#be essentialists for another thing

[menlove]

the issue abt studying race & sexuality/gender academically is there are. so many cases. where ppl online have taken terms from academia and just use them so so so so wrong in ways that range from missing the point in a harmless way to being nearly the exact opposite of the intended use

but you don't wanna be that "well, actually-" asshole and at this point these other uses are so widely used that there's really no correcting it so u just kind of have to :)

[officialpenisenvy]

wait so are you butch or not

i do call myself butch sometimes and i used to use that a lot as a teenager but it's definitely not my primary label in queer or wlw spaces anymore these days i prefer to just refer to myself as masc. mostly because like i was saying im not someone who is pursuing or will possibly ever pursue a relationship with a femme and the specific dynamic with femmes is often such an integral part to butch identity that i don't really see the point in sort of misrepresenting both myself and the butch label that way

[genderqueerdykes]

as an intersex trans wo/man, i've noticed that unfortunately it has become painfully obvious that not only do radfems and terfs try to abuse trans men into falling in line with their beliefs, but unfortunately, this happens to trans women and transfemmes as well. i've unfortunately seen several trans women fall down the the "men evil, women innocent, trans men have cis male privilege, trans men don't struggle, trans men aren't men or trans they're just confused butches," pipeline really quickly after transitioning or their eggs cracking, and it's not necessarily that transfem's fault, but rather an abusive person sweeping in to take advantage of someone who needs and wants validation in feeling like a woman. the person who put the terf ideals in their head during this crucial stage in development is to blame, it is not inherently the trans woman's fault.

vulnerable transfems and trans women become indoctrinated into these things. trans women and fems are not inherently bitter, shitty, hateful people. it's a select few who become groomed by radfems who push this belief, and push it hard, because that's what you do when youve been indoctrinated into a cult. it's not an issue inherent to trans women and transfeminism at all- it's vulnerable people being groomed. this is a serious issue of trans women and fems being groomed and brainwashed.

this is a huge deal and we have to stand up for each other, because the transfems getting groomed into this need support and help to get out of this cult. it is not okay for women who are just trying to find their footing to almost instantly get sucked up into a literal hate group. we have to help trans people who become indoctrinated into gender essentialism, antimasculism, and transandrophobia just as much as we help other trans people unlearn transmisogyny. these issues are both damaging our community on the whole.

radfems are aggressive and will try to indoctrinate anyone they can into antimasculism, transandrophobia, and gender essentialism. a lot of trans women in the early stages of transition really want to be validated as women and such, will become groomed by these groups of cis women who will gladly feed them toxic ideals like women can never be wrong, women are always innocent, men are always harmful and evil, it just benefits the radfems, not the trans woman. this behavior grooms yet another person into spreading radfeminism without realizing it. when one espouses these beliefs they become a spokesperson for radfeminism and terfism

i'm plain tired of seeing this argument, because it is nothing but gender essentialist binarist bullshit:

"transphobia is worse for trans women than trans men because of x, y, z."

its not worse. its different. but equal.

i understand that many folks have not lived the life a trans man leads, but whenever you try to speculate on what it's like, you will always be wrong, no matter what, because you weren't in that person's shoes. it's impossible to see the nitty gritty of how a specific group of people are treated unless you are that person or spend lots of time around large groups of those types of people. trans men face homelessness at a disproportionately high rate compared to other groups of queer folk. we also deal with forced detransition. we deal with being dehumanized by she/her pronouns. we deal with having lesbianism and butchness weaponized against us. we also deal with sexual violence. we also deal with physical, mental, and emotional abuse. we deal with gaslighting, lying, being robbed, abandoned, injured and killed. its virtually impossible to find support if you're a pregnant trans man.

trans men have a lot of unique struggles. this is not a comprehensive list, but rather to show you that ALL trans people struggle. we are united under the same banner of transphobic treatment. we are struggling, but we are struggling together, and we can uplift each other without tearing each other down. punching down on another trans person hurts us all.

belittling the trauma of other trans people is a form of queer infighting that terfs want you to do in order to fracture our community further. queer infighting doesn't help anyone whatsoever. trans men do not have it harder than trans women. trans women do not have it harder than trans men. amab and afab and intersex enbies don't have it worse than each other. these are all completely different and unique struggles that deserve to be acknowledged for what they are. you cannot use the same scale of severity for a totally different problem.

people love to completely gloss over the issues trans men face for the sake of believing that all men benefit from patriarchy. saying that trans men are not affected by specific kinds of transphobia is spreading the radfem belief that only women struggle under patriarchy. queer men, men of color, intersex men, gay men, bisexual men, trans men, polyamorous men, genderfluid men, bigender men, gender non conforming men, feminine men, men who crossdress, disabled men, neurodivergent men, mentally ill men, and other marginalized men suffer under patriarchy as well.

i'm not tolerating radfem gender essentialism being woven into queer ideals anymore. this behavior has to go. when you genuinely believe these things, we all lose.

[drdemonprince]

I will generally honor a "do not reblog" tag if I see it, but I also find it a bit ridiculous for a person to make a public, rebloggable post on the reblogging website and expect people to know to not do it. Especially when you can, you know, turn reblogs off.

I will generally not honor a "DNI List" because I think it's completely ridiculous to expect a stranger on the internet to read through an exhaustive list of all the people the OP has some abstract beef with before one can like, reblog, or reply to a post on the like/reblog/replying website. Often I completely miss that a DNI exists altogether because I do not suffer from online moral puritanism (great thanks extended to all people who have ever criticized me online for wearing my nerves down to the bone), but if I do happen to see a person has an absurd DNI I will disregard it frequently out of spite.

of course some people's DNI's are so in your face and objectionable that I will block the person outright, which does have the side effect of honoring their DNI request, but that's not on purpose. it's just that i personally do not want a terf/gender essentialist/pro israel shitstain/ person who attacks horny people online for existing in my life.

boundaries are a thing YOU do, a thing YOU maintain for yourself, not something you can force another person to honor, and anyone who expects otherwise is setting themselves up for either a ton of failure or giving themselves ample opportunities to play at being the victim, which is of course often the point

[withlovelunette]

How to construct character psychology!

– Introduction

Hello hello! :D I’ve been very slow with my writing lately due to uni work (and some unforeseen health issues), but I’d like to still be able to make content and be interactive in the writing community, so I’m here again to share some advice based on my own experiences! One of my favourite things about writing is writing characters, specifically constructing a character’s psychology. I’d like to preface this post by saying that while I’ve had formal classes in psychology, I’m by no means any sort of expert within the field, and I also don’t believe that every aspect of how a character is written needs to be rooted in realism. However, I do want to share some insights that I got from it, and also because I feel like “character psychology” has this very mystified weight to it that makes it seem a lot bigger and intimidating than it needs to be.

So! My goal is just to share some advice on how to break down a character’s psychology and work from there! If you like what you read and would like to read more, I’ve also written a post about creating “complex” characters, which you can find the link to here! Aaand yes I think that’s about all I have to say beforehand, I hope you enjoy :,)

What do I mean when I say psychology?

Before getting into the nitty-gritty, I’d like to start with the basics, just to make sure people are on the same page when reading this post. When I’m talking about psychology here, I’m specifically referring to a character’s cognition, as in how they process information and act on it/make judgments. I’m not necessarily referring to personality in this case (although personality is an aspect of psychology, but I’m more so referring to personality as a consequence of cognition here, rather than as a collage of traits and behaviour).

Another thing I want to clarify is that exactly how much of human behaviour is nurture vs nature is a hotly debated topic that I’m completely under-qualified to take a stance on, but for the sake of this post; I believe both are equally essential aspects of human behaviour, so just keep that in mind! (I’m looking at any behaviourists in the chat rn). That being said; I’m not really comfortable treating psychology as “nature” (as such rhetorics are often used in gender-essentialist and other bigoted ways of thinking), so my main focus will be nurture, since that’s what is most readily observable!

Determining character motivation

If you’re working with very little or bare minimum characterization, my recommendation is to consider; what motivates a person to act? And by this, I’m not referring to the external quest or goal behind the character, but rather, what’s the core of what motivates your character to act at all? Even in grand, epic adventures of good vs evil, where the external goal is as simple as “putting an end to whatever evil the bad guys are doing”, there needs to be a reason a character is specifically on the side that they’re on. Multiple characters can be on the same side, but they might find themselves on that side for vastly different reasons, even when their exterior goals are the same. From there, you’ll want to consider what informs this motivation in particular.

One technique I love to employ, when still figuring out my character, is to have them make some sort of bizarre decision, a decision I’d initially think to be improbable for this particular character, and then try to list off various justifications or variables that would allow for this character to make this particular decision. There’s a couple of reasons for why I do this.

1) It removes some of the pressure to have a perfectly cohesive, perfectly put together and neatly defined character from the get-go. The drafting process isn’t just for plot and story structure’s sake, it’s also there for you to experiment with characters! Having your characters make story altering decisions that possibly challenge or contradict themselves is a great way to make sure that you’re writing active characters as opposed to more passive ones, and I think the first couple of drafts should really be a playground for you to see just how far you can stretch your characters based on their characterisation.

2) It helps me clarify what is and isn’t important in my character’s decision making. I’m a firm believer that most decisions/actions aren’t inherently in or out of character; it just depends on whether or not the readers/viewers can understand the character’s thought process behind their decision, and this ultimately comes down to how well you, as the writer, conveys the character’s priorities when they make decisions. If you’re established that a character acts based on a code of honour, an exterior source to morality and conduct, then the justifications and reasonings they would use to justify murder would likely be very different than a character who acts based on their own convictions. This is also a great way to show character development; by showing how a character’s decisions gradually change as their cognition change as they develop.

3) It allows me to explore nuance and make note of potential contradictions within the character’s way of thinking—which is often the most interesting aspects of a character’s psychology, at least in what I enjoy to write and read. Most real people don’t have perfectly cohesive morals, and most people can’t always act congruently with their morals either, so allow for your characters to make some bizarre decisions! See how far you can stretch their cognition! These decisions don’t have to be canon to the story, but it’s a good way to actually solidify what line of thinking your character makes when faced with difficult and potentially morally indicative choices.

Work your way backwards!

If you already have the overall traits and behavior of your character pinned down, you can always work your way backwards! As a pantser, this is a very common occurrence for me. I have a character with a clear goal and defined characteristics, but they’re completely uninformed so far, as I usually discover the cause of their motivation and characteristics as I write the story. As such, most of my characters don’t have any sort of backstory established until I’m much further into the process, as I discover it as I go along. So here’s some things I look out for in my character writing when creating a backstory after I’ve already established a character.

1) What are some things the character is often drawn towards? Humans are typically very habitual, a lot of us enjoy some sense of familiarity (to varying degrees depending on the person), and taking note of what your character tends to gravitate towards can be a great stepping stone to fleshing out backstory. An example could be a somewhat cold, stoic character who’s incredibly picky with their relationships due to trust issues (pretty common characterization) has a tendency to let their guard down more when around elderly people. Why is that? Maybe they were raised by very old parents, or even grandparents. Maybe it’s a cultural thing to treat elderly with more respect. Maybe it’s a religious thing. Maybe it’s because elderly people have treated them with more kindness in the past, etc. Note that this can be flipped too! Maybe this character feels uneasy around people closer to their own age, or even people who are younger than them.

2) How does your character socialize? The way a character approached social settings can often be very indicative of how they were raised, as that tends to affect how people form attachments (according to attachment theory in psychoanalysis, at least). Are they very sociable? If so, why? Is it because they’re accustomed to being around a lot of people? Maybe they had a very large family, or maybe they had a family that took part in a very active social sphere. Maybe this character just comes off as sociable because they understand the value of social connections. Why’s that? Maybe their family have a political influence, or maybe they have a business they want to sell, etc. Or maybe it’s the complete opposite; maybe this character grew up with little to no family at all, and that’s why they want to make friends and connections. If so, then maybe that affects how they make decisions, leaving them incredibly loyal and somewhat co-dependent. Even the smallest character traits and behaviours can be expanded upon to inform you of how that character was possibly raised, it’s really just about digging into said behaviour!

3) How receptive are they to new experiences or other people’s perspective? This is also somewhat linked to attachment theory, but it doesn’t have to be approached that way! The reason I bring this point up is because I find that a character’s receptiveness is often a good way to gauge their relationship with their parent. For example, a character with very strict, traditionalist parents might adopt that outlook on life because it offers them a sense of stability and security. They weren’t raised to be adaptable or to adjust themselves to new experiences, and thus have a difficult time accepting things outside of their established paradigm. This would suggest that this character likely didn’t rebel much to their parents’ outlooks on things (or if they tried, they failed), since they adopted said outlook for themselves. Another way to write this character (with the same premise) is to have them react in the opposite way; maybe they are super open and receptive because the rigidness of their parents prevented them from ever experiencing anything. Maybe the status quo bored them, or maybe they see their parents as narrow minded. This characterisation suggests that there’s possibly more tension (not necessarily in a negative way) between the character and their parents.

Interplay between morals & behaviour

A character’s morals and behaviour don’t always have to align. Like I mentioned in an earlier point, humans hold a lot of contradictions, and how people cope with those contradictions can vary. However, how do you determine if a contradiction is purposeful rather than a case of out-of-character writing?

Let’s say you have a character who views all animals as sacred, and this is something they were raised with. Suddenly, this character is thrust into a situation in a different world/kingdom/region/etc. where eating animal meat is the only viable food option to survive. They decide to do it, despite their morals directly conflicting with this behaviour.

One way this character might justify this is by thinking “well, my intentions matter most, and my intention was never to hurt animals, so while I feel bad for killing an animal for food, my intentions of doing so respectfully makes this action more acceptable to me.”

But another character in the exact same situation might not be satisfied with such logic. Maybe they see intentions as irrelevant, and only care about the consequences of their actions. If it’s been established beforehand that a character is consequentialist, then this action, paired with the justification above, would feel incredibly out of character, because the logic behind the justification is not intuitive to the reader.

Whether a contradiction feels purposeful or out-of-character ultimately boils down to what information and how much of it you’ve given to the readers, so that they have the information necessary to break down the interplay between the character’s morals and behaviour. 

Using other tools (cognitive functions, socionics, enneagram, etc.)

As I’ve mentioned before on this blog, I’m very interested in various types of typology (mbti probably being the most popular and well known one), and while I consider all forms of typology to fall under pseudo psychology, I often use these tools to help me better understand my own characters better! I personally gravitate towards cognitive functions (which is not the same system as mbti, even though it uses the same letter system) as they help me put into words my character’s cognition, and enneagram, which describes behaviour and motivations that arise from a person’s upbringing and coping mechanisms. There’s other things you can take into consideration as well, like socionics, temperaments, attitudinal psyche, etc!

I’m not suggesting you use these as replacements for developing characters, but they can be great supplements when trying to dig deeper into your character’s psychology! I’d also argue that you get more out of putting these systems into use if you learn about typology and analyse your characters yourself instead of taking a test for them, but I’m also very biased in this regard, since I enjoy analysing my characters myself :,) And there are times where I’ll take a few tests to help solidify my breakdown if I’m having a difficult time labelling my character correctly. Honestly, just have fun with it!!

– Outro

Sorry for yet another lengthy post! And sorry it was a bit later than I’d anticipated, I had a much busier weekend than I thought I’d have, so I kept having to squeeze writing in anytime I had enough spare time to sit down, and then I stumbled across a series of health complications that I’m still trying to sort out. Which, speaking of, thank you so much to everyone who’s been wishing me good luck! I’m still working on figuring out what’s wrong, but I’m making progress!

As usual, my asks and messages are always open, so feel free to shoot me a message about anything! Even if I may be slower with my replies ^^; Thank you for reading! <3

[biohorror-human]

Trans people may or may not have popped off with the "block every radfem you see" idea because holy shit. You are all some of the most pessimistic and spiteful fuckers on earth. You all claim not to be bio-essentialist, and then turn around and say shit that is, at its core bio-essentialist. All of your ideas, in some way, revolve around hurting someone else. Want to destroy the gender binary? Certainly attacking trans people will help. Want to destroy child marriage? Tell people not to marry brown people, just, ever. Want to destroy the patriarchy? (This is the best one) Never organize, never protest, never coordinate, just sit around and cultivate a nightmarishly toxic environment and then have the GALL to ask "why are people so open about their disdain for radical feminism?"

Because all your ideas are rooted in hate. The last time I've had discussions this fucking bleak with people is when I got into an argument with an actual self-described Nazi. Btw, I know you radfems are super exclusionary and refuse to cooperate with any other social group, but maybe Nazis would be up your alley? Considering they also have an affinity for eugenics and wanting to eliminate general swathes of the population, I think you'd be great for each other.

I mean, just to list some of the bullshit you people constantly say which doesn't line up with any of the other shit you say: "trans and GNC people destroying the gender binary (which is good because we radfems don't like the gender binary) is actually BAD now because we were using that gender binary to call all men oppressors, and now we have to actually confront what specific societal issues enable someone to be an oppressor, instead of just saying that being a man makes you an oppressor (which is bio-essentialism, which we disagree with, unless you're amab, in which case then bio-essentialism is actually something we super-agree with)

And that's just one of the ones that I actually went into the effort of tracking down. In terms of shit that I've just seen on a whim: you say you hate bio-essentialism, but also people born male are naturally more oppressive. You say women should have the freedom to do whatever they want, unless that "want" is dating men, because even if they're happy in their relationship, they're actually secretly sad and lying. Because since when did feminists hold the belief that women could understand their own emotions? Pretty clothes are also bad, because men like to look at clothes. Nevermind what the woman behind those clothes thinks, you shouldn't be able to enjoy anything for any reason because a man might look at it and also enjoy it for a split fucking second.

You know what that last one makes me think of? How abusive husbands tell their wives that they can't wear revealing clothes because it will attract the gaze of other men. But history is obviously not your forte, because if it was you'd understand that the only way social movements like feminism prosper is if they cooperate with other social movements, a concept you could really stand to learn a thing or two about. Another cool historical fact is that segregation is, historically, frowned upon. But I still see you talking about how white women shouldn't date brown men, and how asian women shouldn't date white men.

You know, they actually made a haven for people like you. And no, this isn't going to lead to a "Nazi Germany" bait and switch. It was a place where women could only marry into their own race. Where police were around every corner. Where women actively ratted out people betraying that law. Where women were literally not allowed outside past a certain time. It was South Africa under fucking apartheid. You believe, on a fundamental level, the same shit that traditionalists (nazis) and conservatives believe in. You make yourselves miserable as a form of protest, but because your circles are so exclusive, the only people there to witness your misery are other radical feminists. You're creating a hyper-dense misery sphere that doesn't even take that pain out on the patriarchy, only on other women. You have absolutely, undoubtedly got to be the worst rebels in the history of rebellion. You're literally making the patriarchy's job easier by pre-misery-ifying women. You're streamlining the misery process. I've never seen another social movement do that.

I think the only thing you guys actually accomplished was making men who cared or were curious about your movement equally miserable. You know what I got when I tried to join the radfem discussion? When I made the MISTAKE of trying to learn about your cause to better support it? I got fucking berated. you people finally had a man WILLINGLY come up to you to internalize your ideas. And you know what you chose to say to me? When I had a question, you mocked my voice. You compared me to an ogre, or a giant. You said women SHOULD be scared of me because of the way I was born. You said I was a natural-born rapist. You spoke about how my androgens made me develop into a beast- made me resent my own body, on top of how I already dissociated with it. You demonized any thought of sexuality, shot down any idea of body-positivity. And even then, even after all that I thought it may have been positive. I thought maybe it made me stronger, that maybe I was more like you because I was able to see the flaws in my own biology. Nah. You just wanted me to be miserable, like you. I was your willing punching bag for all of your anger and resentment. You're the femme-fascist matriarchs of self loathing. The only boiling bucket of crabs who not just drags the crabs trying to escape back in, but actively coaxes new crabs to join. You want a revenge story in a world where revenge only leads to more suffering. Your definition of equal is only met when every man is twice as miserable as you. That's not a world anyone, man or woman or anything else deserves to live in.

I have a bunch more shit to say but even thinking about you miserable fucks is starting to rub off on me. Fuck the patriarchy. Trans pride rules.

[cardentist]

I just wrote up a more, emotional? reactive? take on this whole thing here [Link], but I wanted to try to say this in a way that's easier to parse.

people insist that trans mascs don't have any unique experiences (as Opposed to trans fems).

people insist that trans mascs Do Not face misogyny.

people insist that trans mascs Do Not face physical violence.

people insist that trans mascs Do Not face medical violence.

or if they Do, it's lesser than/misdirected from trans fems, to the point that it's presented as Wrong (if not active bigotry) to focus on/acknowledge them in conversations about these topics.

(even when, as we've established, people have actively invoked trans mascs to deny them these experiences).

in other words, trans mascs have been facing Active Erasure from within (and sometimes from Outside Of) the community, specifically intended to deny them their experiences and then Also frame any attempt from them to counter those claims as aggressive rather than defensive.

and this all hinges on an Extremely binary and gender-essentialist premise. both in denying trans-mascs their experiences based on their gender (asserting that there are innate properties to Being A Man that trans mascs invoke by being trans masc), AND by presenting trans fems and trans mascs as Opposites.

there is a seesaw, and if trans fems experience one thing then it must be presumed that trans mascs Don't, and so if trans masc try to insist that they experience these things Too then it Must Be that they're trying to take that experience away from trans fems.

and what's important to understand is that this framing is wrong. not just because of the harm that it causes to trans mascs, but because of the harm it causes To Everyone.

and I mean that on two fronts:

1: this is not a case of trans fems vs trans mascs, the seesaw Is Not Real. it's not trans women putting trans mascs down, it's Gender-Essentialists enforcing a gender binary within the trans and genderqueer communities. this rhetoric comes from all sorts of people, cis people, trans neutral people, trans masc people, and (yes) sometimes trans fem people.

and just the same, it's people who are Against gender-essentialism who speak up about the harm that this causes, and often those people are trans fem! and that Both means that nobody is served by directing negativity at trans fems AND that it is not appropriate to assume that trans mascs defending themselves and speaking on their experiences is causing harm to trans fems inherently.

2: this entire framing leaves trans neutral, genderqueer, and intersex people out in the cold. being an Inherently gender-essentialist and binary argument, these people who do not fit neatly into the binary are Heavily negatively impacted by it while Also being erased.

I have read someone (another trans masc, even), completely unironically, write the words "trans men have privilege over trans women because cis women have privilege over trans women." completely boiling trans mascs down to their agab and stripping them of their transness.

people are using tme (transmisogyny exempt) to refer to afab trans people (separating them Out from cis women), to deny these trans people experiences that they have had.

and this Does Not only affect binary trans men. there are afab intersex people who very actively experience transmisogyny, there are nonbinary people who are being boiled down to their agab, forcibly rebinarized and stripped of their transness, there are gnc people (cis and trans) who are treated as if they don't exist and actively attacked and erased if they try to speak up.

but the conversations is Framed like it's men vs women, the argument is presented as inherently binary.

and that makes it Incredibly difficult and frustrating to dismantle. just Look at this post, I had to very specifically go on an entire preamble about men and women just to begin unpacking the situation (and to undercut the ways that people try to actively silence people when they speak about it).

and even while actively Trying to be inclusive, trans neutral and genderqueer and intersex and gnc people read as a Footnote in the entire first half of this post that I wrote Specifically To Acknowledge Them. the very conversation itself Erases them, which is a Major Problem that's Incredibly frustrating and difficult to unpack.

to Say "trans people who I interpret as men/masculine are lesser than, and are harming trans people who I interpret as women/feminine" you Have to decide what Man and Woman and Masculine and Feminine mean. there is no trans inclusive way to do this, there is no way to do this without throwing people who challenge gender/sex binaries and gender norms under the bus.

(this even Actively Harms trans fems, whether those trans fems are gnc, genderqueer, intersex, pre transition, aren't able to/don't want to transition, or are just perceived as Too Masculine by these people vilifying queer masculinity. gender essentialism Is Inherently transphobic and harms All trans people.)

and in this case, it's Incredibly frustrating to talk about, because many people can't get past the idea that deciding that a gender is Innately Bad (just, the very definition of gender-essentialism) is Wrong.

trying to voice the harm that this causes to people Outside of the binary is bogged down by the first step. you can't unpack it without unpacking the essentialism being pointed at trans mascs, because people are Going to keep acting like this as long as they're convinced that they not only can but Should treat trans mascs this way.

and it needs to be said, that for as frustrating as it is to be put in this position we Have to acknowledge that the problem is with the situation, not with trans mascs trying to defend themselves.

I Do absolutely think that Everyone needs to make an active effort to think about and include All trans and genderqueer people in these conversations, to point out how incredibly exorsexist the conversation is Without just being a footnote or an aside or a gotcha. genderqueer people can't just be a tool we use to advocate for binary trans people.

but At The Same Time, the timeline of events cannot be

trans mascs are denied having unique lived experiences.

trans mascs are presented as not only lesser than, but actively privileged on the basis of their gender.

trans mascs assert their lived experiences and address the gendered violence they're experiencing.

trans mascs are criticized for framing their defense around the gendered violence that they're experiencing.

to say that The Reason trans mascs are in the wrong for discussing transandrophobia (or Whichever term you prefer) because there are no experiences unique to any gender or identity, while Not holding that same standard to transmisogyny or exorsexism, is very obviously singling trans mascs out and making it more difficult for them to combat their own erasure.

what's necessary here is Solidarity. Everyone needs to be put on the same playing field, to have All of their experiences matter. trans people need to be Equal.

and this means trans mascs and binary trans men making an active effort to include intersex, genderqueer, trans neutral, and gnc people in these conversations that affect them, and as More than just an afterthought.

and it Also means people recognizing that the conversation is inherently gender-essentialist, and that trans mascs have to be able to effectively advocate for themselves in the face of their own erasure and demonization. to blame them for the gendered violence they're experiencing isn't any more fair than the erasure genderqueer people are experiencing.

[vluisasantiago]

When it comes to crossovers in the Slenderverse, do you like those big events that drastically affect the plots of both series in question (i.e: EMH and MLA), or do you prefer the tangential cameos, like the ones DarkHarvest did with EMH and WhisperedFaith?

I’ve been having this conversation a lot lately!

Obviously there are outliers to the point I’m about to make, but—I think that the function of a crossover has been shifting in the ‘verse for some time. It started as traditional contemporary narrative essentialism: If the crossover does not directly influence the plot of one or both stories, it’s often seen as unnecessary. The Legacy series more often than not subscribed to this way of thinking, and a lot of the works of the 2010’s followed their lead.

But this new wave—generation, whatever—of creators seems to be overall departing from this idea. As I’ve said in other spaces, the Legacy concept of the “virus”, made popular in The Andersen Journals, bakes in the necessity of individual plot; isolation becomes essential in a world where you live in fear of spreading a horror, harm, or trauma to others. Most of the crossovers in those bigger series feel like events, for that reason.

But the new kids seem to often see the Slender Man, as well as their own characters’ processes, as a shared experience, rather than a virus. It’s a thing they all have in common, and can find community in. A crossover, therefore, is less essentialist in newer works. The world is smaller than we realize; we are more likely to pass through another series—pass by another stranger—in the most mundane way possible, because even strangers live with monsters we don’t often ever see.

I think there’s value in both as metaphor—and both of them actively existing to refute the other is a wonderful thing. It feels like an interplay of experiences. It’s just another reason why this format is so fucking wonderful as a vehicle for artists to hash shit out.

[xxchromies]

Btw I don’t care too much about the continuation of the species itself. The point I’m making is that given that we are wired to reproduce (all animals are, it’s not a bio essentialist thing, what’s the point of acknowledging that there are two sexes if you can’t acknowledge WHY this is the case?), it seems a bit strange and unproductive to shit on straight women, given that they will always exist. The desire to sleep with men isn’t just societal, it’s literally a part of our biology. It’s not like the desire to wear makeup, for instance.

Also once again men are the problem. It almost feels like people are running away from the main issue by saying we should just not date or have sex with men ever again. The 4B movement is good because the idea is that it will show men we wont put up will their bullshit anymore. So they’d have to change. You can’t just be like “you should just not bother with men cause they’ll never change”. Like they very much can, but they aren’t. Acting like they can’t is just another way of saying “boys will be boys”.

[0w0tsuki]

There's this backpedal stance TransUnity/Transandrophobia chuds tend to take once you've disproved the bullshit of "TME/TMA is just asking what's on your pants". And that's "We know who you REALLY MEAN when you say TME/TMA" the assertion that even though by definition TME/TMA includes cis people and people outside the queer community, that trans women who use the phrase must either be talking about trans men or AFAB trans people (depending on how bio essentialist the anti-transfeminists wants to paint us as) when she's discussing intra-community transmisogyny.

It's how I got a dude accusing me of secretly attacking trans men on a post where I was complaining about a trans woman getting a harrasment campaign/mass report banned for saying "hey maybe don't expect trans women to forgive and forget ex-terf queers" and another one accusing me of the same thing on a post whose main demographic I was talking about was mspec cis men who don't view trans women as women.

And honestly how self entitled do you have to be. For a group that loves to paint trans women as self absorbed victim complex bitches trying to make ourselves the most oppressed minority in the world who needs every discourse to be about us, they are unable to comprehend it not being about them. They are unable to consider that they aren't the only part of the community that transfems could hold ire with.

Sure it's a common talking point about how trans women are excluded from lesbian communities and we've voiced our discontent with all the cis mspec men who don't see us as women and see our bodies as the "best of both worlds". But suddenly all those communities vanish into the ether when a trans woman uses the phrase TME.

It's telling that you view yourself in such opposition against us that you can only imagine us having a problem with you. Despite your best intentions you have not monopolized the intra-community transmisogyny industry.

[overdramaticpanromantic]

why do people think endogenic systems aren't real?

disclaimer: i am not a system nor am i part of one, and i am not able to speak for those who are. this is an opinion, and i would like constructive feedback on said opinion. i do not want hate mail or people screaming at me, i have had enough of that this week.

i do not get why people think endogenic systems aren't real. the argument i see most is that if it's not based on trauma (i.e. traumagenic) then it's not real, but i disagree.

firstly, many mental conditions can arise from non-traumatic experiences, and trauma is not a necessary catalyst for these things. i'm autistic, though i can't speak for others (because my support needs are very low) as a result of how i was raised, but not in a traumatic way. i've asked around a bit about this, and it seems that part can be agreed upon, in that mental conditions do not have to result from trauma.

secondly, i have not noticed any differences, aside from trauma or lack thereof, when speaking to those who are a system or part of a system. i cannot know what is going on in other people's heads, but i can look at how people generally act, and i do not notice any difference, though the sample size is low (about 5) so this could be coincidence. i might ask in passing conversation, "how does being a system work?" out of curiosity. they explain, and the explanations from traumagenic and endogenic systems, or members of said systems, are fairly uniform and don't seem to contrast very much, aside from individual mannerisms such as how it may present itself, which is bound to be subjective for any mental condition.

thirdly, i don't like the logic the argument as a whole operates on. if non-traumagenic systems aren't real, isn't that similar to the argument wherein people say non-dysphoric trans people aren't real, or that self-diagnosed neurodivergencies (e.g. autism, adhd, bpd, tourette's, dyslexia, and others as well, but i can't list a ton of them off the top of my head) aren't real. this is medical essentialist, or medicalist, logic, and it doesn't hold up very well under pressure. it frequently takes the form of when someone doesn't want to acknowledge that not everyone is like them, and most commonly presents itself in those who are bigoted in other ways, such as racism.

fourthly, when conversing about it, the reactions i get from either type of person are very different (sample size of about 40 here, so again, it's not entirely conclusive) if i ask someone who's anti-endogenic about it (what the point of the argument is, for instance), i am met with hostility and yelling, whilst if i ask someone who is pro-endogenic about it, i am met with straightforward explanations and my questions being answered. ultimately, it isn't one's duty to answer questions for others, but if one side of a debate refuses to answer questions and another is able to answer questions, then typically, the side refusing to answer questions is wrong. for example, flat-earthers will refuse to argue a lot of the time, and other times, they will mention various buzzphrases such as "water finds its level," and "density and buoyancy," which is a phenomenon i have noticed coming from some (but few) anti-endogenics.

that's what i've gathered from my observations, and i wanted to share this for the reason that i want to understand more, and particularly why some people think the things they do - in that they don't believe a particular group of people exists. to cap it off, i'll attach a poll below, asking what people think regarding this.

if you want to help the poll get more entries, then you can reblog this post or share it with friends. thank you for reading!

[frownyalfred]

These abo asks got me thinking too. What do you think happens to an Alpha, Beta, or Omega that is forced to suppress their instincts and act like another dynamic? The common example I see around for this is Omega Bruce acting like an alpha

Does it do nothing because the in universe ideas of what's what are over exaggerated and overlaps more often than not, or does it dampen their development and have long term consequences like not having a strong connection to their instincts or not being able to understand what their instincts are telling them

I think it depends on how dynamic-essentialist you get in your own a/b/o universe. There's no right or wrong answers to that question, too. In my room full of coral verse, Bruce denying his omega dynamic does cause him distress and disconnects him from his instincts. Jason experiences the same thing before he presents omega, where he was trying to force his instincts to be alpha-like and struggling. Alfred also denies his own beta instincts for a while, and that also causes emotional distress. But the line between what we'd possibly call dysphoria and what is simply a certain dynamic not wanting to have those instincts because of external factors, such as societal discrimination, is super thin. And where this is self-imposed versus "forced" is also tricky. It really depends on the universe you're building and how much agency people have in respect to dynamics.

[jennelikejennay]

I watched two TOS episodes recently, Metamorphosis and Wolf in the Fold. Both were interesting, neither was awful, but I can see the reason people who have seen this kind of episode calling the show misogynistic.

I disagree, because our heroes never for a second hate women, but both episodes are extremely gender essentialist, and the women lack agency almost entirely.

First: Metamorphosis.

This is the one where they find Zefram Cochrane and he's being kept forever by a cloud creature called the Companion.

In a shocking twist, we find out that the Companion is a girl. This changes everything apparently:

KIRK: Feminine. No doubt about it.

SPOCK: Yes. The matter of gender could change the entire situation.

KIRK: I'm way ahead of you.

SPOCK: Then it is not a zookeeper.

KIRK: No. A lover.

How can a cloud be a girl? Well, gender (and heterosexuality) is a constant of the universe it seems.

COCHRANE: Captain, why did you build that translator with a feminine voice?

KIRK: We didn't.

COCHRANE: But I heard—

KIRK: The idea of male and female are universal constants, Cochrane. There's no doubt about it. The Companion is female.

The assumption that every species has those two genders and is always heterosexual is bad enough. But beyond that, unspoken, is the idea that falling in love is what women do, that if a woman is on screen it is safe to assume that it's because of a romantic situation. Why couldn't the woman still be a zookeeper? Or maybe have maternal emotions? Or want to be friends?

The complete absorption of a female character is glossed over. She's not dead, anyway, and some other lady can do her old job. Byyyye!

So. The idea was interesting but the execution left much to be desired.

Next was Wolf in the Fold. I skipped it last time I was watching because it didn't sound very good. And I was right! It's not.

First off, the male gaze is.... noticeable.

It's not as bad as it could've been. This lady appears to be doing this for fun, and she's happy to leave with Scotty. It's just that the society is very free and sensual. Okay.

The other weird thing is that Bones and Kirk say that they're setting this up for Scotty, to cure his irrational hatred of women, because it happened to be a woman who caused him to be injured recently. So really, it's medicinal. At first it sounds like they're joking, but then the log says the same?

Either way, I don't really care for the scene. It feels like the woman exists to be pretty and presumably to sleep with Scotty, and then, of course, to be killed.

The plot here is that something is killing a lot of women, and Scotty is suspected, but [spoiler] turns out it's another cloud creature. It feeds on fear, and therefore preys on women because they have "more fear." A lot of unsolved murders of women throughout history turn out to be because of this thing.

It feels like it glosses over all the actual reasons women are so often targeted for crime, with gender essentialism again.

So, on the "women are real characters with agency" scale, these two episodes fail. Women are the problem, which the male characters solve.

That said, I don't think either one does much to support the accusation that Kirk is a misogynist. In both cases, it's the situation that's the problem, the world itself. Could he call it out better? Sure. But he does help the Companion get her man, and he does catch the woman-killing creature, so that's nice.

Then he heads off to a café where "the women are so—"

We never get to hear what the women at the café are like, except that it's clearly something sexy, given Spock's lack of interest. I don't think it's wrong to like to look at pretty women—I also like to look at pretty women—but it still feels pretty scuzzy the way it's depicted. As if the women were a product available at the café rather than people they might meet there.

So. I can sure see why these episodes weren't on the lists of "best of TOS" that guided me on my first watch through.

[nat-20s]

Comics Jughead is so funny because he's just like. In a fundamentally different genre than Archie. Archie will be like "hey man I've been trying to talk to Veronica but she keeps having reasons not to see me and I don't know if they're genuine or if she's trying to break up" and Jughead will reply "oh Arch dude sorry but I dont currently have time for this I gotta go rap battle the wizard of 54th Street" and Archie will forget his woes for a second to be like "the who?"

Jughead: the wizard of 54th Street? Greg? You know, the one that got acquitted on those arson charges so he became an apprentice with Sabrina but was like. Weirdly gender essentialist about magic?

Archie: uh

Jughead: and yeah obviously I can't rap but Reggie is a decent freestylist and he owes me a favor since that thing with the CIA you remember

Archie: sure?

Jughead: so I gotta go get rigged up with this voice modification speaker system Dilton rigged up, we can talk another time? Okay love you byyyeeee

And Archie will just stand there for a sec and text Veronica "do you wanna go see Jughead rap battle the 'wizard of 54th Street" and Veronica will IMMEDIATELY text back "lmfao yeah. kick his ass juggie Greg fucking sucks"

[luna-rainbow]

So I was thinking about the super-soldier serum and the corrupting influence in relation to Bucky. The narrative of TFaTWS (is that the right abbreviation?) wants us to think Steve was the only person who was never corrupted by the serum.

It really annoys me because to me, its obvious that Bucky was never corrupted either and I think a large reason for that was because he never asked for it anyway. I mean yeah its theoretically possible for unasked for power to go to someone's head and for them to abuse it, but everything that happened to Bucky happened because other people were exploiting and using him for their own ends

I kept wanting to kind of yell every time someone rubbed the fact Bucky was a super-soldier in his face, John Walker, Zemo, even Sam at times because they all acted like he loved it or always wanted it or something.

If he had a choice, I dunno I think he just wanted to survive the war and go back home to live a normal life. If anything the serum was like a curse instead of a blessing for him and not something he derived a net benefit from overall.

What do you think?

I'll have no hope of finding my old post on this but yeah, lots of Bucky fans were pretty annoyed with that particular part of the storyline. It wasn't just Zemo saying "there's never been another Steve Rogers", it started with Walker saying "super soldiers don't exactly have a great track record no offence" along with Zemo talking about the Flagsmashers being supremacists (??) It's one of many examples where what is spoken doesn't match how they act, because a "one world one people" slogan is certainly not about any form of supremacy.

Erskine: The serum amplifies what is inside. Good becomes great. Bad becomes worse.

There were two ways of interpreting this: physical, and metaphorical. If the serum enhances everything physical, including the brain and its emotional centers, then yeah maybe it makes someone who is reckless more impulsive, someone who is prone to anger more aggressive, someone who is brave more fearless. I personally don't like this explanation because it seems...rather eugenics or essentialist to me, and the creation of Steve Rogers as Captain America was supposed to be a middle finger to the eugenics movement driven by the Nazis in the 1930s. It's like saying that what determines your actions and your personality is already embedded into your biology, so when your biology is enhanced, so are the good and bad traits in your personality. It doesn't seem to allow scope for personal choice as the main driver of people's actions.

The second option is a more metaphorical interpretation. The serum enhances physical strength and power (and presumably attractiveness), which tends to move people up the social ladder (regardless of whether this is the intention). And it falls back on the same motto that drives Peter Parker -- with great power comes great responsibility. When power falls into the hands of someone unscrupulous, it will tend to bring out their worst traits because the extra strength lowers their inhibitions. When power falls into the hands of someone idealistic and kind, one hopes they will take it upon themselves to use it responsibly and use it for good deeds.

So I agree, I think at some level, the intention behind becoming a super soldier does matter, because we've seen it impact on how people behave after they get their extra strength. The five Siberian super soldiers - their goal was to become better fighters and better spies, and they did, but they were so vicious they couldn't be contained. The Flagsmashers - I mean I'm not happy with their overall consistency, but you could argue their immaturity added a sense of vengefulness and anger to their purpose, which pushed them slowly onto the path of killing indiscriminately.

And Bucky? We have no indication he wanted to be any part of it. He didn't show jealousy at Steve's new bod, for one thing, just a concerned, "Did it hurt?" When Walker said, "This must be so easy for you, with all that serum in your veins." It was hard not to dislike him, because Bucky didn't choose to have the serum, and his protectiveness (in this case of Sam) predates the serum.

It wasn't the serum that turned Bucky into the Winter Soldier, as the series seem to imply at turns, although it seems to recognise at other times that it was the mind-control (and it never for a second even showed the torture Bucky went through). And aside from the Winter Soldier era, Bucky really doesn't have anything else to answer for...so yeah, I agree, I've always had issue with the way the series seem to emphasise that Steve was the only "good" super soldier.

If Bucky was "bad" simply through the serum, they wouldn't have needed to torture him to turn him into the Winter Soldier.

[transmutationisms]

possibly too broad but do you have any thoughts on the discourse around self-pathologizing? seems like there’s weird territory there since there are so many barriers to diagnoses and people should be free to self-report, yet some pathologies are essentially capitalist inventions and it may be more harmful than helpful for people to fixate on them without some kind of external guidance (though i don’t mean to imply they need to consult medical practitioners). i also don’t really think faddishness is the big concern it’s made out to be, but what do you think?

yeah to me this is a good example of how genuinely epistemologically radical critique of psychiatry can become assimilated into pretty staid liberal discourses of self-empowerment / -care / -improvement. pathologisation, imo, is basically materially meaningless if it's not backed by the sorts of institutions and power relations that characterise the psychiatric establishment. which is to say, if we're only talking about diagnostic labels in a kind of personal-choice framework (as so much of the medium dot com industrial complex seems to be doing lately) then it robs these conversations of a lot of their urgency and impact. i don't think overreliance on the language of the dsm is particularly helpful, as a general matter of seeking to develop political consciousness as well as self-knowledge, but i also don't think it really matters one way or another if someone self-dxes or un-dxes. what makes a difference is things like: is this person being robbed of their autonomy? are these explanatory frameworks being imposed on them by credentialled experts levelling their professional status to claim epistemological authority over the psyche? what social and economic violence is being committed here? some rando online relating to a diagnostic label and using it for themself is not doing these things, and may very well be helpful to that person (it may also not. but again the harm here is p limited).

i have said before, a lot of what puts me personally off dsm labels is the essentialism they're in bed with. ie, it's not just a shorthand descriptor of behaviours or symptoms—these terms are pretty much always being wielded as claims to have identified a biologically based 'neurotype', eg, or some as-yet-unverifiable misery-engendering genetic complex, or whatever else. and to be clear, i think these types of claims do actually carry widespread social harm, because no matter what rhetorical games you play, you're never just saying these things about yourself. it's a claim to certain forms of bio-essentialism that both shores up professional psychiatric authority and applies to people besides yourself (this is just the nature of such universalising claims about human biology). but this is an issue that goes so far beyond use or disuse of diagnostic labels; plenty of people who have embraced superficial principles of anti-psych critique still make all manner of such essentialist claims when it comes down to it, with or without grabbing onto a specific diagnostic label. so i think the kind of panicking we see in certain left-leaning circles about self-dx is not actually about this issue at all, and is certainly not capable of addressing it productively.

without going insanely long here i would just add that this is kind of a general answer because different labels have different histories and functions (eg, compare the social and political function of pathologising a depressive episode, vs autistic traits / behaviours, vs a so-called personality disorder). and also, whenever talking about self-dx i think it's important to add that one of the most important functions of these labels from a patient perspective is they function as means of gatekeeping access to certain accessibility measures, so any kind of anti-self dx position in current political conditions will harm people who need those accommodations. and i have less than zero interest in questioning anybody who wants accessibility measures for literally any reason or uses any method to obtain them.