#but it's up to intersex people to claim her if they want to

[heartgold]

I think a lot about the way polydactyly is described in umineko ep1 because of the emphasis on the surgery to remove the extra digit often being done in early infancy (therefore without consent), with the intent of making the person "normal" while they grow up not even knowing about it...

of course this hints at sayo having her extra toe removed to hide her relation to kinzo, but I can't help but think about how it's specifically described in a way that evokes infant genital mutilation, especially considering sayo's backstory. all of her character reads like an allegory for intersex experiences imo, which also adds to her trans narrative. a major source of her suffering lies in how her gender struggles were complicated further by the reveal that her body was operated on without her knowledge, which led to sexual dysfunction and infertility.

the narration talks about the polydactyly surgery and reiterates the topic of bodily autonomy (already a big topic in umineko's first episode with the discussion of reproductive commodification of women's bodies) by mentioning how infants can be operated on to "fix" a part of their bodies to fit the idea of what "normal bodies" are like. the parallel to the mutilation of intersex bodies is very obvious to me. in sayo's case it was done as treatment for physical injuries rather than a literal intersex condition, but the narrative centering the violation of her autonomy persists with how she has her body altered and is denied the truth, having never had any means to cope with the inherent trauma of it all because the priority of genji&co was always to cover up anything that could implicate kinzo. she gets everything on her birth records falsified and she is intentionally kept in the dark about her own life. her entire personhood is erased. again drawing parallels to intersex experiences, doctors and parents will lie about it your entire life if they can get away with it. it's not uncommon to only find out you were operated on and/or forced on hrt as an adult!

even umineko's overarching theme about the nuances of truth vs magic can be read as an intersex narrative... it's a common experience to find out you were being denied your truth and made to live a lie "for your own sake". that truth may be unrecoverable and kept from you forever and all you can do is grieve it. your body is made into a catbox. I don't want to get too personal but some parts of confessions were chilling to read because of how similar they were to my experiences as an intersex person and I had never seen these very specific things portrayed anywhere. of course I can't claim to know the authorial intent, but it hit hard even as an allegory.

intersex and trans struggles aren't 1:1 the same but they have a lot of overlap, especially in regards to bodily autonomy, medical abuse and the gender assignment of bodies upholding a strict binary. trans people are denied transition while intersex people are forced through it, so a character like sayo who portrays that intersection of being both with such care is very precious. her struggles are strongly rooted in transmisogyny, intersexism, class and family, all which had her systemically disempowered, dehumanized and stripped of autonomy and agency.

her actions are a desperate gambit to gain some control over her own life, to be in charge of the narrative even if it's through selfdestruction. the horrors in umineko converge into the theme of systemic powerlessness and denial of autonomy. to be made into a piece. all of it combined makes up the multilayered meaning of furniture.

[this-is-exorsexism]

Hey, since I saw you speak German (making that assumption based on the fact that you mentioned a exorsexist comment being German in a post. Sorry if that’s a wrong assumption) I really want to talk about instances of exorsexism that I see so often in the feminist German speaking circles and that I’m so so tired off.

The terms “female read” and “male read” to refer to people, both when talking about, you know, just everyday things they saw ex. “I like seeing female read people sporting body hair” (just say you like people who don’t shave their body hair. Cause it’s not just the demographic of people that society pushes to present as “women” that are pressured into body hair removal.) and in context of feminist discussions “Cat calling affects female read individuals more than male read people. And male read people are more often the perpetrator of cat calling”. (This one irkes me so so much, because it’s a sweeping generalisation in general, which is just not okay.)

Another example that also falls into every day things and is even more removed from any “political” statement: “I saw a female read person that reminded me of my mother.” (This quote came from a nonbinary person which made the unnecessary gendering feel even more uncomfortable. There was no forceful gendering of the person necessary. It could have just been “I saw a person that reminded me of my mother” the assumption that it must have been a woman already is a possibility by the association with mother. And you sadly can’t get rid of it. There is no necessity to state it like that.)

One last longer example that is partly feminism related again (that is a near direct translation): “A lot of women and female read people know the feeling of standing in front of the mirror and asking wether or not they want to wear this or if it’s too revealing. Because choice of clothing alone can suggest you want to provoke men.[…] Even if a female read person wears tight clothing, because [she/they] feel sexy in it, is that no reason to insult [her/them] as a slut.” (The “she” could have also been meant in a “they” sense, because this is a translation situation where it isn’t 100% clear. That’s why I wrote it like that.) (This quote is again making assumptions and putting experiences on people and forcefully gendering people who experience these feelings. When these experiences actually can’t be categorised like that. Like even perisex cis men can experience this. It is also very telling here that only the “female read” wording was used when making social commentary, not the “male read”, when men where mentioned.)

(These statements are not always necessarily word for word quotes. They are partly just things I remember seeing in the past. Each example is from a different person.)

The description “female read”/“male read” as you likely know is typically said to be used to “to be more inclusive. Since we don’t know how someone actually identifies and we shouldn’t assume”. Which to me is just very much a “I’m gonna categorise you into man or woman on sight, just as anyone else, but I’ll say ‘male read’/‘female read’ to make it inclusive and not feel bad in case I’m actually misgendering you.”.

The fact that people think it’s more inclusive and isn’t just basically another way to categories man and woman, while claiming to be inclusive, drives me up the wall if I think about it for to long. The idea to be categorised as “female read” is honestly more dysphoria inducing than simply being assumed to be a woman, because it feels even more like failing at being uncategorisable, because the people supposedly not clinging onto the binary are categorising me as something I’m not. And as I hinted at, at the beginning, these two categories virtually ignore any possibility of seeing people who your brain can’t sort into the man/woman categories immediately, and pushes them into one or the other. Which also can ultimately lead to erasure of intersex individuals who could be sorted differently than both their sex and gender. (I hope my wording here is okay and it’s clear what I mean. If not. Please let me know.) The categories of “female read”/“male read” to me are ultimately cissexist, exorsexist and intersexist. This whole concept is just forceful gendering of people wrapped up in a pretty package that says “feminism”.

A big personal pet peeve of mine is people praising people who categorise like that. I’ve recently seen it done by a cis woman, intersectional feminist, who was praising a speaker for using the terms.

There is also the not uncommon occurrence where it’s just not even hidden anymore that “female read” or “male read” is just put in instead of woman or man or used interchangeably.

I just truly deeply dislike how these terms have become a very common thing in feminist circles, even between trans*(= very much meaning nonbinary here as well, hence the trans*) educators, feminists and influencers. It feels like such a gut punch to see even them reinforcing the gender binary in such ways.

(If you disagree with this being exorsexism I’d be very curious as to how. Because to me personally it is a very clear example of exorsexism that I’ve been wishing to talk about since I first encountered it. Also sorry if this is worded a bit confusingly at times. I tried my best.)

this is definitely exorsexism.

i know exactly what you're talking about and i have spoken about the misuse of these terms at length on my personal social media too.

to be honest, i was about to defend ~some~ uses of these terms, but after reading everything you said, i think these terms need to be retired.

i think at least half the time people use "female-read" and "male-read" to just mean women and men, because i don't know, maybe they think nonbinary people think that men and women exist is somehow offensive? a woman is a woman and you can and should just call her a woman, a man is a man and you can and should just call him a man. calling a woman "female-read" is entirely unnecessary and quite disrespectful too, in my opinion. it basically strips her of her identity as a woman and reduces her to how society sees her. the same is true for men.

"male-read people are often the perpetrators of catcalling" is also an interesting one because it proves that "male-read" and "female-read" are just stand-ins for the gender binary and gender oppositionism: "male-read" people have (perisex cisgender) male privilege and the entitlement and attitudes that come with it. they can never be victims of patriarchal violence, only perpetrators. "female-read" people are always more marginalised than "male-read" people. if you want to talk about people who are most likely to catcall, you must talk about perisex cisgender men.

as you've said, this doesn't take into account transgender, nonbinary and intersex people as it doesn't only sort us into a new male-female gender binary but also into a binary of "perpetrator of the patriarchy" and "victim of the patriarchy" in very oversimplified ways. in its attempt at inclusivity, this language completely obscures the experiences of people whom society sees as men or women but aren't. being seen as male when you're nonbinary or female, being seen as female when you're nonbinary or male, i.e. having your gender assumed incorrectly can actually be really dangerous. it also once again reduces us to how society sees us and acts as if our actual genders don't contribute to our experience.

one of the strangest ways people use this language is when they say something like "i saw a male-read person at the shop today". like, what do you mean? you read this person as male. you projected your binary thinking onto this person. using passive voice for this is just a way to try to remove your responsibility in participating in this system of gender assumption. at this point, you might just say that you saw a man at the shop. in this context, they mean the exact same thing.

these terms also don't take into account that there are different ways of being perceived as male or female. some people are perceived as transgender male rather than cisgender male, which are two very different experiences. being seen as transgender female rather than cisgender female is also very much not the same.

people also ignore that a lot the people they're trying to be inclusive of by using this language aren't actually consistently read as either binary gender or are read as something else entirely. "male-read" and "female-read" are pretty much used to be permanent life-long states of being perceived, with the exception of people transitioning and then going from one to the other and will be read as that and only that for the rest of their life. in reality, this looks very different. some of us are called he one day and she another. sometimes it depends on our gender presentation. sometimes it depends on the person perceiving us. for many of us, we actually have no idea how someone's perceiving our gender until they indicate this. also, many of us aren't read as either male or female. a lot of us are just read as "what the fuck are you" or [insert slur here]. none of these experiences can be mapped onto the idea of male-read and female-read.

not to mention how they keep using these terms to refer to body parts. "female-read" is too often just code for "has boobs". it's especially funny when they use this language for internal organs. like, sure, the catcaller on the street totally perceives someone's uterus.

"male-read" and "female-read" are what "women and femmes" or the transmasc/transfem binary will become if we don't stop it. they can always be replaced with other more precise terms that don't reinforce exorsexism, cissexism, intersexism and gender oppositionism.

[spookymultimedia]

Do you have any headcanons 4 cartman's pets? :3

Oh I absolutely do!! :D (very very long)

(CW mentions of pet death/loss)

Cartman got Mr.Kitty as a pet when he saw her outside at 4 years old. He chased the cat and physically dragged her inside, which prompted her to freak out in the house. Then Cartman fed her cake and begged pretty please with a cherry on top to keep the kitty. Liane has no choice in the matter really so of course they kept the cat. They didn't give her shots or neuter her, they just gave her a bath and fed her cat food and called it a day.

Cartman got Fluffy from the County Fair from winning a pie eating contest. Liane was shocked to see Cartman with yet another animal he wanted to keep. And she can't say no, so Fluffy came home with them. Funny enough she was actually easier to take care of than the cat. They usually fed her scraps. She had a pretty good diet of food that Cartman was supposed to eat but he gave it to her and pretended to eat his veggies so he could have dessert please. He taught Fluffy a couple of tricks like spinning and sitting on command. He even claimed he was gonna take her to the fair just like Wilbur in that Charlottes Web movie. Fun fact for years Cartman was convinced Wilbur was a girl and hated when people corrected him because he's used to thinking about the character a certain way and didn't feel like changing how he watched it.

He loved fluffy to bits but she died due to hereditary health problems. Instead of telling Cartman the piggy was dead she just fell in love with a daddy pig and ran away with him to have sex and babies. Cartman resents Fluffy for being such a whore and leaving him behind. He still cried in bed about it for a couple nights though.

Once Cartman tried to keep a pet frog. On wet mornings when frogs huddled around all the puddles, he and the other 3 tried to catch frogs. All of the frogs they caught always went missing every time they tried, so eventually they just gave up and moved onto something else.

Once Gerald snatched up Mr.Kitty and took her away by force while Cartman was screaming and crying at him to let her go. Later he claimed she wasn't vaccinated so she was dangerous to be around Cartman, but he was also using her for cheesing. Later Kyle helped Cartman steal his cat back and Liane promised they would give the cats shots and gave her neutered. After that Gerald left their cat alone.

When they got Mr.Kitty neutered they discovered that she's is actually intersex. Cartman was extremely extremely happy to have a pet who's just like him. Well not exactly like him but still.

For years he depended on Mr.Kitty to get him through his audio hallucinations and grounding himself. If she didn't wake up then no one is at the door trying to harm him and it's just his head being weird. Petting her is very therapeutic for him and calms him down when he's experiencing big scary emotions. He also liked letting her in his bed so she can be there if he gets a nightmare.

During middle school his cat went missing and he was extremely upset about it. He kept accusing that his girlfriend Heidi is responsible for the cat going missing. The longer she was missing the more he accused Heidi of lying to him, hurting his cat because she resents him and she's an awful person. For two whole weeks Butters helped Cartman search for his cat. His friends also helped but Butters helped the most. One night while he was driving home without Mr.Kitty yet again and realized he's never going to see his cat ever again. He broke into tears while Butters and Stan comforted him. Later Heidi finds him grieving his cat and she tells him he forgives him for getting upset at her and understands he was just stressed and didn't mean it. Cartman didn't apologize at all and let her hug and console him.

After that Cartman didn't own a pet for several several years. When he was in his late 40s and the most depressed he had ever been in his life, his therapist suggested owning a cat to give him a routine to have and help him cope with loneliness. So he adopted a cat and it worked. After awhile he ended up with 9 cats in his house, but then he got his shit together and gave away the ones that had bad relationships with the other cats or didn't enjoy being in his house. Then he was left with four cats. Which was a pretty big improvement but still makes normal people gawk at him. And he kept those cats for a long long time. I haven't thought much about the other three, but I know one of the cats is a three legged cat named Zipper. He was born like that. He's the fastest of the four cats and the most friendly one.

After Cartman passed away from cancer in his early 60s Kyle and Stan the two cats Cartman still had. The cats where very comforting for Kyle since he had a harder time coping with his the loss.

And not a pet headcannon technically but Kyle had a habit of putting cat food and cat nip near Cartman's gave to "keep him company." People give Kyle weird looks when he brings cat food to a graveyard but it makes him happy so he doesn't care.

[radmista]

you fuckin idiot, there are more hermaphroditic members of snails, coral reefs, bugs, and even lions from the savannah, can trans their gender.

Lions cannot "trans their gender" because lions do not have the human concept of gender nor transition.

I know exactly what you're referring to and it's the FEMALE lions that have grown manes despite being female. This is explicitly a FEMALE lion with a hormonal imbalance, likely naturally increased testosterone, that has caused the abnormal growth of a mane.

"Molecular testing aimed at examining chromosomes – the genetic material which determines sex – has revealed that Mmamoriri is genetically a female, despite her masculine features."

(Mmamoriri hunting with her pride, using her extra strength to secure kills.)

Whatever reasons there are behind these lionesses growing manes and having larger builds, whether it's a genetic cause, an exposure to androgens in utero, etc, it doesn't make them anything other than female. They are not "nonbinary" or "transmasc" lions. They are female lions who have grown manes and occasionally have bigger builds. It's similar to women who are naturally bigger or naturally have more body/facial hair (or even women who have PCOS). Having these variations does not change that they are female. If anything, the closest approximation these lionesses have to something in our culture would be butch lesbians (Mmamoriri and others like her have been seen humping other female lionesses). Not a direct 1:1, but if you want to compare these lionesses to something it would be butch or gnc women.

Once again you guys show how fucking regressive and sexist you are by claiming that a masculine female lion is somehow a "trans" lion. Seeing a stronger bigger female and saying that she has "trans vibes" bc she isnt "womanly" enough is conservative level sexism. Both of you love gender roles and gender presentation and can't function without it. You just differ in what boxes you try to shove gnc people in.

I won't touch on the stupidity of you bringing up snails, coral fucking reefs (seriously), and bugs because they aren't fucking mammals. And other people have already talked about such comparisons (clown fish, etc) at length in other posts. When I find them I will edit and link back.

Edit, found it: Sex Binary and Intersex Masterpost by @woman-for-women

[drbased]

I just found your blog and I like your posts. I’m curious about your stance on the Imane Khelif controversy because I am confused by all of the conflicting information going around. How are people certain that Khelif is a female with no male performance advantage? I’m not saying she isn’t, but with the statements from the IAB and what we know about her past, I understand why there are people saying it is possible that she might be genetically male with a DSD like 5-ARD and thus observed female at birth. At the same time, I think because the results of her medical tests are confidential and they have not been revealed to the public, I see why people are saying there is no way to say for certain whether she is a male with a DSD.

I’m not trying to be inflammatory, I’m just genuinely curious because I want to better understand this situation as I think it will have a lasting impact on women’s sports. I haven’t really been in rad spaces on tumblr or other social media recently and I’ve mostly seen discourse on Twitter

This doesn't come across as inflammatory at all, though I appreciate you wanting to make sure.

Your guess is as good as mine, anon - I don't know why everyone is so certain. I'm not on twitter, but as far as I can see the tumblr response hasn't been much better. This phenomenal post by @f1ghtsoftly summarises the subject the best, I think. Also this post by the ever-phenomenal @evidence-based-activism who we can always appreciate for going the extra mile (you are such a gift for this community; we are all indebted to you for your work).

Meanwhile, on the flipside, I can understand that radblr has been chomping at the bit for a high-profile case to bolster legitimacy in the public eye. unfortunately what has happened is that since this isn't a case of a transwoman beating up a woman and instead what seems like a male with a DSD who was raised as a woman, it has bolstered people's fears that radfems are directionless reactionaries, willing to throw intersex people under the bus to own the transes. Because of this it's very likely that we won't see anything good for women in sports come out of this; in a world where women are viewed as 'other', women's sports are always vulnerable to being viewed as a free-for-all for anyone who fits into part of that 'other'.

This also raises questions about gender, which I see some radfems have reacted to with discomfort. There are many people in this community who, despite the assertions (and all the theory) that female oppression is socialised, clearly do believe that it's predominantly or even entirely biological. To these people, the fact that Khelif was at least somewhat female socialised means nothing. I even saw someone express actual disappointment for the community not being 'feminist enough' in this, claiming that those who want to find solidarity with khelif's female adjacent life experiences means that we believe in gender, somehow. For a community that claims to be on the side of intersex people this is very ironic; it's deeply disappointing to see what are essentially bio-essentialist talking points. Yes, the foundation of women's oppression is via sex, but in the case of DSDs there are always going to be outliers; so what do we do in the case of people who are biologically male but female-socialised without accidentally believing in brain-sex?

[darksou07]

Transgender people don't owe you an explanation about their bodies

This is a thing I believe should be said. I don't usually write about being LGBT+ or anything related to that, but for other trans people's sake, I will put it out here and hopefully reach out to those who need it.

Being transgender means your gender identity doesn't match the sex you are assigned at birth. Meaning, if a baby was born and they were immediately assigned as being male, then eventually this baby realised they're actually a girl. This person is transgender.

If someone is assigned female at birth, then eventually realises they actually don't identify as a woman nor a man. Then this person is also transgender.

One of the few cases in which these lines might get blurry is if the person was assigned male, then realises their gender is actually woman and man. They wouldn't be wrong to say they are both cis and trans.

This is without mentioning the complexities that comes with being intersex, gender non-comforming, drag queen/drag king, salmacian, crossdresser and many other variations that will affect the specific ways some transgender people experience their genders.

Regardless of these variables, one thing is a fact though, I honestly can't believe I have to say that in 2024, nobody is entitled to know about our bodies. Not a single person, except ourselves.

Oh, you mean, you know it isn't polite to ask about a trans person's genitals, right? Well, the issue is actually a lot more complex than that.

Probably the most talked about issue related to it is about sexual partners. If a cis man happens to have a sexual interaction with a trans woman, then decides to take her to a one way trip to the afterlife in an unimaginable traumatic and painful way... Then that's on him. He's a transphobe and a criminal. He isn't a victim in this situation.

"Oh, but did she disclose that she was trans?"

I mean, not everyone is going to disclose the way their genitals are different or some not very pleasant traits of their bodies, yet they don't die because of that. Especially not in such humiliating ways and have a bunch of people who weren't there claiming this was the victim's fault.

Honestly, the only reason I even suggest that trans people tell their partners is for their own safety and there's literary no guarantee even that will help since some people use this as an excuse to commit hate crimes. You know, not even our sexual partners are entitled to know our medical history. Not a single person needs to know about our biology, unless we need them to know.

That means, people who would literary put us in danger (accidentally or not) if they didn't know, such as sexual partners and doctors. Even these cases are best to be analysed in each context if that'd be a good idea. (A sexual partner online that has no plans of meeting up the transgender person will be more likely to be transphobic if they know this information, but if they were going to meet in person, then it would be safer for the trans partner to disclose it for their own safety.)

Frankly, if a person decides to cut contact with every single family member, friend and acquaintance who met them before transitioning, moving far away, making up a completely different story about being cisgender and living as their gender while taking their whole process to the grave... That's their right. If this is what would make them happy, they should be allowed to go for it.

"But what about the trans women/trans men invading lesbian/gay spaces?"

If they are lesbian/gay women/men, then they are at the absolutely right space. (Or generally attracted to the same gender.) Attempts of forcing people out of gendered spaces that they belong to means you do not see trans women as real women nor trans men as real. That is transphobia and entitlement to trans people's bodies.

"What about intersex people? They don't want you to use them as arguments for nonbinary existence nor as ways to keep yourself being stealth."

Nonbinary people could still exist even if being intersex wasn't a thing since sex =/= gender. Besides, intersex bodies do show that sex isn't limited by male and female just like nonbinary shows that gender isn't just man or woman.

Also, the whole thing about "pretending to be intersex" as a trans stealth person being intersexism is literary something new. At least from what I've seen in trans spaces, we aren't even doing that. We are actually claiming to have hormonal imbalance (that has causes not related to being intersex at times) that makes us not have the expected hormones for men/males or women/females, which is absolutely correct. Many trans women cannot produce the expected amount of estrogen for women and tend to have higher levels of testosterone as well. Doing hormonal therapy for this is something that even cis women do, especially if they happen to have PCOS. The fact that she's not disclosing her transness doesn't mean she's taking up the space that belongs to intersex people.

Just like how some pre or non-op trans men who have visible chests aren't taking up intersex spaces by saying he has gynecomastia, since this condition can also happen if someone takes risperidone as a side effect. Cis men who have such condition may opt for surgery that often comes with the very same scars you see with top surgery made for trans men/transmasculine people/nonbinary folks. If a person needs or wants to be stealth about it, they are allowed to say they had excess growth of breast tissue that made them uncomfortable and not have to specify they were actually dealing with gender dysphoria. That's private information nobody has any business knowing.

While many things have changed and progress has been made for trans people to be open about their transness, some of us don't want to deal with the discrimination that comes with such visibility and that doesn't make us liars nor monsters. Sometimes we need to do so because it's what makes us happy and our gender dysphoria can destroy this if others know about our past, even if they live in a trans positive environment.

We do not owe our bodies to anyone.

We do not owe letting other people know of the medical procedures we went or go through.

We do not owe our current or past sex characteristics to anyone.

If you do not support trans people who cannot or don't want to pass, then you are a transphobe.

If you do not support trans people who do pass and are open about being transgender, then you are a transphobe.

If you do not support trans people who are stealth and have to hide or change parts of their story to keep being seen as equal towards their cisgender peers, then you are a transphobe.

If you do not support trans people occupying gender-specific spaces that match their gender identities even if it goes against the sex they were assigned at birth, then you are a transphobe.

If you do not support trans people who cannot come out or get gender-affirming care for any reason, then you are a transphobe.

If you do not support trans people who don't want to do any gender affirming procedures or hormonal therapy, then you are a transphobe.

We do not owe you our medical history, our social changes, our document changes nor the lack of these. If we share this information with you, don't expect that from other trans people. We are individual and we are allowed to disclose or not about ourselves.

If you cannot treat trans people as the gender they are, then you are a transphobe. The sex we were assigned at birth doesn't have to be part of our social interactions and as long as society keeps separating us from the groups we belong to, we will have to keep this information private. Sometimes we have to do so because we get gender dysphoria over being forced to disclose our sex assigned to us at birth.

I'm nonbinary, but my goal is to get to a point people would look at me and assume I was assigned male at birth. No, I'm not talking about being seen as a man, I'm literary talking about being assumed to have been born with sex characteristics assumed to belong only to men and be out as nonbinary if safe to do so.

I honestly don't see anything wrong with my transition goals since they literary won't have any negative consequences to the people around me. My family mouring a "girl" doesn't count. They wouldn't have to do so if our society didn't demonize us or if they didn't have such limited views of what a woman or a man can do/be.

I had to deconstruct the ideas I had of what being a man or woman meant, so will they if they plan on having a good relationship with me. That's just how it is. The fact is that we always existed in society and we will keep existing even if you try to make us go extinct. We don't owe you information about our bodies and never will.

[lettucedloophole]

sad how the outrage at lia thomas or imane khelif can be debunked by just Knowing Facts. and still bigotry persists.

i was talking to my dad yesterday about imane khelif and mentioned she wasn't a trans woman, which he did not even know because he thought she "looked like a trans woman" and should still potentially be excluded as a cis woman based on testosterone levels or whatever. as if most people are knowledgeable about the variations of intersexuality and can actually judge whether or not someone should be included in sports because they're intersex.

the root of the issue is not only racism+ misogyny against woc and intersexism (the spectre of it looming after caster semenya) but transmisogyny, and i looked up some data about lia thomas' performance to debunk my dad's claims that she was breaking records left and right. took two seconds. ultimately, the issue taken is with her appearance being considered not feminine enough and her transness.

it brings to mind That audre lorde quote. yknow. the one about shackles. transmisogyny reinforces misogyny against other degendered women. a form of misogyny cannot exist if you want to snuff out another.

people with more moderate trans friendly ideas are wary on the question of trans women's inclusion in women's sports, thinking it's unnecessary as sports are for the elite anyway and more important issues can be focused on, but the exclusion of trans women from women's sports is reflective of a deeper transmisogynistic mindset that must be fought at every direction it comes from. the idea that trans women are predators who invade "real" women's spaces to hurt them, or outdo them. there's not going to be a society without transmisogyny where trans women are excluded from women's sports, and if you don't believe that, then you're harbouring some brainworms yourself. you can work on that.

[archivalofsins]

TL;DR- Milgram is testing gender biases but not in the way people would like to believe. It is unreasonable for people who seem to want Kotoko to be innocent again to tie the change in opinion around her to misogyny. I'm somewhat sympathetic to people who do enjoy Kotoko as a character because it seems like they're becoming increasingly more panicked by others not as devoted to the character as they believe themselves to be seeing past the veneer and viewing Kotoko's behavior for the outcomes it creates instead of the catharsis it gives.

Though I understand that labeling people interrogating her behavior or questioning it as misogyny can help these individuals feel better and more secure in their opinion. I think it ultimately does little to benefit the character or the fandom in the long term. Instead, I believe it gives people who enjoy the character in different ways a bad impression of what fans of her character are like. Something that will ultimately lead to more quiet parties in the fandom projecting their disdain for Kotoko's fans on the character and using her trial as a way to let out those frustrations about these bad faith interpretations.

Comparing Futa and Kotoko is reasonable to an extent but making that comparison and just checking it off as misogyny is silly and reductionist. I feel people who want Kotoko to be Innocent for whatever reason could have a genuine discussion around the two forms of radicalization that both characters discuss. Highlight how Kotoko is just as much of victim of her environment as Futa is and home in on her more personable traits to better highlight her understated good qualities.

I don't fully believe Kotoko is an irredeemable character but how her well intentioned more vocal fans discuss her really highlights how dangerous it is to follow these sorts of people without question and how easy this sort of thing is to fall into.

Other than that, let's get started.

For all intents and purposes what is about to follow this sentence is fully intended as a joke about previous events and nothing more,

"If I see one more rabid Kotoko Innocent voter comparing "actually" interrogating her actions to misogyny I may-"

In all seriousness though, people who claim to be fans of Kotoko's may want to find a better defense for her actions before her trial starts. Instead of you know doing what people claiming to be Mu's fans did- Ignoring the problem while digging their hills in deeper and deeper. Everyone literally saw how that turned out.

Plus, from what it seems Kotoko may not be able to gaslight, gatekeep, girldictate her way out of this one and ignoring the ever growing signs of that isn't helpful in the long run.

I dislike Kotoko. I have done nothing to hide this. However, crying misogyny each time a woman's behavior is brought into question is in my opinion literally the definition of white woman tears. It does nothing to interrogate the underlying issues being brought up and the only purpose of using it is to lampshade the idea that something is amiss at all under the guise of discrimination taking place.

Men can be wrong, women can be wrong, nonbinary people can be wrong, intersex people can be wrong, demigender people can be wrong, agender people can be wrong, and genderfluid individuals can be wrong. Regardless of how one self-identifies based on gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality, or mental health wise everyone can be wrong, and everyone's actions can objectively be harmful.

No matter what people may say none of those characteristics is an excuse or justification for people causing harm. Crying gender discrimination is incredibly odd to me especially when taking the voting trends of Milgram into consideration. Milgram has specifically been testing these biases from the beginning. Something that has proven the opposite of this claim is true.

Saying things such as if X prisoner were male presenting instead of female or if X prisoner was female presenting instead of male, they'd be given more leniency is ultimately a weird back and forth talking point to me. Especially since we have a good amount of evidence to prove which statement is true and which one is not from the voting results along with the information Milgram has provided.

Because Milgram has done everything in its power to not only play on this bias but test it. From blatantly giving each of the prisoners a presentably opposite sex presenting counterpart,

To separating the prisoners into even groups of male presenting and female presenting. Even though the series canonically recognizes that there are more genders and have had characters make statements alluding to gender being a social construct.

So, if we look at the trial one results of each prisoner who has stated that someone who presents as the opposite gender as them is the most like their selves then we can see how gender has impacted the results,

In trial one Kazui did get a higher innocent verdict than Yuno but they were both Innocent/Forgiven. In comparison we can see despite being similar as they both stated they believed themselves to be Kotoko was Innocent/Forgiven by a large margin and Futa was Guilty/Unforgiven.

Then comparing Kotoko to the male she was expressly paired with is even worse.

Because as most know Mikoto had the largest Guilty/Unforgiven verdict of trial one. He was also beat up by Kotoko during his first trial interrogation for good reason. However, this goes into another gendered bias within Milgram. The only people Es has physically hit or have been hit during their interrogations are male or explicitly never referred to as female due to their age. Since the person he most recently hit was Amane who has been labeled as child by the not only the source material but the fandom at large.

No one has gone can't little girls do anything when it comes to Amane. No one has said can't we just support little girls being feral for Amane. At least not that I have seen. In fact people don't even like that certain individuals consider Amane's abuse when voting on her trial because they believe that either reduces her to just a victim (for some odd reason this was not an issue when taking Mu being bullied into consideration but is here) or is treating her like a child something she asked us not to do but Es speculated she wanted us to do within Amane's second voice drama.

Where's the justification of Amane's actions based on her gender, age, or the treatment she had to undergo like with Mu and Kotoko now? Because I'm not seeing anyone go as hard for her.

What makes this twenty something year old woman who to her own admission has never once faced persecution so special?

Sadly, children aren't considered to be men or women but just by the genderless term child. This means people don't have to think about complicated adult constructs when it comes to their rights. This conveniently leaves Amane out of this can't women/girls do anything because her story is about children rights. Something consistent Milgram voters have done a good job at highlighting a good deal of society doesn't believe children should have. Be it the right to make their own religious and medical decisions or taking agency over how they are treated by those older than them.

Milgram has gone out of its way to split the cast evenly between the most commonly recognized presented genders for a reason. It included characters of certain age ranges and stated or implied disabilities for a reason. Because when people are a certain age or have a certain diagnosis their gender and their thoughts on it cease to matter. They are only judged by their age or diagnosis. However, instead of talking about all these things people would rather use the social construct of gender for its most historically used weaponization of protecting the over privileged from taking accountability for their abuses.

The fact that people today still believe they can cry misogyny when it's simply convenient to them and that no one will go look at the evidence collected by the voting demographic that readily proves this to not be the case is wild to me.

This is why for me seeing people say if Kotoko were a man she'd have it easier is funny. One because Kotoko openly views femininity as a tool which she uses at her discretion so she's genderfluid or agender if anything. This is something she states in response to her first written interrogation questions. So, using the label woman as an excuse for her behavior is very Kotoko behavior of her fans but again just not actually helpful. Especially if I can just look back and go um that's not how Kotoko identifies all the time though and she alluded to so here.

Being genderfluid or agender does not make her any less of a woman of course. It just makes discussing her case based solely on her womanhood odd to me. Doing so ignores an extremely specific intricacy of the character that has been made known from the beginning. An intricacy I find to be a compelling and interesting aspect of her character. I could still judge her actions based on her womanhood but that's just not going to work to persuade me that she was right because I simply do not believe it's okay for anyone to get away with something based on their gender alone.

Recognizing her gender possibly being more fluid based upon her answer to the femininity question again doesn't change how I feel about Kotoko's behavior as a person. It's literally like cool gender I respect that your actions are still trash though.

Plus using her gender to compare her current circumstances to Futa's and saying there's a gender bias going on here is weird to me. Again, Futa was guilty trial one Kotoko was innocent. Futa has long term possibly permanent impairments due to the verdict he received. Something that was caused by Kotoko. Futa is a very tit for tat person and his first song displays through his lyrics that he used to stop after someone apologized while Kotoko's displays her mindset of an apology not being enough a mindset that Futa slowly develops into having over the course of Bring It On.

As displayed through this lyric,

"You won’t be forgiven, a coward, never!"

Milgram goes out of it's way to showcase how Futa and Kotoko are at different levels of radicalization. Alluding to the very real possibility that if Futa was affirmed during trial one he would be just as bad if not worse than Kotoko. Even Kotoko's answer in regard to him being the one she believes to be the most like her points this out.

"Though he’s also the person who resembles me the least."

She even spends most of trial one observing Futa and says this before his interrogation and trial.

20/09/18 (Futa’s First Trial)

Futa: Haa…… haa…… Ok……

Kotoko: What’s up, Futa. ……your breathing seems a bit uneven?

Futa: Huh!? I’m getting ready to fight. That guard is looking down on all of us……!

Kotoko: ……hmm. Is that so…… I’m looking forward to it. To seeing what your “justice” really is.

So, more than likely if Futa was voted Innocent alongside her he would've just ended up being indoctrinated by her instead. Since they both recognized the similarities, they had with one another but just wound up on opposite sides.

Also, Futa's verdict didn't change round two simply because he's a guy. It's because he made a reasonable case for himself that caused most of the audience to reflect upon their behavior as well as Futa's. Implying that it's just because Futa is a guy is not only demeaning to his characterization and the time people put into analyzing both his songs but-

Ignores the fact that people still believe his actions are unforgivable. Along with the fact, that a good deal that believe that actively defend/support Kotoko's behavior. Oh, yeah- And it blatantly ignores that the thing he was being persecuted for to begin with (the doxing) was slowly but surely proven not to be his fault at all. Something he'd been saying from the fucking beginning of trial two.

Futa: It wasn’t me. It wasn’t my fault. Like anyone would die from that normally! The one who spread it wasn’t me anyway.

In contrast to Mu where the idea of her being in the wrong was so heavily denied that once it was shown that she was many changed their opinion not because her actions were inexcusable but simply because they felt tricked. Even though as Milgram stated all the evidence of the prisoner's crimes were there to begin with if people were willing to look and many including myself tried to lighten knee-jerk reactions by bringing the possibility to attention before It's Not My Fault even released.

So, if Kotoko's defense is simply Mu's repackaged brand of God can't women do anything? Why would that be reasonable enough justification for the tangible damage we may be about to see Kotoko's actions cause. What if just like in Mu's case where we see her bullying her victim, we see Kotoko attacking those kids?

Will that defense of can't women do anything really be able to justify that sort of behavior? Well given Amane's tanking verdict being assigned female at birth may just be something the fandom considers a valid excuse for abusing children. I've seen so many people justify Amane's mother's behavior by saying she was indoctrinated too, it's hard to raise a child by oneself the father was always away, maybe she wasn't mentally well etc. Once again showing of that if a character is an adult woman, they're actions and the tangible harm they cause can be justified in a myriad of ways.

Unless they're Mahiru trial one and too conventionally feminine then the only way their behavior can be justified is if they're beat within an inch of their fucking life-

Mahiru's first trial was a case of god can't women do anything? This Is How To Be In Love With You was literally just her going around town and having fun we didn't even see anyone die and she got voted Guilty. For what because people found her personality clingy and obnoxious. Because she was far too traditionally feminine for people's liking. Yet, people want to cry misogyny for Kotoko.

The one who jumped Mahiru on very little information because it was solely based on a judgement Es made based on multiple assumptions that while not disproven were not all completely true.

Like she clearly wasn't a fucking stalker she knew this person and they were together that was clear from the fucking first song. Even during her second trial Mahiru didn't get the whole gendered excuse of can't women do anything as much as people are trying to force it on Kotoko. The focus was literally on her being injured to shit and getting harshly and hastily judged for literally just being hyper feminine.

Then the only way people could justify her actions in I Love You without taking that into consideration wasn't through engaging with her character fully and discussing her overly sheltered homelife mixed with a clear immense fear of abandonment and inadequacy which lead to unhealthy ways of seeking validation but by infantilizing her and calling her delusional. Something that if tied to her femininity would be inherently sexist.

Then we've been given an even greater example of the gender bias within the Milgram fandom through Yuno and Kazui during round two.

A situation that speaks for itself. Yuno says the person most like her is Kazui with no hesitation or doubt. Stating this about the both of them on her birthday,

"Haha, we both lie, don't we? The difference is the reason for lying. Kazui-san, you lie to protect yourself, because you're important to yourself. For me, no one is particularly important. That includes myself as well."

Bluntly stating that she lies but unlike Kazui who has a reason for her lies she has none. As Yuno has made clear from the beginning, there is no justification for her actions. She doesn't view them as good or bad but as things she just wanted to do. Which is why she's only gotten increasingly upset by the audience attaching justifications to her choices because to her that may just remove the weight of those things being her choices.

She doesn't wish to have these labels attached to her behavior or excuses being made for what she did. She'd much rather beg to be forgiven herself if it came to that than have people that know nothing about her make assertions about her life and reasoning.

Because what's important to Yuno is being true to herself and she doesn't have to care about anyone even herself to just do what she wants to do.

Q.04 What’s the origin of your name?

Haruka: Apparently my parents wanted a girl. It was decided on long before I was born.

Yuno: It means to be kind and true to myself. [TN: Literal meaning of the kanji 優 (yu) and 乃 (no) respectively which make up her name.]

Source: Rochisama

Instead of interacting with that more difficult to grasp part of her character people decided to simplify her once again. Because viewing characters one enjoys as just one thing is simple, it's fun. It's not challenging or messy. Because no one has to bother with those strange technicalities or hypocrisies. They can just sit back and enjoy themselves.

If things are simple, then everyone will have fun. If things are simple, then you won't have to be bothered. If things are simple, then people can still dream. If it's simple, then an apology can just solve everything. It it's simple then it can be put in a way anyway can understand and everyone will want to listen. If it's simple, then you can tell how your life is meant to be but most importantly if it's simple it can still feel good.

Life isn't simple, judging people isn't simple, punishing people isn't simple, looking at things for what they are isn't simple. Because the truth is objective it won't always feel good. Yet, looking away from it in order to spare one's own ego does nothing but allow people's self-induced ignorance the opportunity to grow into someone else's pain.

[yuri-for-businesswomen]

i just now learned about a recent case where a german man kidnapped and did unspeakable acts to two boys. one was german, one was a refugee. the first one was immediately treated as a missing case, but the second one was not because the cops were afraid the mother was hiding her son to avoid deportation. and the worst part is, that little boy was kidnapped in a government institution (lageso in berlin) where his mother went for help! its infuriating beyond belief.

racism is so deeply engrained in german institutions, its not funny. yet police refuses any reforms or real investigations and deny even the notion - despite mounting evidence - that there is an issue with systemic racism in german police. and we dont have an independent institution to control the cops, you know who investigates their failures and issues? other cops. and we all know how they stick together like literal shit.

but it also made me think about „missing white woman syndrome“. does anyone really care about an eastern european white woman who goes missing while being exploited in the west through prostitution, in the domestic field, nursing, or as a „mail bride“ dependent on her husband? does anyone care about a white woman in the usa going missing from a trailer park? does anyone care about a white woman who was homeless, mentally ill, drug addicted, disabled, impoverished, prostituted, or otherwise marginalised going missing? and do people not care about white men going missing?

and it also made me think about this current trend of oversimplifying and decontextualising racism. one thing i hope we all can agree on is that anti black racism is very persistent. i cant think of a single country where black people are treated preferably over other races, best case is to be treated equally as a black person, and even that is not the case in most countries. but this doesnt just apply to white majority countries. in japan or korea, or under the kafala system in the arabic gulf states, for example, black people are systematically discriminated against and exploited too. white people are also not the only ones guilty of colonialism and imperialism - albeit i dont want to minimise the scale of portugese, spanish, french, british/australin, german, dutch, belgian (neo)colonialism or the north american slave trade.

i dont know its just, everything always has to be put in context and looked at from an intersectional perspective but i feel a lot of people who fault white supremacy for everything dont do that. and dont get me wrong, white supremacy is the root of a lot of inequality and issues, but despite the name its not merely a black and white problem, its complex. for example, even if a roma or jewish person is white, neonazis dont consider them the same race as white people. or i remember my turkish professor once saying, „in turkey im considered white, but in germany im a person of colour“. because race is not just phenotype, it is also culture, nationality, location and ethnicity that matters for who is holding power and privilege.

meanwhile a lot of the same people will refuse to agree that sex matters. or claim that sex - which is a lot less ambiguous than race by the way and nobody argues that mixed race people prove that race is not real or doesnt matter the way they argue intersex people prove that sex is not real or doesnt matter - is a spectrum while chanting „black lives matter“. and i know that black communities do have that conversation about colourism and how whiteness is something even people of colour are supposed to „strive for“, which is why for example the harmful practice of bleaching your skin exists. so it is being acknowledged that race is a spectrum, but some of the same people who rightfully talk about black lives and how blackness is its own social category will call you a bigot for talking about female lives and how being female is a social category.

im not going anywhere with this, just some thoughts that came up regarding discussions on racism and sex and how they intersect too. feel very free to chime in especially as a person of colour obviously!

[velvetvexations]

it's different for all of us <3

I'm happy to have provided that relief!

so even in very progressive and trans pockets of the kink scene, you'll still often find carried-over attitudes that implicitly "center" subs in the scene--workshops are catered to subs. writing is from the perspective of the subs' desires. doms are treated with suspicion if they're not directing their attention to a specific sub. etc.

and a lot of this creates a *really bad* environment for transfem doms in particular to feel comfortable openly expressing sexuality and desire, because the dom stigma is *pre-existing* on top of vanilla society already portraying transfems as predatory. and in the scene locally at least, transfems are generally only *provisionally* seen as women due to presenting as "soft" and intentionally effeminate, so that adds another layer on top of it--acting too dominant in the scene will often get you misgendered by people subconsciously associating dominance with manhood.

and then we get into how that crosses over with the intracommunity pressure from the transfem side of things to adhere to gendered stereotypes in order to be seen as a woman by your fellow girls, and how part of that is "kindly" meant pressure to cast away dominant and aggressive behaviors with the argument that girls are only performing them because they feel they have to conform to male social roles, but nobody likes it when i bring that up because nobody wants to admit there's intracommunity problems in trans groups 🙄 but the intracommunity problem does bleed over into the kink scene in my experience

IDK, I don't really have a problem with the idea that transfem dom content might be rare for a variety of reasons, but so are a doms in general when you compare them to subs, and I believe OP when she said she wasn't trying to say that trans women are inherently subby but she did phrase her point in a way that made it sound like a very similar sentiment I've seen a lot.

- Trans fem meetup group. Previously run by a trans woman who moved away. There was no group for almost a year before a non binary person started it up again. Huge FB outcry over this not being a trans woman and ppl bullied them into making a public post confirming they were AMAB and identify as trans fem. They have posted that they would be happy to hand the group over to a trans woman if people would be more comfortable with that but nobody is interested in taking it over. (2/5)

- General trans/intersex/etc advocacy group. Run by an intersex person who could be considered trans masc, I don't know if they identify that way. Pretty much everyone else I know of involved is trans fem aside from one cis woman, I don't know everyone involved though.- Radical trans group who organise protests etc. Leadership is all trans fem last I checked. They have some trans masc members and try to have some equality in representation re: who makes speeches at events. (3/5)

So, imho this is fairly balanced insofar as groups just tend to be organised by local people willing/interested in organising and so there is rarely any kind of perfectly equal distribution of who organises them. If one or two people quit or move the entire "balance" can be thrown one way or another. But there is so much hue and cry from a loud minority about how "all" the local groups are "run by trans mascs". (4/5)

Including ppl claiming "all the meetup groups are run by trans mascs" & when ppl point out the person running the trans fem group is trans fem you get "You know what I mean". Yeah, I know what you mean, and it's not good! (5/5)

Good analysis, anon!

Small minds have limited storage capacity.

[doberbutts]

That post of yours also makes me think of how much exclusionist rhetoric is centered around the assumption that, for example, only people who are gay or lesbian are ever impacted by homophobia. That kind of thinking is not only incorrect, but also gives way too much credit to homophobes who do not, it turns out, have a nuanced and informed view of sexuality and gender.

Homophobes don't think in terms of "we are cis and allo and straight, and this other group is made up of people who are gay, pan, bi, ace, aro, trans, nonbinary, intersex, and any other number of labels under the queer umbrella". They think in terms of "we are normal and good, and this other group is different and bad."

I recall that one incident about the parents who kicked their asexual teenage son out of their home because they thought he was gay, and tons of exclusionists were insisting, "No, no, this isn't aphobia, this isn't discriminating against asexual people, this is misdirected homophobia, gay people are still the only ones being oppressed." Like, okay buddy, call it whatever you want, but this asexual teenager is still homeless now.

The sort of people who commit these hate crimes think in such rigidly binary terms. That man is attracted to men? It doesn't matter that he's also attracted to women, he's gay. That man doesn't want to have sex with women? It doesn't matter that he doesn't want to have sex with men either, he's gay. Oh, that man IS dating and having sex exclusively with a woman, but that woman was assigned male at birth? Gay. They're all gay, and we must hate them all for it.

Exclusionists will claim that ace people or bi people or trans people who don't medically transition or who are non-dysphoric aren't queer enough to be in queer spaces, don't face the same level of oppression, and meanwhile homophobes are more than happy to hate crime anyone who doesn't fit their narrow definitions of what is acceptable. The people who are beating up a man for being gay aren't going to stop upon being informed he's actually polysexual. They'll say "close enough" and continue beating him up.

Exactly. But then again many of these people refuse to consider a different perspective than their own.

I have an ace friend who, due to her solid lack of interest in men [or anyone] was assumed to be a lesbian by her boss. Her boss who turned out to be a sexual predator and preyed on three different female coworkers about her age [read: significantly younger than him] and was eventually fired for it. Her boss that, when she revealed she was dating a man at the time, admitted he had considered pursuing her as well but was discouraged by her lack of attraction and if he had known she could be "turned" he would have struck while the iron was hot, so to speak.

Is that not a combination of lesbiphobia, misogyny, acephobia, toxic masculinity? That he wanted this girl young enough to be his grand daughter to the point that he thought he could bully his way into her bed after seeing that she was not interested in being pursued? It doesn't matter that he was wrong about her being a lesbian. It doesn't matter that she could have just as easily been with a woman instead of a man. It doesn't matter that he doesn't have any understanding of the concept of asexuality. Here was a young woman who *could potentially* be swayed by power dynamics and/or alcohol, and thus she was added to his list of potential conquests.

Her identity, her feelings, her emotions, her life doesn't matter. What matters is that he was a predator and she was highlighted as possible prey the second he thought he might be able to convince her to accept his magic Dick Of Turning.

How do I know all this? He was my boss too. And I saw firsthand some of the things he did. Thankfully, as said, he was eventually caught in the act and fired for it, but not before he terrorized multiple female employees.

[battersweet]

YİPPE

BBU OC!!!

Their name is Loki, they are a bat jester and they go by all pronouns!!!

They have Autism and ADHD

She's bigender, genderfluid, intersex and Pansexual!!!

They are actually blind from an accident happened years ago but they see and recognize people by their souls from their right eye, also their left eye is can see but very blurry so he's legally blind anyway

He's keeping the red gem, he can shapeshift and mimic voices that doesn't exist, and can possess other people's body!!! They also can see people's past with the red gem, the red gem basically about interacting with other people's bodies, control their emotions and memories etc(i dunno how to name it), their gem replacement is right on their suit's chest!

They don't really have an reason to be a Villain, yes they have a bad past but that's not really a reason to be make them a Villain, they are just wants to be a piece of shit and they are lol, they are also a c@Nñibal

They LOVE lizards, they also have a pet lizard

They have claustrophobia and a strong Aracnophobia, they are extremely terrified of spiders

They despise smoking and alcoholism

They are friendly at first, but manipulative, reckless, jokester, violent, Apathetic and selfish,

Their arc nemesis is Aristotle the Axolotl (strangers to enemies) Aristotle literally Despises Loki, she tried to manipulate Billie and managed to posess them, but Aristotle found it out by their weird behaviour, they also tried to eat Billie once but ended up just slightly injuring them.

they care very deeply about their partner and friend, Fenx, @whosralf 's oc!!! They likes to rant abt their interests to him!!

They stims by flapping her hands, shaking their head Side to Side, kicking their legs, flapping their wings, rocking back and forth at their place and opening their hands and covering them repeatedly

They are very touch with people(not that way you pervs), they don't if they're a stranger, an enemy, or a friend.

They loves to pull dangerous tricks, but they mostly loves to juggle knifes, doesn't even cares if they will hurt themself or not, gives Fenx a mini heart attack every time they do that

Their hug animation is Lifting Billie(or any Target) to their height and twirling them enough to make their head spin and nauseus and put them back to their feet again,(i dunno why i added this, i just saw other characters hug animations and i wanted to do too lol)

They smell like iron and old wooden(i dunno why it just fits them y'know?)

They are actually really great with kids, but he manages to scare the shit out of them everytime, both intentional or unintentional

Their favorite Singer is STOMACH BOOK, her fav song of them is "All you can hope for now are the scars to show it!!!"

They are 30 years old

Their voice claim is Spinel from Steven Universe!!!

[darael]

Regarding Imane Khelif and Angela Carini

I originally made a version of this post in response to one about how Angela Carini wasn't to blame for the massive wave of nonsense that has been directed at Imane Khelif; about how her perfectly reasonable emotions (and some actions based on those that she regrets) were being used to make her an icon of a hate movement she does not support. About how both of them were victims of misogyny in this situation.

This is gonna be a long post, folks, so buckle in.

The problem is, there's reason to believe Angela Carini fully intended what she sparked, and is not sincere in her apology. Before we get into that, though, I want to emphasise some things:

Even if I am right and Angela Carini is some combination of racist, intersexist, transphobic, and/or willing to exploit these bigotries for her own benefit, that will not justify misogyny towards her. We can criticise her actions and inferred intentions without relying purely on sexist or misogynistic tropes and slurs.

Defending one woman by tearing down another is a dynamic that's been used misogynistically many times in the past, but

Talking about "white women's tears" is not actually that when the thing described actually fits another pattern seen in racial-justice circles: white people, but especially white women, do often weaponise crying and claims of injury (whether physical or emotional) to get disproportionate harm done to people of colour and especially Black people. This results from an intersection of racism and patriarchy, in which white women are treated as fragile and inherently in need of protection from "savages" and men. The underlying premise is misogynistic but women with the requisite privilege can still weaponise it.

The attacks on Imane Khelif are transmisogynistic (because they rely on the trope of the predatory, violent trans woman), intersexist (because they rely on claims that she's intersex, and that this would make her more prone to violence), and racist (because the denial of women of colour's femininity, the making of their access to the social class of "womanhood" conditional, has been a long-standing part of white supremacy). These things are true even though Khelif is not trans and is not known to be intersex, because bigotry doesn't care if its direct victims are actually the ones intended. She is a cisgender, likely-perisex woman of colour who is experiencing misogynoir, intersexism, and transmisogyny.

Got it? Good.

Now, then. First, some background:

At the Olympics, in the 66kg women's boxing, Imane Khelif from Algeria was up against Angela Carini from Italy for her first match (in the second round; she got a bye from the first due to seeding). Khelif had formerly been disqualified from a 2023 tournament run by the International Boxing Association (IBA) under… suspicious circumstances. Despite having passed "gender testing" the year before, she was suddenly re-tested and disqualified mid-tournament after she beat a Russian boxer. It is worth noting that the head of the IBA is Russian, and under his leadership the Association's only sponsor is the Russian fossil-fuel company Gazprom, and that the IBA has been barred from participation in the Olympics due to rampant corruption (the Olympic Committee handled qualifiers directly since there wasn't an alternative association to turn to) — so you can see why this is suspect. The IBA claimed that Khelif's testosterone was not tested, but "another recognised test was used", the nature of which the organisation refuses to disclose. The head of the IBA said on Telegram that Khelif had XY chromosomes, but he is hardly a trustworthy source and the organisation has not confirmed his claim. Even if it's true, Imane Khelif was assigned female at birth, raised as a girl, and has passed all the (transphobic and intersexist) Olympic committee's medical eligibility tests; she categorically does not have a meaningful sex-derived advantage over other women.

Angela Carini was injured from her first-round fight, but chose to take part in the second round anyway. After taking two blows in her fight against Khelif, she withdrew. The match took 46 seconds, which is certainly short, but not fantastically so. She broke down in tears and said something that could be translated as "it's not fair!" or "it's not right!", but this could be construed as frustration over her Olympic dreams (and especially a promise she apparently made to her father that she'd go all the way) being broken. Similarly with the way she refused to shake the hand of the woman to whom she'd just conceded a match. She also made comments to the effect that she'd never been punched so hard. In response to this, transphobes, intersexists, and racists accused Imane Khelif of some combination of being trans, being intersex, and faking her gender (though of course they did not use these terms; their claims were that she was secretly a man). As mentioned above, there is zero reliable evidence that this is the case, but that hasn't stopped bigots from running with it.

Here are the things I wish to point out about Angela Carini's behaviour:

Before the match, she put out a (now-deleted) tweet calling Imane Khelif un uomo — "a man":

This suggests she was cozying up to those seeking to disqualify Khelif on racist grounds well before the match actually started.

Since the match but before her apology, her coach has described her as seeing herself as "a paladin" for a cause:

This suggests she actively embraced the transphobia and intersexism that was promoted in her name.

She's also boasted about how since the match she visited Italy's vehemently transphobic, and indeed outright fascist, leader, who "welcomed her like a daughter", which certainly isn't conclusive but isn't a great look. I don't have the source for this one on hand, sorry.

But Carini apologised, right? Well, kind of. She apologised for refusing to shake Imane Khelif's hand after their bout. She said she'd embrace her. She also said "if the IOC said she can fight, I respect that decision" — which might appear reasonable on the surface but also actively plays into the idea that there's some reason the IOC might not have said she could fight. She also also said "It could have been the match of a lifetime, but I had to preserve my life as well in that moment", which could be a genuine expression of an athlete's need to take care of their body, but also feeds neatly into the "this freakishly strong brute could have killed Angela Carini!" narrative that her allegedly-unwanted supporters were already using. Further, the closest she came to apologising for anything other than refusing to shake Imane Khelif's hand is "all this controversy makes me sad", which is… not actually an apology. All quotes in this paragraph were from Carini via the linked Ground News post.

I have seen allegations, but I'm not claiming this to be the case because I haven't examined the evidence, that Carini has a history of faking an ankle injury to end a fight against a stronger boxer in 2022. I mention this for completeness, but it's also worth saying that even if true, while this might suggest a propensity for exaggerating the extent of an injury, in the match against Imane Khelif she was visibly bleeding when she withdrew, and her broken nose from her previous match would also have been difficult to fake.

In my conclusion: it is my belief that Angela Carini was a willing participant, not an innocent pawn, in the racist, transphobic, intersexist, and plain misogynistic (not to mention baseless!) allegations made against Imane Khelif. I acknowledge her partial apology, but it strikes me as an attempt to evade being held responsible for what her actions caused rather than a genuine one. Even if she is sincere, it seems to me that this would represent a thought process along the lines of "this got out of hand" rather than "I did something wrong". You don't have to agree with me, of course. What evidence I have is now in your hands, and you must make up your own mind.

[butch-reidentified]

“ask the average reader to guess whether a male or female wrote this based on the fact that the author used coarse language I bet they’ll tell you male 😏” this is what you sound like. that person clearly wasn’t even saying that women with body hair are disgusting, they were likening themselves to them, and condemning holding yourself and others to pedophilic beauty standards and you have to be reading it in the worst faith possible to have any other takeaway

yeahhh you're making shit up lmfao

post being referenced:

I never said he said women with body hair are disgusting. I never thought he said that; he was clearly trying to say that we're all just gross animals. If other people claimed he said that, talk to them. HOWEVER. he said "u are a nasty little slug too and having a vachina does not absolve u of that." I take issue with this specifically because radfems take a very "humans are just animals like any other" view. We do not believe "having a vagina" makes us superior or cleaner or less animalistic or whatever the fuck he was trying to say with that weird ass sentence.

my saying that any rando on the street would more than likely read that and assume it was written by a male is not about "coarse language" (this literally made me laugh out loud, so ty). have you looked at my blog?? it doesn't get much more "coarse language" than my writing 💀 you can say "this is what you sound like" all day, but you made that up completely while dozens if not hundreds of women knew exactly what I was referring to. Not that I actually believe that you were confused what I meant by that, but to be clear, his post reads as male because it reeks of porn-induced brainrot. "breedable 12 year old anime girls floating in a glass jar of formaldehyde waiting for some old man to come and fuck them and tell them they are so teeeeeeeeny tiny and worth it" specifically is simply not a turn of phrase (or even abstractified image) that would ever enter my mind in a million years, nor that of any woman I know. I've never seen a woman say something quite that far porn-rotted. not that it's never happened at all, but I've never seen it and I would bet my life it's exceptionally uncommon.

Everything within that image he painted is the polar opposite of how radfems see women/what radfems want for women. "Holding yourself and others to pedophilic beauty standards" - you mean the exact ones radfems speak out against relentlessly every single day??? Search my blog for terms like "female body hair," "shaving," "beauty myth," and the like, and tell me how on earth you came to the conclusion that I think women should shave or tweeze or laser or whatever a SINGLE hair even once in their entire lives. I don't shave my legs, which were wildly god-tier hairy BEFORE even I was on T. I don't shave my bush, I don't shave my armpits, I don't shave my mustache or the chin hairs cross-sex hormones gave me.

Radfeminism is opposed to every single thing that has to do with the gender construct. We absolutely do not have any requirements or expectations or criteria for womanhood beyond simply being a human + female. Like I said about viewing humans like any other animals, radfems see "woman = female human" the same way one means "doe = female deer." Woman is not a gender; it's a term referring simply to species (human) and to sex (female). That's it. No further expectations or criteria apply.

Before you try to argue that this definition excludes women who are infertile or intersex, let me be very clear about sex:

> "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs"

"the sex that CAN" is crucial to defining female/male. the female body has biologically, genetically, and physiologically developed from before birth to support the POTENTIAL capability of producing large gametes (eggs aka ova). It is totally irrelevant if one has a medical complication that prevents her from actually producing those gametes; which gametes your body has clearly developed structurally and functionally to produce is what defines your sex, no matter what.

The fact that this is how we view "woman" and "man," as simply referencing one's sex and humanity - this is why we maintain that trans-identified males are men. Again, we don't see "man" as a gender in the slightest. We don't engage with the gender construct at all beyond our desire to dismantle it entirely so that everyone would be able to live free from those roles/stereotypes/expectations that are assigned on the basis of sex.

This makes it a ridiculous thing to assert that we have to "go so far to prove that trans women are actually men...." We do not feel that it requires any effort at all to say "a drake is a male duck, a buck is a male doe, a man is a male human." It CERTAINLY does not in ANY capacity require us to "reduce women" to that horrific sentence, or to "reduce women" at all. Is it "reducing" a doe to state that she is a female deer?

It also makes it ridiculous to insist radfems "dehumanize" women by using this definition - the definition which includes "human" as a non-negotiable criterion.

About the first of his two-part post pictured above, last but far from least: There will NEVER come a day when women - ESPECIALLY lesbians & ESPECIALLY extremely gnc lesbians - calling out misogynistic males for their behavior counts as "punching down." No matter how he identifies, how he dresses, where he works, what his talents are, what he likes/dislikes, his sexual orientation, or anything else, women (and again, lesbian women especially) do not hold institutional/systemic power over men.

as for the 10 foot pole part, I really couldn't care less what he meant or why, tbqh, because the supremely creepy pedophilic rant that made up the first part was the thing we all truly took issue with in that screenshot.

and let's not forget, this all started bc he called an ND woman the r slur for her critique asserting that he was appropriating a type of religious trauma specific to the sex-based oppression of women/girls, and profiting from doing so. personally, as a human female with a history of such religious trauma, while this has been resolved for approximately 7 years in my case, I still vehemently object to any male claiming it as his own for profit. especially if said profit is hoarded rather than given back to victims of such trauma.

NOTE: this answer was written while I'm barely staying conscious. I will come back to edit/clean up a bit later after getting some rest 😴

[catofadifferentcolor]

Terrible Fic Idea #65: GoT, but make it Narrative Symmetry

The thing about Game of Thrones is that there are very few slash ships that I can get behind, which is why I tend to lean towards a female!Jon Snow in my terrible fic ideas. Then I thought: what if Jon Snow looked just slightly more like his mother?

Or: What if Robert Baratheon takes one look at Jon Snow, decides he's Lyanna Stark reborn, and decides he's not going to give up his second chance at a Stark bride?

Aka: The Jon the Fair fic.

Just imagine it:

Lysa Arryn never gets the chance to poison her husband. Instead, on the very day she was set to carry out her plot, Robert Baratheon discovers that his wife has been cuckholding him with her brother and that his children are bastards. The shock kills Jon Arryn, and in a matter of hours Cersei, Jamie, and their children are imprisoned, executed, and their corpses tossed into Blackwater Bay.

While Tywin prepares his uprising, Robert heads north seeking a Hand and a Northern bride. He knows Neds daughters are both too young, but perhaps he has a beautiful, dutiful cousin who'd make a suitable queen.

Robert is fully prepared to search the entire north for a suitable bride when he catches sight of young Jon Snow practicing his swordplay in the yard. In the twilight, with slightly longer hair than canon, he looks so much like Lyanna Stark that for a moment Robert thinks he's been transported into a dream.

In the cold light of morning, Robert realizes that the person he saw was his best friend's male bastard, but can't quite bring himself to care. With the help of his kingsguard, he abducts young Jon Snow, dresses him as a woman, and drags him kicking and screaming back to King's Landing.

Now, the rest of Westeros is aware Ned Stark had a bastard, but nothing beyond that. So when Bobby B arrives in King's Landing claiming to have married "Lyarra Snow", Ned Stark's batard daughter, very few people realize his "bride" is male. Or unwilling.

For Jon's part, he's about as displeased to be be "wed" to his abductor and rapist as one might expect, but plays along as Ned Stark's bastard daughter for the simple fact that claiming to be male when everyone else around him thinks him female will cause more problems than it might solve.

Ned wants to raise the North against Robert for Jon as he did for Lyanna, but getting his kingdom to go to war for an abducted bastard is more difficult than getting them to go to war for a beloved daughter of a Lord Paramount. At best, he's able to convince his bannermen to stop paying taxes to the king.

Meanwhile, Twyin Lannister is preparing his own rebellion against Robert for killing his beloved daughter and son - but when he kills Robert in battle, the rule of the Seven Kingdoms falls to his "queen", Jon Snow, who is not inclined to make peace with a rebellious Lord Paramount.

Jon, largely trapped in his role as "Queen Lyarra" by circumstance, makes the most of it.

Honestly, my muse starts tapering out once it comes to figuring out the exact details of how "Queen Lyarra" manages to rule the Seven Kingdoms after Robert's death. The Westerlands are put down, peace is restored, etc.. but most people come to think that "Queen Lyanna" "crossdresses" as a man and is the "foremother" of the royal house that follows after him. (Think Hatshepsut without the strap-on beard.)

Bonuses include: 1) a detailed exploration of gender roles in Westeros, what is means to be a man forced into a woman's role, and the historical nonbinary/intersex/androgyny of Vayerian dragonlords before the Doom; 2) a detailed exploration of what it means to be the abducted bride of a king, with no legal recourse beyond lie back and think of England and yet a certain amount of power over everything except one's rapist; 3) learning to rule a kingdom on the fly because it's either that or wallowing in absolute horror of one's circumstance, but never being able to come clean about who you are without losing everything that put you in power in the first place; and 4) historians arguing for centuries afterwards whether "Queen Lyarra, First of Her Name" was a AMAB crossdresser or butch lesbian who took up a male role to solidify her rule.

Honestly, I'm not sure this amounts to a coherent fic idea other than Bobby B passes a male Jon Snow off as his second wife, but it is what it is. As always, feel free to adopt this bun, just link back if you do anything with it.

Other Jon Snow Headcanons: Aelor the Accursed | Aegon the Adopted | Aegon the Undying | Aegon the Unyielding | Aemon the Adventurous | Baelor the Brave | Bastard of Winterfell | Daemon the Destroyer | Daena the Dreamer | Daeron the Desired | Dyanna the Defiant | Elia the Magnificent | Jon the Fair | Jon Whitefyre | King of the Ashes | Lady Arryn | Lady Baratheon | Lady Lannister | Lady Stark | Lord of the Dance | Prince Consort | Prince of Summerhall | Queen Mother | Rhaegar the Righteous | River Queen | Shiera Snowbird

[antiyourwokehomophobia2]

https://www.tumblr.com/vvitchscvm-deactivated20230666/752310515009798144/why-do-so-many-supposed-radical-feminists-keep?source=share

do you agree with this?

No. Honestly, I think it's a bit ridiculous. I don't even understand the last part where she claims that people who disagree with her must believe in nonbinary. That seems like an illogical jump that came out of nowhere. Pointing out that someone has biological features that point to them being male is not malevolent in any way.

I don't know much of anything about intersex conditions so I don't want anyone to take my words as gospel. I'll admit it's very possible she knows more about it than I do.

That being said, this very much reads like tra stuff lmao. Saying that how someone looks outweighs their biology is a genuine tra talking point. I mean, could you not say all of this about children who transitioned very young? Jazz Jennings started transitioning pre-puberty and had a "female" childhood. Going to school as a girl and no doubt being seen by men as a girl, too. I would even argue that the act of being trans made Jazz more susceptible to male degeneracy. Does all of that add up to the right to claim girlhood/womanhood? Despite being male, Jazz had a girl's upbringing and looks like a girl. Does that mean that the male features don't matter? I mean, this post literally says that having XY chromosomes is not damning evidence that someone is male.

To me this post seems to argue that how you look and how people treat you is what determines what you "really" are and that's not something I agree with at all.

I think there's a bit of a disagreement on who is and who is not an intersex woman. Again, I don't pretend to be an expert, but I thought that it was very rare for intersex conditions not to be clear cut? There are special cases, I've heard, but isn't it mostly stuff like only a male person could possibly have klinefelter syndrome? Because if that's the case then I'm not really sure what there's to be argued about at all lmao.