of questionable value to the conversation. It is a true statement, but is not necessarily a useful one.

I don't know yet exactly what I think the shape of that something is, or what words (if any) I think could be better for talking about it. I think it has a lot to do with concepts like "allostatic load" (though I still need to read the book that brought that phrase to my attention) and being "hyper-marginalized". It has me thinking of a certain shared experience between transmisogyny and antisemitism (and surely other things but these are on my mind) where the marginalization experienced is so pervasive that many who aren't particularly prone to experiencing it have difficulty believing that it really could be so constant and from so many angles. Or worse, that they have difficulty believing that there isn't at least a little bit deserved.

I think it may also have something to do with the different ways these experiences are absorbed. The difference between the things that you are told not to do for fear of someone accusing you of being this other type of person, and the things that you are told not to be because you are that type of person. No, I don't think that someone's transmisogynistic violence is going to stop because their victim said "wait wait I'm not a trans woman!!" But I think it is worth considering that it may still hit us differently when we know the story being used to hurt us is about us or about someone else. When the stories in the culture around you that are about you all depict you as something to be reviled.

I still don't really like the TMA/TME thing, especially because it very much does seem to me that some have latched onto this to make it a very us vs. them thing, where transmisogyny is experienced by one group and done by the other. Transmisogyny is not a thing done by one person to another, it is a pervasive cultural force that anyone can wield against anyone who can be effectively matched to one of our culture's narratives about trans women. But, I do think the thing that it tries to talk about needs to be considered and better understood.

[butchmartyr]

Literally there are so many times trans men have been told to shut up because trans women have it worse.

Granted, a good chunk of those times it’s said by self hating trans men.

Look I’m not saying trans women should never get to speak, but like. Talking about the lateral aggression in queer communities that transmasculine people face is often called transmisogyny, when most of us don’t even mention trans women. You get me?

Idk maybe this makes no sense

second ask and full thoughts under readmore.

tl;dr: that sucks dude and it shouldnt happen but can we please talk about transmisogyny without making transfems do this song and dance about acknowledging trans men also feel transphobia every time we speak up? because ive said what im saying here several times and its starting to get really tiring that tme ppl arent listening lol. transmisogyny doesnt imply that other people have it better or anything, its just recognizing the unique and shitty ways that trans women get fucked over, you shouldnt see this in opposition to you! maybe read this post also

Idk how to explain where I’m coming from; sorry for two asks.

Again, I want trans women to be able to talk about their own problems. My problem is people — mainly people who aren’t trans women! — derailing any conversation about trans men’s oppression and making it about trans women.

For example, trying to change the discussion to be about what words people can use, claiming anyone who talks about trans men’s problems is a transmisogynist, etc.

And look, I think trans men can be transmisogynists, and should be called out. But I feel like… ugh idk how to word it. Like any trans guy who tries having a conversation about our own problems is going to be called a transmisogynist, even if the conversation has basically nothing to do with trans women.

for me, i can only speak from experience and ive seen very little of that happening, but ill trust you when you say that and say, yknow, that sucks, its bad and shouldnt happen? like. if this is about the post i think its about, my comment about that never happening was hyperbole to make a brief point before going back on topic, which is why i also said that if it does happen, then that sucks, because it does/would? like. im not your enemy, im not trying to silence trans men. ive lived my literal entire life constantly being socially silenced and ostracized, thats not what im doing. the focus on a throwaway comment is kind of irritating.

trans men should be able to talk about their unique issues and stigmas and thats a good thing that they should do, no transfem i know thinks otherwise. what ill also say is that what you're describing, talking about "lateral oppression in queer communities" often comes from a transmisogynistic place; my posts about transmisogyny should be about transmisogyny and, yknow, what im talking about, but theres at least a few trans dudes on each of those posts going on about how simply trying to talk with the language of transmisogyny is oppressing them. this is (trans)misogyny. its normal (even if it shouldnt be) for men to assume theyre being oppressed when they see women empowered, and thats whats happening here. like, literally just remove the word "trans" and youll see what i mean, this is an issue of gender and misogyny. you can talk about men's issues without pulling women down and acting like feminism is trying to push you down, yknow? i shouldnt only hear about this oppression and transphobia you face when i or other trans women are talking about transmisogyny, and yet it always seems to crop up in that way or else decry transmisogyny as a concept in other ways. like, the derailing thing you're describing literally has happened on all of my bigger posts about transmisogyny, and other big ones by other ppl as well! its extremely plain to see.

trans men should talk about the transphobia they face and they should be able to do this without getting blasted with oppression olympics but you should also recognize a lot of this transandrophobia rhetoric comes from a transmisogynistic place, especially because its often used and brought up in opposition to a trans woman talking about the extremely common intracommunity issue of tme people leveraging transmisogyny against trans women by leaning back on bioessentialism, clinging to cagab-based identities, and views of us being inherently "male" on some level or another. we are not your enemies, and you are not ontologically incapable of violence

[slut-lord]

i think your post on intersex tme/tma is interesting but from the perspective of an intersex person who's also transfem: other transfems hate me just as much as tmes do, both specifically for being intersex. the people i share the most experiences with has always been and will always be other intersex people. my fellow hermaphrodites have my back when perisex trans people treat me as a monster and a fetish.

"conditionally tma" doesn't really capture the power dynamic when the perisex trans community hates and envies us in a unique fashion. everyone perisex is still 100% capable of stomping down on us, trans or not.

to conclude: some intersex people are conditionally tma, and some never are, conditional or not. however, all perisex people are capable of being (and often are) intersexist towards us, even when we're part of their communities.

thank you for your input! this is definitely something i've noticed-- intersex trans women are often devalued by tme intersex individuals due to transmisogyny, but also devalued by perisex trans people due to intersexism, but i'm not sure that was clear from my original wording, and i don't know if there is language to describe that particular intersection.

however, i don't know if that's necessarily incompatible with the terminology-- an intersex trans woman would likely be considered TMA rather than CTMA, and intersexism from perisex transfem people, while an issue, is kind of a different conversation than "transmisogyny and how it overlaps with intersexism and how that grey area impacts discussion of transmisogyny, specifically"-- they're related issues, yeah, but i think this one kind of deserves its own post, and i don't feel qualified to write that post personally.

[transmisogyny-explained]

have you ever like, read anything by trans men of color on the subject of transandrophobia/whatever else u wanna call it? especially black trans men? the people I've seen sound off about this really don't like being strawmened as whiny whites for good reason. i find your framing of this subject to be highly reductive. a lot of what ive personally seen in the transandrophobia tag primarily talks about how cis ppl harm trans men, and while some posts are about trans women, and others i just flat out disagree with, i feel as though its throwing the baby out with the bathwater to say that the concept of trans men having issues specific to them then automatically discredits the myriad of problems trans women go through. it really doesn't. stating that trans men face some things trans women don't doesn't mean trans women oppress trans men. again, most posts ive seen in the tag talk about cis people and medical transphobia as well as access to uterine reproductive care like abortion access. im sure some of them r transmisogynistic, and some posts have seemed sus to me, but it think there is legitimacy to most of the claims made, ESPECIALLY THOSE ABOUT CIS PEOPLE. why do you think it's all whiny white boys?

To be honest, these are the most annoying kinds of asks I get because, like, I could give a substantive answer with counterarguments for all of this anon’s points, but I know that would just be a waste of my own time. It would mean pretending that these kinds of arguments are ever made in good faith and that isn’t going to get us anywhere. Transfems have been identifying and describing for decades (even before all these useful neologisms) the ways that trans TMEs act entitled toward, make assumptions about, project onto, and demonize us, and all of these things have cultivated into this new reactionary movement — one of many like it whose purpose is to push transfeminism back into obscurity and prevent transfems from being able to speak about our oppression — and I’m tired of getting message after message like this from some whiny, arrogant trans guy who clearly doesn’t care about anything I’ve ever actually said on the subject and just want to put words in my mouth about why I’m actually just a transandrophobe who hates transmascs for having a voice or whatever.

“Oh, most of us are just having a frank conversation about how cis people harm transmascs, and sure, some of them might be transmisogynistic, but really they’re just pointing out how transmascs experience a different kind of transphobia from transfems — please ignore how they appropriate transfeminist theory and talk about it in the exact same way that transfems talk about transmisogyny (with the implications being that transmisogyny is also “a different kind of transphobia,” and/or transandrophobia is it’s own system of oppression and/or it’s the inverse of transmisogyny).”

Okay, cool, if you’ve so thoroughly convinced yourself that this movement isn’t about protecting your ability to be openly transmisogynistic, then why do you keep dragging transfems into it?

[madame-peach]

Hi, I saw your post about transandrophobia, and I just wanted you to know that the creator of the term has a corrective rape/necrophilia fetish towards lesbians and trans women, which is even more reason no to use the term. Also while I can understand trans men feeling ashamed of being men because of how society speaks about men, ever time I see a post about “transandrophobia” I lose ten years of my life because it’s like misandry repackaged. Especially since the people who make those posts often derail the man-hating posts with “oh so you hate trans men too and if you say no to this question then it means you don’t see us as me and often act like trans women have any privilege over them whatsoever. And forget the fact that all men have male privilege over the women in their same communities. Transmisogyny is an infinitely bigger problem than “transandrophobia” in that it’s actually a problem to begin with. Not that trans men aren’t also oppressed but I’m so sick of people acting like they’re uniquely or more oppressed than trans women or that they’re oppressed because society hates men. I’m sick of it.

Yeah I've heard things about the person who coined the term but this is utterly reprehensible. It's unfortunate that that kind of behavior can be overlooked on this platform, and the term has been sanitized of any association with those evil ideas.

I engage with "transandrophobia" folks if and when I have the energy to expend, because it's laborious to do so for all of the reasons you mentioned and many more. I believe in stepping in and out of the struggle for liberation as my body and mind allows.

I wish that tumblr staff didn't platform the #"transandrophobia" hashtag as much as they do; the pervasiveness of the word and the accessibility of the hashtag makes it easy for random well-meaning TMEs to be deceived and tempted into the alluring transmisogyny of it all.

In an ideal setting where tumblr staff wasn't so transmisogynistic, the #transmisogyny hashtag wouldn't be considered "sensitive" material and hidden from the public view. Then, we could have more public and productive conversations about anti-transmasculinity and how it is a necessary requirement of transmisogyn(oir)-as-fulcrum theory, instead of framing the two in opposition to each other, in the fashion of a lot of prominent white transmasc users.

[eulangelo]

callout for @genderfluidlucifer

google docs

tw for transmisogyny + TERFs + emotional manipulation

Transmisogyny

Lucifer is a huge transmisogynist who will complain 24/7 about how TERFs hurt the ace community, but the moment @randomclustermissile , a trans girl (who is not an exclusionist at all) tries to point out transmisogyny in inclusionist circles (in the most vague and general way possible, without pointing fingers nor calling anyone names) Lucifer will immediatly jump to block her and so they did with me (another inclusionist) and i have to suppose to everyone else who agreed with that post, even arriving to vagueing about us in private group chats to suggest that we were “sympathizing with exclusionists”. all because we dared point out transmisogyny in inclusionist circles. lucifer is TME but apparently they think they’re the authority on TERFs and their talking points but actual trans women are not, according to them, since this is the stuff that they would go and spew to other people. (screenshots from @enbyoctoling​)

here’s more examples of Lucifer (again, a transmasc person) going deep in detail about how according to them, TERFs/SWERFs hate aro/ace people and are an active threat to us

1. link

[Image ID: Three screenshots of a post by Genderfluidlucifer. The first screenshot is of a paragraph that reads, "Hey. So I can actually answer this. Anon your commentary about how you thought terfs would approve of sex repulsed aces is sort of it. Except...not. Basically terfs hate ace people for not wanting sex in the approved by terfs way. Terfs are actually extremely interested in [forcing] amatonormativity onto everyone. Because for as sex negative as terfs are...they don't want to actually acknowledge or change the fact that amatonormativity is at the root cause of rape culture and misogyny."

The second screenshot is a zoomed in section of the post that reads, "So yeah no I have NO idea where exclus allies are getting this idea from that terfs would even remotely care about the sexual rights of ace people. Terfs generally hate any sexualities in the LGBTQ+ acronym that aren't LGB because they can't force a gender binary onto those sexualities. At least, not as easily. That's why it's actually a massive sign of someone who doesn't call themselves a terf being a crypto terf if they use the term LGB in a positive manner. Along with the term SGA, as it is deliberately exclusive of nonbinary and not inherently SGA centric queer-aligned sexualities. /END ID]

link to the full post, these are just excerpts but the whole thing is just a very long rant about how TERFs hate ace people and so on (i think it’s worth noticing that although the actual post is kinda long, trans women are never once brought op in a conversation about TERFs issues and the only time transmisogyny is mentioned is not relevant to the conversation)

2. link

[Image ID: A screenshot of a reblog by genderfluidlucifer. The original poster is nothorses. It reads, "Because apparently I have to say it: Testosterone is not a 'violent' hormone. It doesn't make you 'more aggressive' or a worse person, it doesn't make you 'dangerous,' or 'toxic.' Transmascs do not need to be 'warned of the dangers of T.' We do not need to spend our transitions terrified that we're going to become a danger to those around us - that HRT is going to turn us into a monster.

Everyone experiences mood swings during hormonal shifts (pregnancy, menstruation, menopause, estrogen HRT, etc.) and while you might have grumpy moments or feel anger/frustration that you need to learn to handle differently, that doesn't make you a bad person.

Testosterone can change the way you access/process emotions somewhat, but if you're already thoughtful about how you handle your feelings and treat others, you're going to be fine. It's normal to lash out on occasion, by accident, then apologize and work to do better. It doesn't make you a bad person. Everyone on HRT is prone to this, and everyone experiencing hormonal changes is prone to this.

Getting HRT should be positive and affirming; you should not have to spend your entire transition terrified of becoming a monster."

The post then has a reblog by captainlordauditor that reads, "The big danger of T is that needle ouchy." /END ID]

here’s them reblogging from known transmisogynist user @nothorses (once again, the irony that a post about how testosterone is seen as the "aggressive hormone" does not mention transfem at all which are literally the main victims of this rethoric in the first place)

3. link (1), link (2)

[Image ID: Two screenshots of posts by genderfluidlucifer. The first screenshot reads, "Queer exclus: We're not repackaging terf rhetoric! Saying that is transmisogynistic! Also queer exclus: Remove the plus from LGBT!" and has tags that say, "I will pay these people to grow some god damn self awareness. Imagine being this dense. Queer discourse." The post has 15 notes.

The second screenshot reads, "Honestly it is so stupid and frustrating to see ace exclus continue to deny that the ace discourse was started by terfs. Proof was given countless times. And a big name terf like galesofnovember even admitted to starting it. Those of you who demand proof but ignore all of this never wanted proof to begin with." and is tagged with, "ace discourse. The post has 38 notes. /END ID]

heres another two post of theirs conflating TERFs with ace exclusionism

4. link

[Image ID: A screenshot of a reblogged post by furbearingbrick. The original poster is boxlizard, Lucifer's old account. The original post reads, "By the way for people still in denial about it, here's galesofnovember, a terf, admitting that she intended to start the ace exclus movement. She's taking credit for it. Normally if the victims of this behavior weren't ace/aro or other queer identities y'all be ready to rightfully lynch her. But since it's us, y'all just still wanna stamp your feet and go, 'Nuh uh!' instead of acknowledging facts." The part that says, "admitting that she intended to start the ace exclus movement" is a link to a galesofnovember post.

There is then a reblogged addition from furbearing brick that reads, "archived versions of the receipts" and has two links to the webarchive. The tags read, "Bringing this back since it's apparently still relevant. Terfism mention. Aphobia mention. Queerphobia mention. Blocklist." and has 1,455 notes. /END ID]

this is their post that ive already talked about but basically they found a 52 notes post made by a TERF in 2012 and this one person said "i dont know why i dont get to be the princess of the anti-ace-brigade" and apparently they are convinced that this means TERFs started the ace exclusionism movement and that this is one of their goals. which is insane when TERFs in real life only care about making life miserable for transfem people first and foremost.

5.link

[Image ID: A screenshot of a reblog by genderfluidlucifer. The original poster is yu-gay-fudo. It reads, “Just in case you happen to be unaware, some of the “radfem lite” they post to warm you up to their rhetoric, just off the top of my head:

- Ace/aro exclusionism

- Bi exclusionism or claims that bi people are “less queer” bc of “straight passive privilege”

- Saying you have to be dysphoric to identify as transInvalidating nonbinary people

- Calling queer a slur regardless of context, saying people can’t identify as queer, and saying that it can’t be reclaimed

- “Mogai hell”, “kweer”, or otherwise mocking less common labels and claiming they are “just cishets who want to feel special”

- Excluding sex workers from feminist discussions or claiming that sex work is inherently evil

- Basically anyone who thinks they can determine what other people identify as”. The tags read, "queerphobia tw. twerfs tw. no id." and has 70,727 notes. It was reblogged on March 22nd, 2021 /END ID]

another example of conflating radfems to things that, while wrong, have little to nothing to do with them because being a radfem, again, is something very specific that has all to do with transfem oppression.

Emotional manipulation

Lucifer has done nothing but block, break boundaries, spread lies and vague about people, some of which were even mutuals with them knowing they would see the posts. when confronted about it Lucifer's only answer was "just say you hate me and block me" but they actually ended up blocking everyone first, making it impossible for anyone to set some boundaries with them or even just to calmly confront them about anything.

[proof: Io(popncourse) and Lucifer had a disagreement in a shared discord server, which prompted Lucifer to vague Io in a vent post. Io confronted them, as being vagued is one of buns triggers, to which Lucifer initially agreed to delete the vent post, but then proceeded to victimize themself and immediatly blocked Io. later on, Jude(malewifedeckard) was confronted by Lucifer, then after Jude told them “I’m worried that you’ll vague me just like you did with Io” they proceeded to block Jude and vagued about him too. when Io made a post (which was not a callout, it was just bun setting buns boundaries) explaining what Lucifer did, Lucifer immediatly jumped to victimize themself, acting like they were being called out and straight-up lying, even going so far as to say that no one tried to hear them out, which is a blatant lie if you consider the aforementioned Io and Jude’s attempts at doing so, with Lucifer immediatly blocking and cutting ties with the both of them. ] 

(screenshots taken by @popncourse and @malewifedeckard)

as seen in the proof above Lucifer’s behaviour is not ok because they don’t accept any kind of confrontation and immediatly jump to blocking, and after blocking, they'd immediatly go and vague about the people who confronted them pacificly, spreading more lies and painting themself as the victim and even arriving to say “no one hears me out at all” which is simply not something you can say when you block people who are trying to hear you out in the first place.

this is by no means an invitation to go and harass them, send them hate or anything like that. i absolutely don’t want anything even remotely hateful or negative to be sent their way after this post. 

this post was only made because:

1. as an ace person who fully supports the inclusion of aspec identities in the lgbt+ community i don’t want to support an enviroment that costantly downplays transmisogynistic oppression in order to be taken seriously. there are hundreds of ways to make aspec activism without acting like we(as in TME aspecs)are the victims of a system that seeks for the annihilation of transfemenine people in real life everyday. i especially don’t want to support TME individuals who act transfem-friendly but then block any transfem who tries to speak on transmisogyny without a second thought.

2. Lucifer’s behaviour has hurt two friends of mine and i don’t want to associate with someone who actively breaks people’s boundaries without taking accountability when messing up.

3. i cannot associate with someone who spreads lies about me accusing me of sympathizing with exclusionists all while having me blocked so that i can’t see it nor defend me. they complain about people not hearing them out but they’re the very first person who does not try to hear people out, and instead jumps to spread baseless rumors. this is not someone i can nor want to associate with. 

(image descriptions provided by @malewifedeckard)

[velvetvexations]

Harassing trans women is wrong. That's why you should have left the random trans woman online alone instead of starting a fight and being incredibly condescending. Not to mention calling her a "freak" which is just a big tip off to the kind of bigot you are. If you think getting social ramifications (ie an anon telling you calling trans women freaks is bad) is "harassment," then you really are living a privileged life and I can not relate to you at all.

Anon I need you to understand that I went to another transwoman, the same demographic as myself, to engage with them in good faith specifically because they seemed relatively reasonable. I even highlighted in my ask that in my ask specifically because I wanted them to feel at ease and understand that I wasn't trying to "start a fight".

I was accused of concern trolling and blocked. Someone else, in response to that conversation, posted some really bad shit about transmascs and I made the post you're referring to because it was distressing to have prompted people being hateful towards another group.

Do some people online use "freaks" to refer to trans people? Yes! But "freaks" is also, generally, used for any terminally online person. The specific meaning in reference to trans people is related to the (somewhat dated) conceptualization of "SJWs", wherein trans people are characterized as people who obsessively rally around internet causes and make trouble. However, just because trans people get hit with the terminally online label does not mean the term was made exclusively for them. I, personally, have used it to describe right-wing weirdos much more often than anyone even vaguely to the left of anything.

If you so gravely understand the heightened scrutiny transwomen are often subjected to, it's really surprising that you feel compelled to so badly twist me attempting to engage in a sincere conversation with another transwoman and then making a vaguepost to vent about someone else's vaguepost where I went out of my way to not include any identifying details that could lead to the person I was responding to could be identified. It's strange that you would take me using a word that is not a slur and, even if it were, would be one I should be able to reclaim, and use it to malign me as somehow transmisogynistic!

It's not helping TMA/TME weirdos (do I have permission to say that?) beat the "doesn't really care about transwomen" allegations!

[cipheramnesia]

your post about transmisogyny and language articulates something ive been stewing on for a while, mainly as i was trying to reconcile with the discourse the experience of being a transmasculine person preferring feminine clothing - presenting as a guy in a dress makes one the target of transmisogyny and i wasnt sure it made sense to me to describe such a person as TME and describe the transmisogyny as misdirected even if the bigotry is based on wrong assumptions about assigned sex, since the transphobia is obviously not misdirected, but i didnt know how else to frame it. still thinking this through

TME / TMA just isn't working for me at all anymore. Like, the longer I spend being queer or seeing stories about forms of bigotry and hate, it's just increasingly clear trying to create self-imposed boundaries between who can or can't be subject to some kind of bigotry or some systemic oppression mostly just serves to isolate people who need community and prevent people targeted by bigotry from cooperating.

It's fine if you wanna have a conversation about specific experiences as a trans woman or whatnot, but then codifying it into exclusionary definitions like TME or whatever turns it into shutting down communication rather than encouraging. Life is too complicated for exact divisions.

[brothfan1997]

do u think john and june can coexist?

siiiiggghhh ok this is a complicated question and as a tme person i dont know if i can fully speak to the nuances of this conversation. my first point is just that i think the energy people put into this issue would be better directed not at other fans but at the actual writers of hs2 who have put exactly zero effort into representing her (i do not read hs2) in the source material thus far. [putting this under a cut because i have Problems and wrote like 700 words about this]

the intangible nature of “canon” is like, literally an entire aspect of the plot heavily explored in homestuck proper. canonization can be given and taken away freely within the actual confines of the story, as a narrative device, and this concept is intricately intertwined with the relationship between Homestuck and its audience. the main characters are observed by an outside audience even within the story, and interactions from observers have the power to make changes in-universe, in a literal sense (readers picking actions), a meta sense (andrew hussie and the MSPA reader as actual characters), and just textually, when the main character, one J. Egbert, leaves the narrative and becomes an character outside of the author’s control with the power to alter reality. if i was going by a strict interpretation of the actual plot of homestuck, technically nothing andrew hussie says has any bearing on any character that has retcon powers. but im not going to do that, because that is kind of dumb.

i think these are the sort of mental backflips the hs2 team are doing to justify their avoidance of the issue of actually canonizing june. because from my point of view, right now, she is not canon. she is not mentioned once, in any of the source material. again, this is a fault of the writers, but lets ignore that, and assume that she is canon by toblerone law, as im guessing that this is what this ask is actually trying to get at. people argue that oh, shes canon in this timeline and not others, which tbh i think is another transphobic backflip, using the plot mechanics of homestuck to justify ignoring a characters transition. making content for the hs2 cast on earth C that features a cis john is absolutely transphobic; john and june cannot coexist on earth C. 

HOWEVER: the thing is that june isnt a real person, existing as a conscious being at only one fixed point in time. shes a character in a story, one that has existed for almost 12 years, and that character can be consumed and interpreted at any point in her journey. every version, every moment of this character exists at the same time, and i dont think its a disservice to junes character to interpret and make content for her as she is, pre-transition, in homestuck proper. there are certainly ways to do it wrong, and there are certainly people who do it to be hateful, but i dont think this issue is completely black and white. at the end of the day, homestuck is a self contained story, and (when it comes to, like, making act 5 fanart) nobody is obligated to reimagine the original material based on second hand information from a ~dubiously canon~ sequel (i think that whole thing is bullshit for other reasons that i wont go into. take responsibility for the writing choices you make). 

i think this is a really unique situation of having a character transition AFTER the actual story takes place, which really hasnt been represented in media before at all. i would really like to see the hs2 writers do a good job, and i would love for the homestuck fandom to interact with the characters in a way that is respectful to their future journeys, because it is so so so important to respect people that see themselves in those journeys. i really think the most important thing to consider with june discourse is just... is that person being transphobic? are their headcanons motivated by transphobia? is this person trying to erase a canon identity or are they just exploring a character as they have been represented. anyway. i love june egbert and i just think we should hold writers to the same level of accountability as we hold the fans. i do think this is a really important conversation to have tho especially as we have more trans representation in media so please let me know if you have any thoughts on anything ive said here :-)

[ablednt]

“No other discrimination you may face cancels out your cis privilege you absolutely must address this if you want to go on calling yourself an intersectional activist or a liberal because at this point it's all performative.”

Holy fuck, are you serious? How can you say this when black people and other racial minorities are still killed by the police and for hate crimes? Women in Mexico, ciswomen, are being murdered in such high numbers and basically everywhere around the world too for that matter because they’re cis women. Women who are trapped in ICE centers right now are having hysterectomies forced upon them. But the awful discrimination they face doesn’t matter because they might be cis? I just can’t wrap my head around this, that’s a really self centered mindset. I think you need to consider intersectional issues than just gender.

That's not what I said, and not what you quoted means even remotely. I did not say no other discrimination you face matters. I said none of that cancels out cis privilege. That's how intersectionality works, every one is discriminated against in some ways and privileged in others and the more ways people are discriminated against the more struggles they have.

For example I face discrimination for my disabilities, plurality, gender, sexuality, and more but absolutely none of that discrimination (even though some of it is extreme enough to put my life at risk) erases the fact that I have white privilege. I also am TME (transmisogyny exempt) so even though I'm Trans and nonbinary I still have privilege over people who face Transmisogyny. I also have privilege over many disabled communities because my body can see and hear and walk etc.

I cannot speak on how experiencing racism affects someone's experiences so I will not attempt to explain what level of cis privilege any of the aforementioned groups experience but I do know that there are trans and nonbinary BIPOC and that in their communities cis people do have privilege over them which they've talked about. This is what the concept of intersectionality is describing and iirc it was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw to discuss racism in feminist spaces and it also inherently applies to any kind of privilege and discrimination. Rather than being synonymous with "inclusive" as it's often used, it's a way to look at the way discrimination overlaps and affects privilege and is necessary for understanding better how to accommodate people and coexist as marginalized communities.

My whole point is that facing other types of discrimination does not make people incapable of transphobia and nonbinaryphobia if they're not trans and nonbinary. That statement makes no comparison to other forms of discrimination and does not speak on their severity or importance in advocacy.

Edit: When I say I won't get into what privileges cis people of color have, I mean that as a white person I have no right to an opinion on that matter as that is very clearly an intercommunity discussion that I do not have the experience necessary to be a part of without being insensitive and discriminatory in one way or another because of my privilege. That conversation is best led by trans people of color, not me.

[xsecretblastsx]

2x02 - Never Been Marcused

Here we are on a new recap, sadly we say good bye to the hamptons on this episode, but it seems fitting considering is the start of fall after all. 

This one of those episodes were I barely remember what happens except for a few scenes here and there from my first watch, so it almost felt like watching a new episode. Anyway here we go.

As usual recap under the cut:

Thoughts I had while watching the episode:

Akward morning after talk between Dan and Serena, not my prefered way for the start of an episode, but what can I do

Well they are kind of cute here, I’ll admit. Though I’m kind of glad Serena’s first instict wasn’t to get back together right there and actually acknoweldging their break up had a lot of reasons behind it.

Blair looks super cute riding that bicycle, so picture perfect. Too bad is only on paper. That Marcus guy is super boring.

Blair can be like “Revenge is so 12 hours ago” but Serena’s is all of us being like “Sure Blair, you totally love Marcus and all of this has nothing to do with Chuck ofc” 

I’m not sure if being refered as “ a perfect post Bass palate cleanser” can be taken as a compliment. And just like magic a wild Bass appears.

I’m just here to enjoy the akward moment every single boyfriend of Blair has to endure whenever they realize that Chuck Bass is going to be a relevant part of said relationship.

“For England” Marcus your nation is surely going to be proud of you for acting like a total englishman and accepting to be civil with Chuck Bass, the guy who just totally manipulated you into inserting himself in your date.

“Blair Waldorf a fling... you’re not exactly low maintenance” Serena speaking words of wisdom.

I guess abstinence (on Serena’s side mostly) was hard for Serena and Dan, otherwise I can’t understand why they’re acting as if keeping their hands to themselves is so difficutl, they never seemed that type of couple in S1.

Blair called him Charles, I guess she was pretty mad. 

That whole sequence of Dan and Serena fooling around on the Jitney is soooo extra, and so unintentionally funny.

Nate’s family drama is never ending, though imagine the tragedy it must be for any UES to lose their money. Auch.

Surprise! Nate’s fling is actually the Duchess.

This whole dialogue: “No offense but don’t you think you’re a little outmached?” “As a guy. Blair wants to be a princess (>.<) and your greatest achievement is owning part of a burlesque club” and the cherry on top “Oh you know is love when you star talking like an assasin” Oh Nate Archibald, I love you. 

Also apparently Chuck did spend tme with Bart from time to time, is kind of hard for me to imagine them playing Squash though.

Chuck keeping noble secrets from Nate. That’s love.

Hi Rufus... and Vanessa

Oh Marcus, giving so much intel to his new “best friend”.Also I kind of like the polo/vest combo Chuck’s wearing there. Weird.

“I have to present myself as crown jewel, sorrounded by other smaller slightly flawed gems, but quality stones nonetheless” this is such Blair thing to say haha.

“If you can’t find common ground wiht a dictator I don’t know who can” The added commentary is really making this episode for me. 

I’ve never related more to Blair than this moment where she express how great it is that Serena’s free from Dan.

I just love when we get to see how much Chuck actually cares about Nate, selling his shares of Victrola is no small deal.

Nate and Vanessa! I still can’t believe how much I don’t mind, and actually kind of like this ship.

I kind of would love to see Anne Archibald doing her shopping at Salvation’s Army.

I love the combination of that suit with that shirt Chuck’s wearing, the color really suits him. I don’t know why but I’m noticing his wardobre much more this time around. Figures. I do remember thinking the first time around he was going to try and seduce the duchess. Now that would have been another akward moment of “Sorry Nate”

Serena looks so pretty here, even if I’m not that fan of her outfil. 

“So she can warn me about the effects of too much botox” auch.  Chuck: 1, Blair: 0. and he’s definately enjoying it.

I so wish Rufus had gone to tour again. He deserved to live that dream to the fullest.

“A lowly Waldorf” wow. Even I was hurt by that. 

I love it when the GG voice oveer points out how ridiculous everything is. Case in point: “Chuck and Blair’s dates are mother and son, and Nate and Blair are exces, and Nate and the mother are in a book club?”

I get why Nate is mad at Chuck for not being upfront about the money, because it’s not easy addmitting that kind of problems in their wordl and even less accepting that kind of help, but Chuck’s intentions were good. Fact is he always helps Nate anyway he can.

The fact that Dan and Serena’s plotline this episode was basically just trying to resist each other, and I can’t help but think that this was the show’s way of trying to make them be more “chair like”, you know intense chemistry and sex appeal. As if.

“if the best version of the situation is I’m going to become Blair’s father in law I think is just time to move on” Now imagine that, thanks to Nate for putting that horrifying thought in my head.

And this is the start of Nate Archibald the gigolo.

“Oh my effing God” same Blair, same. Props to Nate for still acting so rightous and being all like “I don’t have anything to explain to you” 

Blair telling the Duchess how things are going to be now... You go baby Vamp!

“I’m gonna turned it in a novel” so I guess this throway line was the start of “Inside” 

Rufus beyond anything was first a Dad, the Humphrey kids got the best dad in the show, the kind of Dad any of the NJBC would have love to have as a parent, and yet they feel they were the unlucky ones.

That last scene between Chuck and Blair is such a display of chemistry a lot of ships wish they had. and the literal definition of what eye sexing each other means. 

I feel so bad for Nate and Vanessa right now... with the add visual bonus of her sadly blowing the candles for a date that wasn’t. Feeling sad for Vanessa, now that’s new for me.

So this episode while there are moments that I really liked and it did kind of move the plot forward in some points, it also fills a lot like a filler episode and like I don’t really have much to say about it. Maybe because these storylines while I don’t hate them I don’t particularly like them either, in particular this chapter of the Serena and Dan saga this episode feels such a waste of time, they’re basically stalling because they really don’t want to have the difficult conversation of why they broke up and how they can fix their issues, and so to keep avoiding they distract themselves with taming their unrestrained need for sleeping with each other... sorry but what?

I’m not saying there’s no chemistry between Dan and Serena, but their relationship in S1 except for like 1 or two scenes was very much rooted in cutesy moments, tenderness, and how Serena was better with Dan (ugh) and how he wanted for her, not only because she was super hot, they never acted like “oh it’s so hard to keep our hands from each other, and we can’t resist this atraction” that couple were Chuck and Blair, so on this episode I just can’t buy it, it seems forced, almost as if the show wanted them to be more exciting and outrageous... to keep them as the main couple of the show as they were suposed to be, after all at this point of the show while Chuck and Blair were getting more traction, they hadn’t really overtook the show as they eventually did. It also felt part of the “omfg” vibe the show was going for, that scene in the Jitney was so extra, though in my case rather than getting me into them just made me laugh. 

Nate storyline on the other hand is the one that really went places this episodes. It turns out his family is on the brink up bankrupcy because all the legal issues his dad is facing, and because his grandfather won’t help he and his mother are a very precarious situation wich leads Nate to seek help. He tries going to Chuck but on one hand he doesn’t really now how to explaint the situation, and also Chuck’s apparently really busy with scheming his way back to Blair. Except Chuck because he knows Nate is going to refuse him and he can’t help but help him either way sells his shares on Victrola and gives the money to Nate’s mom. Of course when Nate finds out he gets mad, because pride and also because he hates that Chuck lied to him about Victrola and to be fair it hasn’t been that long since they had a big fall out because Chuck wasn’t honest about stuff, so there’s that. Still, I feel I must take a moment to point out how much Nate actually means to Chuck? He loves that club, it’s a place with a lot of sentimental meaning too for a lot of reason and yet Chuck doesn’t hesitate to part with it if meants helping Nate. I know Chuck makes plenty of mistakes and awful things during the show, but these kind of moments are always kind of overlook and I just feel that’s unfair because only focusin on the worst of him, reduces him to this one dimensional villian, and in reality Chuck is one of the most complex characters on this show. These kind of moments are an example of his many layers.

So back to Nate, he ends up going to Vanessa, and I just feel this rewatch is turning me into a Nate and Vanessa shipper. Truth is I never hated this couple, but I was a bit meh to it, in part because Vanessa annoys the hell out of me for the most part, but I always thought she was less annoying with Nate. I like how she just sits and listens to Nate, and I think this is something that his best friends are not always the best at, Chuck tries but he’s more the type of friend that goes into action, he does what is need to do in order help rather than the heart to heart talk, and Nate and Serena’s friendship at this point while getting there, is kind of akward still and also there’s always some crisis going on her life that prevents her for being fully there, and Blair and Nate well.. they weren’t ever the talking type. So Vanessa helps with that, also when the show started Nate wanted in someway to detached himself from the UES and all it’s expectations and so Vannesa was that needed breeze of fresh air, and while she can be as judgy as Dan, I always felt she made more of an effort with Nate to be understanding than Dan ever was with the UES. So I like them, at least for now. Too bad Catherine happens and while Nate was really into the idea of having an affair with her this episode he realizes that’s an awful idea (the fact that she has a step son that’s older than him and is also dating Blair is admiteddly gross) but it’s a desperate time, and she offers him her help... and so we got Nate the gigolo, and that last scene in the taxi when he cancels on Vanessa made me sooo sad.

Lastly we have the Chuck and Blair part of the story, it’s always fun to see them scheming, and Chuck’s tactics these episode are rather sucessful at first and it’s mostly a display of him knowing Blair so well that he’s able to get the upper hand on all of her efforts to get on the Lord and his family good side. I should feel bad for her, in the sense that Chuck’s ruiningin her plans and it’s not fair because if he had showed up to Tuscany everything would be different. And yet I’m kind of glad he gets on her way because truthfully, this is just one of those times that Blair is trying to show herself as something she isnt’ in order to get a guy, and also climb higher in the social hierarchy, and it pains me because at the end of the day is just Blair not accepting herself, like Serena keeps pointing out through all the episode, just show the real Blair sure, she’s anything but low maintainance but there’s a lot of amazing in her that can make her shine to anyone. This plot also reminded me a bit of Blair and the prince storyline and also (because this party was trying to be very pretentious and sofisticated) that saloon thing she did with Dan in Season 5 and just remembering that gives me nightmare. So really not a fan of these particular scenes. In the end she ends up gaining the duchess via blackmail, which I like because I hate the Duchess so I’m all for Blair showing her Queen B side in full display and after this episode I missed it. It’s also the basis of that great moment at the end between her and Chuck in the Van der Bass kitchen, which is easily the most memorable thing in the whole hour and only for that I’m glad this episode exists. The chemistry and sexual tension  of this whole scene is amazing and it puts to shame all the Dan and Serena “can’t keep their hand of each ohter” scenes, this is how is done. Sorry Derena.

Random bits I noticed:

The Pierces song playing in the background at the start of the episode, “Boy in a Rock and Roll Band” always puts me in a good mood for some reason.

That pearl headband Blair’s wearing at the party were so popular here for a while, I loved it so much back then, I sort of wish I had one now.

I loved the “Summer 08″ collage the Humphrey’s had in their loft. It also had this phrase “ I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality... I still believe that we shall overcome” by Dr. Martin Luther King. Kind of relevant isn’t it?

Having and episode ending with a shot of  the NYC skyline at night, while New York, I Love You but You’re Bringing Me Down playing in the background... these are the kind of details I love. 

Ending with a Chuck pick because I really like this suit