#and otherwise can make people uncomfortable

[drdemonprince]

Is there a polar opposite of transphobia?

Like I’m a newly transitioned trans man and suddenly everyone wants a piece of me. In a weird way. Like people have started asking me to join committees and talk to youth groups and shit so they have their “representation”. I’m now the token trans person. I live in a small lefty town. People either want to ask me allllll the questions or they are too scared to even talk to me in case they offend me. Suddenly everyone wants to be my friend. I feel like I’ve joined a club I did not agree to sign up to. Like is this normal? Is there a term for it? I have a lot of gay male friends who are awesome, no other trans people local. I’ve started connecting with people online.

I mean some people have been cunts for sure. But mostly it’s nauseating fawning. I know this is a stupid thing to be complaining about but I guess I’m curious.

I’m not that special, I’m actually just an angry little man.

My brother dear, what you are experiencing is a very common combination of the growing visibility & tokenization of being a newly out marginalized person, and the massive increased authority, social trust, social value that comes with being a man.

Welcome to male privilege baby, to put a spin on a far more undermining phrase that typically gets hurled at trans femmes. You will be considered a trustworthy authority on trans issues, a valuable contributor to panels and workshops, a needed (but also highly convenient to access) form of "diversity" for a workplace, a welcome attendee at all manner of events, and you'll be deferred to over women, especially trans women, for pretty much the entire rest of your life, if you continue to remain out about the trans side of things.

Guys like us are invited, centered, included, listened to, treated with respect, treated with WARMTH, viewed as intelligent, perceptive, sensitive, safe, trustworthy, reliable, and desirable to include. In the eyes of the cis public, we are a "safe" kind of trans person who does not make people uncomfortable to look at and who doesn't challenge their pre-existing understanding of gender hierarchy; when they listen to us, they get to trust in the certainty of a MAN giving them information, but they can also feel comfortable and safe around us as a kind of enlightened, sensitive nonthreatening figure.

We're men who can can explain sexism right back to women. We're trans people who went from being subjugated as women to being rewarded with privilege as dudes. In this way, trans men being positioned as an authority figure reinforces the existing gender hierarchy, which feels soothing and right to people's brains.

You will have to be conscious of this power differential for the rest of your life, around cis and trans women alike, because otherwise it plays out in a pretty traditionally sexist fashion: people (especially women) will go quiet when you start speaking, you will be given credit for ideas that were a collective effort, your emotions will be more likely to be taken seriously and seen as a sign of principle rather than weakness, and you will be regarded as special and memorable while dozens of other people and their concerns are passed over.

Another factor that is at play here is a phenomenon that is less specifically gendered, because it does happen to trans women too, and that's the phenomenon of cis groups making the newly-out trans person their token and educator, because typically it is the newly out person whom they have the most access to and power over.

The moment that a trans person transitions they immediately start getting singled out as an expert and resource on the trans experience, asked to lead workshops at their jobs and explain concepts to people and attend events and sit on panels. I think on some intuitive level cis people kinda *know* that the newly out are in a vulnerable, uncertain state and have fewer communities ties and less experience than more seasoned trans people do, and so they make the ideal "translator" of trans experiences to them as an audience.

In cis people's minds, you're not gonna push back, you're not going to complicate their narratives, you're not gonna be tired of answering offensive questions, and you will be freely available to them as a resource, because you've just come out. You'll put a friendly face on transition, one marked by newness and hope, rather than be jaded, complicated, or assertive at them. That's their expectation.

It makes no logical sense to make a newly out member of the community the arbiter of transness or the educator on the trans experience, but it DOES make sense that a powerful group would view such a disempowered and disconnected (relatively speaking) member of the trans community to be the most attractive to include.

Of course, this might not be true to who you actually are. But on a gut level, this is how the newly out trans person is typically seen: nonthreatening, moldable, convenient, so thankful to be included that they won't be angry. And you will be doubly rewarded for fulfilling that role if you are a man.

The only way to upend this narrative being forced onto you is for you to speak up, every single time you are invited to an event, and demand that just as many trans women be included in that event as trans men. Make sure to have a nice list of experienced, wise trans femme friends whom you can recommend as speakers and co-panelists in your pocket.

More often than not, you will be thanked by cis people and rewarded for having the brilliant idea of including women in a conversation about gender minority status. How the trans women in the equation get treated, well, you'll need to pay close attention to, and be ready to stand up and speak out the moment any passive aggressive exclusionary bio-essentialist fuckshit gets going. You can do it! And lots of times you ARE the person with the power to set things right. You're trans and you're being singled out, but you also are a man.

[slow-drowned-angels]

Things I wish people would do when their partner says no to having sex:

Not try to convince them otherwise. You can have a discussion later about wanting to have sex more. Right now, there’s likely a lot of emotions going on and it may be seen as coercive. Have this discussion after both of you are in better headspaces, in a nonsexual situation.

Not take it personally. Someone else not wanting to have sex with you right now is probably not about you. Especially if you’re in an otherwise stable relationship. If you have difficulty with this, please talk to a trusted third-party about it.

Ask your partner if there’s another bonding activity they would be interested in. This can help with (2). Ideas: watching tv, playing a game, cuddling. This can also help reassure your partner that you are not mad at them for saying no and that you are a safe person to say no to.

A Bit of a Related Tangent:

People talk a lot about compromise. About how, in a relationship, if one person wants sex all the time and one wants sex only half the time, that they "should meet in the middle." They forget to add that compromise is OPTIONAL.

If you do not want to have any sex (and especially if having sex is making you feel uncomfortable in any way), you do not have to compromise by sometimes having sex. You CAN if you want to/don't mind doing so!! But you DO NOT HAVE TO. (You can also try and then say no that's not going to work. You do not have to try if you do not want to.)

If you do want to have sex and your partner doesn't, you do not have to be in that relationship.

You are allowed to be sexually incompatible with people. How that impacts your relationship is up to the people therein.

Your partner should not use "compromise" as a way to try to coerce you into having sex that you are otherwise not interested in having. If you are compromising, both parties should feel comfortable and happy with the outcome, not like it is their duty or just a way to prevent someone from leaving them.

I feel like too many consent-related posts focus too much on giving and getting consent, and not making sure that people feel comfortable not consenting. We talk too much of consent as if it is a given, as if you just have to ask and then you’ll get it. 

like, there are so many things that boil down to “before you have sex, ask for consent” rather than “don’t assume you’re about to have sex unless you know for sure that the other party/parties want to, and even then they could change their minds”.

Which is just really unhelpful. The whole point of consent shouldn’t be “you should always ask for it and then you can have care-free sex”. That still assumes that you’re going to have sex, when the whole point of asking what people want to do is that it should be possible to say no.

Consent and dissent are both equally valuable. It’s OK if someone asks you if you want to do something, and you say no. And whether you say no for today, for a week or forever, it’s all fine.

Because you know that there are going to be people who think they’re so ~progressive~ and so ~feminist~. when they ask their partner(s) if they want to have sex, but then won’t be able to handle the word “no”.

[elephantshoetoo]

Hey there! Loved the recent YT video of yours. Um, Let's dive straight to the question.

First, I am a massive Byler believer. (all for the right reasons, I believe) But recently I keep seeing posts on "why Byler isn't happening" and the reason people usually drop is "the story is set on 80s, it was a difficult time to be gay"--- And I'm like, 1. well, it's mainly a fictional show. there isn't upside down or at least we have yet to find that to be true . so writers can do what they like. 2. just because 80s was a difficult time to express openly to others that they were gay doesn't mean people didn't fall in love and decided to love and live with each other for the rest of their lives. 3. am I really watching the same show with the rest of the world? am i overanalyzing it? or am I really gonna be kicked on the stomach when Season 5 releases (which I hope releases soon, every day of wait is killing me) What's your take on this? Hopefully you'd answer. I rarely open Tumbler but I will come back for your answer. Lots of Love, A Fellow ST Fan

Ooh, thank you for your question - this is my first real ask. I'm so excited 😊

Take heart, dear Byler shipper. This is a show for the underdogs, a show about fighting against forced conformity and righting the wrongs of the past.

I grew up in the 80's, and yes, gay people existed, though many of them were closeted out of fear or denial. I had gay friends and dated several gay guys, so I do understand why people might think it would be unrealistic for Byler to happen, but yeah, it's a sci-fi show, not a documentary. It's not about realism or showing how it was. It's about showing how it should be (in the end), so I don't think the time period is going to stop them.

In fact, I think the time period is significant. I think the monsters and the Upside Down are all symbolic of the horrors of growing up as a gay person in a place and time that was hostile towards them.

But also...

The first Pride celebration in Indiana happened in Indianapolis in 1987.

1987.

Why does that date sound familiar...? Oh, yes. That's when most of ST 5 takes place - the year of their first Pride celebration. Hmm... Coincidence?

And Byler can happen without them coming out to the whole town. They could keep it amongst their friends and family, the way Robin has only told Steve so far. Nobody doubts Rovickie happening, even though they are also gay in the 80's (making those arguments against Byler completely invalid). Vickie has far less queer coding than Mike Wheeler and is also in a straight relationship, but everyone sees it coming after only a few flirty scenes, because nobody knows or cares about Vickie's boyfriend or had any preconceived ideas about her character that they now have to adjust. People don't like adjusting their preconceived ideas. It makes them uncomfortable. It makes them question the safety of their familiar little world and forces them to expand their minds. Growth is never easy.

But... if they don't already see the queer coding behind Mike and all the hints that Byler is on the horizon... adjusting their preconceived ideas would actually explain Mike's whole character arc, the "journey" he's been on and the weird behavior that makes no sense through any other lens. That airport "hug"? Pretending to ignore Will all day while furtively glancing at him and noticing every little thing he does? Classic crush behaviour. It's so obvious unless you're straight-up in denial. They've used so many of the traditional romantic tropes (love triangle, boy-next-door, "just friends" to lovers, Cyrano De Bergerac, etc...), yet people refuse to see it because Byler isn't a traditional couple.

So, yeah... It's a story. It can do whatever it wants. If it's a good story - which I believe it is - it will pick up all these breadcrumbs it's laid down and follow them to a satisfying conclusion. Otherwise, what would have been the point? Why have Will believe he's never going to fall in love? Why have him fall in love with Mike specifically, and leave a whole bunch of hints that Mike returns his feelings, making the audience root for them, if that's not where they're planning to take this? It would make no sense at all and be sloppy storytelling, imo.

Thank you so much for your question, and for watching our YouTube video! I hope this cures you of any Byler doubt.

Love,

Byler Mom

💙💛💚

[bedlamsbard]

i will say—the whole "reaction shot roundup" thing that post is mentioning also just comes off as...relatively bad cinema. like, something you could make work if you were GOOD at it, but also something that a lot of people attempt to do without a lot of skill when they have too many cast members to effectively balance. YOU, on the other hand, do write in a cinematic fashion but you are so fucking good at it. the way you paint pictures in scenes and the way you build and release tension is just pitch perfect. it's tv/movie magic translated into a different medium at its finest

Aw, thank you. I mean, part of my reaction was definitely the bog-standard "this person is saying a thing that I COULD relate to so DOES it relate to me?" which I'm as susceptible to as the next "I am uncomfortable when we are not about me?" birb.

but also I genuinely think that this writer is talking about several different (though related) things and falling back on "it's television's fault!!!" instead of actually like. thinking about them. now I don't know what's going on in creative writing classrooms, I'm a history teacher (though I'm teaching 'how to write research papers' this semester and next semester), but I think these are just...normal "how to write fiction" problems. like the fact that OP isn't using any actual examples from published fiction makes it just sound like they have just noticed something so therefore it's A Problem And Those Darn Televisions And/Or Video Games Are At Fault.

there are very, very good pro writers who are very visual and very cinematic in multiple ways, which is not just about balancing reaction shots or pacing or stunning visuals. John Jackson Miller, who writes primarily tie-in novels, is really good at it. part of that is because he's also a comics writer, so he's used to thinking about things visually and how that translates to prose. (I know everyone thinks about Kenobi and A New Dawn with JJM, but the Knight Errant book and comics are interesting because he did both prose and comics for the same character. Also if you like JJM's stuff, go read his "behind the scenes," there's stuff he said about writing the KOTOR comics that I think about to this day.) Martha Wells is also great at it, so is S.M. Stirling; so are many others, those are just the first three that come to mind because I think they're three of the most visual writers I read regularly. And all three are tie-in writers and very good tie-in writers and good tie-in writers, like good fic writers, have to think about translating between media. (One sign of a bad tie-in writer -- who may otherwise be a very good writer -- is that they struggle with translating between media. Tie-ins are a very specific genre and even medium which I think many people don't realize until you read a terrible Star Wars novel written by an author who writes really great non-IP novels and then can't figure out why it feels Wrong.)

I do think writers (and readers and viewers) should think about how to translate something that's natural in one medium (film, video games, prose, comics, whatever) to another medium, because it's not as straightforward as "you just can't do it because they're different media." You can! You may have to think about it differently, but you can still do it! Some of the best writing advice I've ever read has not come from prose writing, it's come from comics writers about writing comics. Depending on your genre or your medium, advice for writing novels may not apply -- I don't structure my fanfic the way I would structure a novel, because I write serial fiction. My scene beats and chapter breaks are not necessarily translatable to a novel, because that's not what I'm writing and that's not how I expect people to read it. (I mean, for one, if I was writing novels, I would not be writing 10K chapters, because for a novel, that's insane.)

anyway, that was about like. six different vaguely related things, the tl;dr of which is something I don't usually say but which comes down to "perhaps OP, as a creative writing instructor, should think about what they're doing in THEIR classroom instead of blaming the television." (this is based on the whole article and not just that bit that's excerpted.)

[theweeklydiscourse]

tw: mention of CSA and abuse

just saw your recent reblog about Nosferatu and idk what is your actual take on it but i've to disagree with the op saying <this is not a story about grooming nor abuse... it can be,> the movie is very obviously and directly concerned about sexual abuse and the uncomfortable eroticism only enhances the horror of the whole situation. i just find posts that constantly need to mention "it's not about abuse it really isn't!" entirely dishonest and intentionally denying the very obvious theme of the movie just so they don't have to face the fact that they liked a ship that is as noncon as it gets. it is essentially a grooming rapist/victim relationship which obviously makes people uncomfortable to admit which is why they don't want to acknowledge that. and that explains the vehement push back against the SA narrative (which isn't a simple interpretation but very much what literally happens in the movie). i just think that people need to just start being honest with themselves like there's nothing wrong if you end up liking an absolutely fucked up dynamic and the whole “death and the maiden” of it all but please stop with the "this isn't a story of abuse" takes because that is actually harmful. not the shipping but denying the fact that this is a movie about abuse because it has led to some very horrible takes of rape apologism with people saying "it's not abuse because she called to him so it can't be" like... no. just no.

There are a few issues at play in the current discourses surrounding Nosferatu. First, one side makes sweeping generalizations about what the film is definitively about, and then the other side counters it with its own sweeping statements. This predictably gives way to certain over-corrections in the discourse that try to find an absolute answer to subject matter that is up for audience interpretation. I actually had a similar thought occur to me when I read that quote in that particular post, and I say that as someone who is really into the "Death and the Maiden" dynamic. We're talking about a film that provides more than enough support for multiple interpretations and it's frustrating that people reject other people's ideas so they can have the *one ultimate correct* take on it.

This issue is exacerbated by the current internet climate of moralizing textual interpretations and the lack of understanding surrounding the genre Nosferatu belongs to. Gothic fiction often features taboo subject matter that is considered by many to be off-putting and disturbing, and usually, that leads to the judgement of those who enjoy it. The reason that people are overcorrecting by saying that it's not about abuse is responding to the denial of the existence of themes of repression, desire and love in the film. It's a phenomenon I also find irritating. Viewers who are totally unfamiliar with the kinds of themes and subject matter gothic fiction deals with seem to be imposing only one possible interpretation of the text while acting like people are immoral for thinking otherwise.

I also consider Robert Eggers's words in my own reading of the film. In an interview, Eggers noted that his approach to the film was informed by the trope of the "demon lover" and even referred to the relationship between Ellen, Orlok, and Thomas as a love triangle. The film is explicitly erotically charged in a manner that can be taken either way, and I believe that both interpretations are valid ones. Outright denial of interpretations of Ellen and Orlok's relationship as abusive seems foolish to me. But I also get why people might be uncomfortable fully acknowledging the more twisted nature of their dynamic. Nobody wants to get labelled as an abuse apologist over fictional matters or shipping, and there are times when merely engaging with darker subject matter gets people labelled as such. However, people need to stop being so absolutist about these things and learn to substantively engage with differing viewpoints.

I think that the online tendency to moralize fictional preferences plays a large role in people's resistance to being honest with themselves about liking taboo subjects or twisted dynamics. There's nothing wrong with liking it, but it's hard to do so openly without incurring some form of criticism and contempt. Denial gets us nowhere.

[safetycgreen]

(adding to the normal bit here. being normal boils down to the duel question of "what's appropriate here or what are the behavioral limits in this situation?".

beginning with an extreme example, inflicting physical violence often exceeds what's considered an acceptable behavior while resting quietly is rarely unacceptable. Border cases like talking loudly or about the reproductive habits of spiders change their acceptability based on the situation and people involved.

In essence, there's an invisible box surrounding every social interaction that dictates what sorts of actions are "normal", rude, or even both.

there isn't a comprehensive list or algorithm for every situation which leaves a frustrating question, "how can I know what's normal for this situation right now?". The answer is effectively social gambling. you do not know the boundaries for what the other person considers rude and neither does your partner. you could bet big and start talking about spiders in detail, it might even work, but that's a lot of risk to find out just how comfortable someone is with unprompted spider lessons. what we need is a low risk way to find out more info.

Small talk time

Small talk are effectively very low risk gambles to signal you're open for social interaction, that you're friendly, and to try finding safe topics that aren't small talk. small talk topics are often benign physical concepts like the weather, the latest happenings nearby, asking what the other thinks of the place you two are in.

each topic you pass over will give you info in the form of implicit social ques or explicit statements. explicit statements are easy. simply take them at their word as concrete info. if you need clarification, ask once and they'll usually be helpful. if they aren't, mark the topic as outside of this situations bounds and move on.

Social ques are tricky as by their nature, social ques aren't directly told to you. You'll have to interpret their tone of voice, facial expressions, body language, and occasionally wording to try and figure out what's being communicated. you won't know for certain, of course, but these clues can help you with your social gambling. (they can also help signal your boundaries to others, try practicing them like you would for acting)

if you make a mistake and overstep, be earnest in a short apology and try to continue if they're willing. if they've overstepped what you consider rude in this situation or have made you uncomfortable, say so plainly and as politely as you believe the transgression deserves. if they try to make amends, continue. do not continue if they try to accuse you for their transgression or otherwise try to overrule your social boundaries.

Imagine if you met someone who can't eat watermelon. Not that they're allergic or unable somehow, but they just haven't figured out how to do that. So you're like "what the hell do you mean? it works just like eating anything else, you open your mouth, sink your teeth in, take a bite and chew. If you can bite, chew and swallow, you should be able to eat a watermelon."

And they agree that yes, they do know how to eat, in theory. The problem is the watermelon. Surely, if they figured out where to start, they'd figure out how to do it, but they have no clue how to get started with it.

This goes back and forth. No, it's not an emotional issue, they're not afraid of the watermelon. They can eat any other fruit, other sweet things, and other watery things ("it's watery?" they ask you). Is it the colour? Do they have a problem eating things that are green on the outside and red on the inside?

"It's red on the inside?"

Wait, they've never seen the inside? At this point you have to ask them how, exactly, they eat the watermelon. So to demonstrate, they take a whole, round, uncut watermelon, and try to bite straight into it. Even if they could bite through the crust, there's no way to get human jaws around it.

"Oh, you're supposed to cut it first. You cut the crust open and only chew through the insides."

And they had no idea. All their life this person has had no idea how to eat a watermelon, despite of being told again and again and again that it's easy, it's ridiculous to struggle with something so simple, there's no way that someone just can't eat a watermelon, how can you even mange to be bad at something as fucking simple as eating watermelon.

If someone can't do something after being repeatedly told to "just do it", there might be some key component missing that one side has no idea about, and the other side assumed was so obvious it goes without mention.

[thatrandombystander]

Nooo don't overthink the social interaction and get self conscious and insecure you're so sexy ah ha

[hybbat]

I do think a good chunk of the 'cringey atheist' stereotype did come from the fact that, especially americans, regardless of their actual religious status are just casually christian and refer to things through a religious filter and that isn't seen for how overwhelming/obnoxious/frustrating it is. Its absense, such as when writing a story and things like "oh god" or other casual references are remove or replaced, is seen as notable the same way people find the cast being all women or queer being 'abnormal'.

And I think more people, especially here on tumblr, should take a moment from ragging on some kid being "cringey" saying god doesn't exist or making atheist jump around like dancing monkeys to establish they're one of the good respectful ones before they ever even begin to talk about their own thoughts, and examine why so much content just inserts god into a conversation that had nothing to do with religion like it's the expected norm, the same way they examine the invasiveness of casual heteronormativity.

[found--family]

am i the only one who sensed some jilted lover vibes from jensen? 

[serenadeofsunshine]

hm. miiiight need to start having a big ginormous sign on my rabbit postings saying This Is A Familial F/o Post

[piosplayhouse]

Me giving my hour long monologue about how trans lesbians jiang cheng x wen qing is the only form of the ship I'll consume

[caguaydreams]

Hm... never trust how you feel about your life past 9pm or however that goes and stuff, but sometimes I do be pondering what I do on the regular and it gets to me, the silliest things

[eastofedean]

8i've been thinking about the last asks i got today. and i think it's better for me to take a step back from this account. i know the anon didn't mean anything by it, but i still feel like i am being a negative presence on here and weirding people out with who i am is nothing i want. so, i am not deleting or anything. i am just gonna be less present with sharing personal things or leaving tags. I'll probably be more active on my second account where i don't have that many followers :)

[windupaidoneus]

now some people may not like to hear it but even the worst people who exist are still people & there is no human being who has More right than others to decide whether others deserve to live or die (does not mean i personally condemn murder in self defense or anything of the sort or killing fascists or whatever i'm just saying as a baseline This Is How it Is) & this is why the death penalty is not a good thing no matter how good & trustworthy the people in any government might be. people on average also deserve the chance to learn to do better. & no, someone who's been forcefed propaganda their entire life will not let go of that deeply entrenched mindset so easily, it's not particularly unrealistic & it absolutely sucks to deal with but in the context of tangibly working toward world peace it's also not an issue to try & help such people both in material ways & in helping them learn better rather than cut them down or abandon them to a grim fate. all this to say that's why i don't think garlemald is written badly, as unpleasant as the experience might be. walks off the stage

[miraclemaya]

i do think especially arguments about this stuff that hinge on going, well im a victim and i think this is bad are unworkable because you will find a hundred other victims who go oh it helps me process it or whatever else

[jemandrr]

accidentally browsing a (very niche) female-dominated gaming space and seeing people TEAR into people who want an option to change the player character's pronouns to he/him or they/them without changing anything else because it'd invite men to invade a safe space. For a game purely about dating men. Like, I've been through plenty of female-dominated spaces where queer people and similar-interest straight men are welcome (in this case it'd be bi men but yknow), so it's just this one community, but jeez. The amount of fear that anyone who isn't explicitly a femme female would come in and A. hit on the faceless women there or B. taint the game by making the devs add designs of men who they don't want to date?

I got such a strong terf-y rhetoric from that community, like we can't have anything in common with people who aren't like us going on. All about taking 'our' things. And a lot of people contradicting one other but not trying to find out what the truth is because they have the same conclusion. Like two people saying A>B or B>A and no argument arises and no one shows interest in which is true because both people conclude C.

A lot of people even saying that, likewise, things that appeal to female or queer audiences should NOT be added to mainstream media just like queer content should not be added to female-oriented media. These hard walls around what belongs to who is like...they were raised by toy companies or something.

Like what is (paraphrasing so it isnt searchble) "I would never come into a male dominated community because I feel like I would be invading their safe space, so I don't get why men would want to come here and talk about liking men." At least the people who are scared of sexual abuse are warranted, I've seen tons of abusive language towards people they think are women in male dominated online spaces, but what is this fear of even...sharing interests with men? I know we've been in a new era of gender role enforcement with the tradfem movement, but jeez. And as for these last two points, they both are ones that were contradicted. People also said they do believe in diversity BUT just *this* shouldn't count.

Some people even said it's not fair that they get pushed to be more inclusive when mainstream media never does. Which makes me wonder if they're so deep in their niche 'I only experience content made by and for exclusively straight women' content that they haven't noticed any of the movements in media going on over the last 1.5 decades. Like it's true that we haven't made that much progress, but how do they think that no media gets pressed to increase diversity? The more rigid/right-leaning male audiences of tons of media have been complaining about forced diversity for years in exactly the same way (and sometimes, when it really WAS forced diversity, everyone complains because it's not representing anyone really but yknow). But I guess they wouldn't know that if all of them avoid mainstream media?

Also...what is the fear that gay men like men in a 'wrong' way...(and again, the unargued contradiction being plenty of people saying that they also like media about gay characters, but just they shouldn't make these characters gay)

And like I do get it, in the sense that being marginalized makes you skeptical and fearful of things you don't understand in its own separate way from how being in a privileged class makes you skeptical and fearful of things you don't understand. There's a lot more fear of exploring things different and new because the possible retribution feels/has been higher.

Honestly, this post isn't actually about a couple hundred to low-thousand women in a small community for niche games. Not like, I think it's important, I want to actively make them change. It's not that big a deal, not that surprising in the grand scheme. It's similar rhetoric to things i've seen before (Tradfem/terf). I've seen screenshots of, like, facebook mom groups before. And I've seen way bigger communities be way more open and welcoming, it's just a little outlier.

I'm just writing this because I'm a bit shellshocked because I forget how much that those kinds of people are not just the older, tech-illiterate generations, and not just shallow influencers who will say anything for the clicks (or because someone behind the scenes is funding it), their views behind the camera up in the air. Like I think I cultivate the people I interact with a bit too well. Too many of the people I actually interact with or witness the thoughts of regularly are queer and have flitting relationships with gender and then I remember the other side of the coin has people who think they're being progressive by suggesting that everyone who is different be segregated and therefore safe from each other with no room for intersectionality.