#but rather someone whose experiences you identify with. please let me know. please please

[pollen]

i've been diving a lot deeper into adhd symptoms and comorbidities and misdiagnoses and whenever i tell my boyfriend something i learned that sounds like me he responds with something like

[mercurytrinemoon]

Another post on Moon signs you can drag me for

Before we get into the actual thing, I'd like to say this post initially started as something else but ultimately, what I tried to put across is, sometimes Moon signs aren’t that easy to decipher. It’s easy to grasp overall characteristics of the signs and then learn how to identify their specific traits. But what people seem to forget it that Moon represents the deepest side of us & our inner world - it’s uncommon to really see someone’s side of it unless you really pay attention. Sometimes I’m surprised to see what someone’s Moon sign is even if I know this person well. Meaning, people usually hide that part of them - or they just simply process it internally and others can’t see their emotional reactions. It’s also uncommon for folks these days to fully express their emotional needs so it gets even trickier to pin-point their Moon characteristics. I don't think I have to mention this but, of course, your entire chart should be taken into account, as well as house placement, aspects. Personally, I like to also look at Moon's dispositor.

Let’s start from my friends, Gemini Moons, who, I feel, get a bad rep for not showing their feelings and scanning every emotion like an AI. Nah-ah. I know this one Gemini Moon whose immediate emotional reactions aren’t very cerebral in the sense of processing everything in the mind and intellectualizing it aka, what people like to label as being un-emotional. Instead her reactions are often fast (air energy) but physically expressed through Mercury (Gemini Moon’s dispositor) and Sun (overall identity) – she has them both in Aries. She’s a crybaby who can burst into tears in a matter of seconds. So she’s not something that would stereotypically be assigned to a Gemini Moon. But what I did notice is that all Gemini Moons tend to have this weird look on their face when they’re processing stuff. As if they were about to have a brain malfunction; they stop and have that specific worried look. They also like to either gossip or tell stories (either real or made up lol); they’re great with words - they can talk for hours if they feel comfortable with you. They just crave interaction and mental stimulation. Their quick reactions tend to make them effortlessly witty. Even if they’re a withdrawn Gemini type, they make up for it through social media and technology or just a quiet exploration. My shy Cancer pal with Moon in Gemini is now a brand/website designer and an instagram queen who travels the world. This is great energy for content creators in general. And don’t forget that Geminis need to have their fingers in many pies. It’s because they always have a backup plan… and they get bored easily so they need that chaos around them to feel at home. They like to have options in everything, which is kind of funny cause it’s hard for them to make up their minds and actually choose something. And they store a lot of information in their brains… I feel like it must be exhausting, no? 

On the other side of the axis, whenever I see someone with a Sagittarius Moon, I can immediately say “yup, a Sag Moon indeed” (probably thanks to my Sag stellium), meaning, they all seem the same to me. Sag Moons often find comfort in exploration - best if it’s literal travel. They always seem to need to free themselves from their surroundings, family, roots or their own culture to discover something new and exciting, even if it’s only in the imaginary words - through books, movies and other medias. Their happiness always lies somewhere else from where they currently are. Like, I think all Sagittarius Moons that I know have left their parents and went their own paths early on. And they have this yolo attitude. Just like Sagittarius Suns, they’re massive dorks, probably also obnoxious… sometimes in a REALLY annoying way. They’re either a) very wise and curious b) lil preachy and stuck up c) just plain dumb clowns with no filter. But they’re all funny. And they take things lightly, with a natural ease. This means sometimes they may offend other people just because they assume everyone’s as chill as they are; „relax! I was just kidding!” - that’s a phrase you’ll hear from them often… I mean, unless you’re a jokester yourself and you’re unmoved by their sarcastic or teasing words. They have somewhat spiritual or philosophical nature so besides making you laugh, be prepared for deep monologues. They want to believe everything will eventually fall into place. It’s also hard to bring them down - or I should say, it’s hard to make them acknowledge that they're feeling down - they always try to distract or cover it up with a joke, usually a self-depricating one. If Sagittarius Moon (or Sagittarius in general tbh) is telling you that they’re unhappy, then it’s serious.

I’ve noticed there comes a point in life for a Libra Moon where they just have enough. They’re too nice for everyone and one day they wake up and yell about how they have to do everything for everyone and everyone wants something from them and bLah bLah. Makes me think of when Bieber was this overly nice kid and then he was like “I’M NOT TAKING PICTURES WITH FANS ANYMOREEEE AAGhJFJFUWIUq”. Yup, a Libra Moon, everyone. They know how to charm and appeal to people, I think overall they’re easily liked by others. Sometimes it’s simply because they like to kiss people’s ass just to avoid being rejected. That’d be a Libra Moon’s nightmare. They like other people’s company too much. And they thrive in relationships and in a big circle of friends. What they hate is confrontations (like every other Libra placement omg). They may be good mediators when it comes to other people but if they’re involved in an argument they get sooooo passive aggressive. They just don’t know how to handle conflicts - it’s as if their nervous system wasn’t designed for emotional outbursts (because, you know, everything needs to be peaceful and harmonious Venus-style). A fussy or angry Libra Moon will suddenly get loud as they blame someone for something… and then they’ll leave the room cause they’re scared to even hear the other side of the argument. Or, alternatively, they’ll make a doormat out of themselves just to stay quiet and avoid causing any rift. And making decisions? I think it’s common for them to have two different romantic interests and feeling so dramatically torned between them *Alexa play Agony from Into the Woods*. Then when they decide, they have problems breaking the bad news to one of them.

On the other end we have Aries Moons. *deep breath* Listen, I think I’ve said enough about having Moon in Aries (or rather purely dissing it) but last time it made a bit of controversy so why not wreak even more havoc. I have a good description for this one: I will punch you but be gentle with me cause it’s easy to break my fragile heart. So basically, imagine putting Buttercup and Bubbles into one person. And honestly, I need to say this, women with this placement are just hot badasses, look at friggin Angelina Jolie. The queen of badass. The queen of hot. People say because Aries folks move quickly (literally and figuratively lol), they often get bored with whatever got them excited last week... or yesterday. Ha, yeah, right. You get their heart to open up and they’re going to have their eyes for you ONLY, like a lil puppy. Give us treats and we’ll build our world around you. But NOT in a clingy way by any means, we need our space and independence after all. My lil niece is an Aries Moon and ever since I started playing guitar with her, she became my #1 fan or something. That’s the energy. But we get easily bored with day-to-day stuff so yeah, there’s that. Innocent and clumsy yet raw in their emotions - so there’s potential to make mistakes sometimes (or a lot of times) or having this tunnel vision, like „I want this and I don’t care about anything else!”. And then excusing it with some „but the heart wants what it wants” crap (looking @ ya, Selena Gomez). They experience constant inner movement and turbulence that needs a physical outlet in order to feel satisfied. WE NEED PASSION IN OUR LIVES, OKAY?!?!?? now leave me alone

Aquarius Moons aren’t as cold as you might think. People like to describe them as if their Moons actually disappeared from their charts: dEtaCheD, uNeMotiOnaL, tHey fEeL nOtHinG. It’s just they don’t sit and dwell on things, they find solutions to the problems. If something doesn’t make them feel right, they just leave that situation. They do care about other people’s well-being, they’re very sensitive in that regard, they’re humanitarians after all. Yeah, they detach, but from their own emotions - in order to make sense of them. They may seem like snow queens sometimes (and this comes from an Aqua rising) but they’re really friendly and if you pique Aqua Moon’s interest, they’re going to be curious about you. They like new exciting things so if you’re cool enough, you have their attention. Usually they’re pretty progressive as well and can’t stand injustice. That’s why you’ll see them standing up for those who are in need. Uranian energy gives them a specific type of sharp intuition and wit. Idk they’re just cute in a quirky way. But this buzzing, fast energy is a great recipe for anxiety, over-thinking and frequent changes of heart. Similarly to Sadges, they need constant exploration and stimuli. Intelligent, people-oriented (but not people-pleasing! Look to Libras for that), individualistic. They definitely need their own space and independence. Their decision-making is fast and it’s easy for them to just say „screw it, I’m doing this”. My Aquarius Moon friend just casually decided that she’s moving to Turkey cause nothing in our city (or even country) seems interesting or helping her expand… So she was like, see ya suckers, I’m leaving.

Leo Moons shine from within. You’ll spot them from a mile away even if they’re on the shyer side. They’re all lil stars no matter their profession. Very expressive people & easily excitable. Art galleries, live shows, theater - they love a creative environment even if they don’t pursue that lifestyle themselves... One of my Leo Moon friends is an art junkie – suggest taking her to an obscure play at the local bar, a music festival, a weird museum – she’ll say yes in the blink of an eye. And she loves discussing these things. A Leo Moon may not see themselves as artistically inclined, but usually sooner or later they at least try dipping their toes in music, arts, acting, dancing... you name it. They’ll learn a simple 3-chord song on a ukulele and then play it to you in excitement. Imagine a lil kid making you a puff piece and being super proud of it. Sometimes they just need some encouragement. Remember, Leos feed off of praise, that’s their fuel. Doesn’t mean they’re all proud, egotistical people but what it does mean is that they need a lil assurance to gain their self-confidence. I lived with a Leo Sun/Moon for almost 15 years (who’s a musician btw so yeah, a classic creative Leo type) - he did have some issues lol but ego wasn’t one of them. Drama followed him everywhere but I’m pretty sure he disliked it himself. BUT, with that being said, I feel like Leo Moons tend to dramatize themselves internally. People say it’s something Virgos or Geminis would do - because of their tendency to overthink, but Leos can just go straight to a worst-case scenario in their heads simply because they exaggerate everything. So don’t be surprised to see a Leo Moon feeling down and anxious. On the bright side, be their cheerleader and they’ll give that to you in return. They need sparks and dullness kills their upbeat spirit. They need to feel their own heartbeat so the feeling of excitement is crucial for their well-being. Romantic, giving and kind. They’re fixed fire so once they’re set on something or someone, they give their all and are rather loyal.

I feel like my chart low-key tells me I should dislike Taurus Moons but I just want to melt in their arms and just stay there? Like, forever? Low maintenance but a bit slow-moving and stubborn. They won’t settle easily, at least not officially, so you need to have a lot of patience with them. They need 3 things to feel secure and at peace: physical stimuli, time and a stable place they know they can always come back to. And it’s not like all of them are total lazy homebodies, they may be active spirits & travellers but they are going to have a reallyyyyy nice cosy flat somewhere near their childhood place (gotta be be close to their moms, you know). Not necessary materialistic but they may have one thing that they collect throughout their entire life and they won’t. ever. get. rid. of. it. There needs to be at least one constant in their life - like you know when Elton John decided to go to therapy but one thing he stuck to was shopaholism? Very Taurus Moon of him. Also, they’re very affectionate. In fact, may have issues differentiating between affection and passion - this is actually something Taurus Moon and Aries Moon have in common. Pro tip - and this is in regard to all Taurus placements - don’t smell bad when you’re around them (I mean, don't smell bad in general, no one likes stinky people lol). They have a sensitive smell. Doesn’t help that they like to smell everything. EVERYTHING. I swear, Taurus, stop sticking your nose in every single thing!!! You don't need to know how that piece of utensil smells like. Jeez.

Scorpio Moon (shoutout to those who remember me accidentally calling them sporpio last time I made a post on Moons lol). I honestly don’t know what to tell you... I feel like all you hear about Scorpio Moon is 100% true, there’s nothing to debunk here. It’s the Moon of extremes. Prone to jealousy and surpressing emotions; severe trust issues; they’re instigators. I was low-key bullied by a few Scorpio Moons when I was in school so there’s that. Very secretive and private. Scorpio Moon will be like “I’m in control of the situation!!!!” and you’ll just look at them and think, yeah, right, looks like the situation is controlling you. But keep being in denial, sure. Like, don’t get me wrong, Scorpios in general can be TOTAL SWEETHEARTS OMG but ya’ll have issues. Even celebrities who have this placements... Think Beyonce or Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus... I feel like they have issues lol, especially with control and the need for everything to be perfectly the way they want it to be. To be fair, that’s probably why they’re all so influential and high status: it’s either their way or highway. They need constant reinvention; they’re the ones to wake up one day and decide they’re going through a spiritual awakening blah blah. They also like to talk about dark and shocking topics while having casual lunch with you... So like, be warned that you may end up with a depressed mood after talking to them for 10 minutes. And their mood swings... don’t even get me started on that.

I don't know where to start with Virgo Moons... I feel like they're very calculated and nit-picky but they're a lot warmer than Virgo Suns. I think I called them softies in my last Moon post. Very sweet people but prone to anxiety. You gotta experience seeing them having a heart attack over someone mixing bananas with milk or messing with their stuff that’s been put in a perfect arrangement. I saw a Virgo Moon once literally squealing shouting "YOU'RE GONNA RUIN YOUR LAPTOP WITH THAT SUPERGLUE!!!" Highly entertaining to watch, not gonna lie. Gordon Ramsay has his Moon in Virgo - it’s conjunct Uranus and Pluto so that’s an extreme but I think him being fed up with people over small inconsistencies in their food prep is a perfect example of this energy (btw his chart is hilarious, it literally explains EVERYTHING). They're VERY picky with their food as well, just as Virgo Suns tend to be. Like, they’ll only have a specific type of single origin coffee or they’ll be vegan or something. Self-critical over their work, which is a plus... except for when finishing a simple task takes them a few hours because they want to make it perfect. They take everything seriously. This of course doesn't mean they're total bores - on the contrary, Mercurial energy gives them witty approach and a talent for choosing the right words at the right time. Tho they can be a bit awkward or shy with it. Can be as bubbly as Gemini but the grounded earthy energy gives them more practical and almost nurturing nature - earth signs are providers after all and Virgo is the sign of service - helping others is like their second nature. I’ve noticed they often find comfort in devoting themselves to a choosen task - this is why if they pursue something, they’re really good at it. They’re also very likely to dissect their emotions.

I’m not a fan of water Moons in general but Pisces Moon is the best water Moon in my opinion. Maybe because I like Pisces overall. I think it’s like a tweaked Sagittarius Moon - just more internalized, withdrawn & gloomy. But unlike Sag, who has a tendency to be an adventurous optimist, Pisces likes to focus on the negatives instead. Obviously, they can be very upbeat, they’re Jupiter-ruled after all, but there’s somehing whiny about them lol. Just like Sadges, they dream big and have their standards put up sooo high but if there's not much active energy in their charts, they’re often too passive to actually fullfill any of that - or I should say, they’re stuck daydreaming about it, believing it’ll just magically manifest for them... OR they do everything with an apathetic approach. What I do like about them is that they’re funny. And really chill - sometimes to the point of coming off as confused or hazy. I feel like a lot of them would just love to sleep all day... or sit by the lake and just think about the world. Most of them are also compassionate folks - again, maybe a bit too much. Hey Pisces, you don’t have to take everything to heart, it’s okay. On the bright side, they have big imagination and the ability to disconnect and just create. I have a few Pisces Moons in the family: one’s that sleepy artistic type with grand visions, one is an asshole-ish but funny entrepreneur with a questionable work ethic and one is a witty IT guy who’s actually a workaholic and likes to shut in his own world of computers and numbers or whatever he does there... So there’s this factor of tunnel vision, escapism and, on the more negative side, being kinda iffy and almost addicted to the way they want things to be. Once they set their eyes on something it’s done deal…

My issue with Capricorn Moons is that they're often trying to be sooooo mature omg, like, loosen up a bit. It usually starts when they're in their later teens... They can be the most rebellious kid that likes to have fun and suddenly they'll be like "I'm too old for this ugh grow up" *judgmental stare*. My 18-year old niece once literally roasted my sister that she's in her 30s and still doesn't have her own place (well so do I so I guess she also indirectly roasted me as well???). And she was SO deadpan with it. Because she herself wants to be independent and start a family before turning 25. This is classic Capricorn Moon energy. They suck out joy out of everything lol. Of course, OF COURSE, it depends on the whole chart but I feel like worst-case scenario is that at one point in their life (or maybe even a few times throughout it) they go through a massive shake-up that makes them change their attitude and re-evaluate their structures. There's this multi-instrumentalist Yvette Young - she's a sweet, funny Cancer/Leo mix but her Moon is in Capricorn. She used to be a competitive pianist but the pressure that was put on her has led her to severe health issues. Like yes, she’s now an extremely talented musician - thanks to family’s expectations & a rigid schooling system (Saturn) but it did cost her a lot. She has recovered since then but I think it's a perfect example of this energy. It’s very ambitious and hardworking but emotionally demanding in the sense that you have to actually put your emotions aside in order to deal with the rest. Another thing, because Moon can be associated with family, there's often a weird dynamic surrounding this topic. I don't think I've met a Capricorn Moon that had a completely healthy and happy relationship with their fam or one of the family members. Or, alternatively, there can be a strong bond between one of them but usually created in the atmosphere of hardships.

Last but not least, Cancer Moons. I had three school friends with this placement and all of them made this sad, whiny face as they said „oh I don’t knoooow anymoreee”  when they were feeling torned or frustrated. To be fair, two of them are water Suns so for them, it added to the mushyness. All Cancer Moons I know are family people or better yet, baby people. One of those school friends is now a guidance counsellor, working with kids; the other turned her instagram into a gallery of her own child after she gave birth. So much kid content, omg. There’s also something very indecisive about them… or I should say, hesitant. They’re not very fast at making decisions. Also, what’s interesting, they’re kind of like walking libraries, they remember a lot – so they store a lot of information in their brains just like air signs but they process it in a completely different way – emotional, obviously. I think this also makes them hold grudges a lot. For them it’s more of a question of „how does it make me feel?” rather than „how valid is it?”. There’s certain stubborness in them in that regard because they don’t keep their minds open. It’s also hard for them to walk away from people and situations, like a crab pinching you with its claws – it won’t let go. Sensitive but not easy to open up; very protective of themselves and their loved ones & they tend to shut down in their crab shells. But they may crave connection and the feeling of belonging. Also very caring and with a big imagination. They’re very receptive of their environment so mood swings are a thing for them.

[rainbowsky]

Drag, Gender Identity and Queer Culture

I have gotten a lot of asks about AC's gender identity. Rather than answer those individually I'm going to discuss a few related topics that are relevant when considering such a question.

CW - Discussion of transphobia, homophobia, sex and misogyny.

A Sample of the Kind of Ask I've Been Getting

I hope this person doesn't feel singled out, but this ask just happens to incorporate elements of most of the comments and questions I've been getting into one short, convenient blurb so it was the easiest one to include here. It might be helpful for readers to get a glimpse into the thought process some people are having around this issue.

I had no idea AC usually wears dresses while dancing (amazing)!!! AC also often posts with captions like "sisters!" so I am wondering if they might be transgender? I know AC has said on SDC that Ibuki is the queen and AC is the king, but I wonder how much of that has been dictated by the show writers (or... the government). I just really hope that AC isn't having to suppress who they are to be on the show! I was a bit worried after the more "masculine" haircut following the new law, even though it's definitely still cute af. AC and Ibuki are both queens in my heart!!! ❤️👑

In general people have been pointing to AC's dancewear, his mannerisms and style of dance, his Weibo post about getting his hair cut, his way of speaking and Ibuki's tendency to refer to him in feminine terms, as signs he might be transgender.

People have expressed confusion, uncertainty and curiosity, but overwhelmingly the common thread has been of support for AC regardless of his identity or expression. I have to say that, questions aside, it's just always nice to find messages of support for queer identities in my inbox.

(See edit at end of post for an update on this).

Disclaimer

I am speaking here about what I know of queer history and dance history around styles/scenes that emerged from the US decades ago. These styles/scenes have spent many years travelling the globe and being influenced by other scenes and cultures, some of which I have almost no access to.

Information about the scenes in Asia - especially in China - is hard to come by. There will likely be gaps in my knowledge and some incorrect assumptions. I am also not directly involved in the waacking scene, nor do I personally know anyone who is, so there are limitations to my insight.

In other words, don't take this as the whole, or wholly accurate, story. I'm sharing ideas that I think might be helpful to others, but those ideas can only ever be a reflection of my own experience and perspective. If you find an error or omission, please let me know.

Some Key Terms

Transgender person - Someone whose gender identity does not match the sex they were assigned at birth.

Cisgender person - Someone whose gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth.

Sex assigned at birth - The sex people determined us to be before/when we were born; usually 'male' or 'female'. Almost always based on nothing more than a quick glance at our genitals.

Gender identity - The gender we experience within ourselves. Who we feel we are inside.

Gender dysphoria - The feeling of discomfort and distress that comes from being perceived and/or forced to live as a gender that one doesn't identify with. Not all transgender people experience dysphoria.

Gender expression - The ways in which our clothing, styling, mannerisms and way of speaking express or explore gender. This is entirely separate from gender identity or assigned sex.

Sexual orientation - Who we are sexually or romantically attracted to. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with gender identity. Contrary to what is taught in some cultures or societies, our gender does not determine our sexual orientation. Who we love is entirely independent of gender.

Gender roles, norms and stereotypes - The expectations and assumptions society places upon people based on their gender. For example, "Women love babies and baking, men love tractors and lifting weights." I talk about that in more detail here.

Drag - When someone plays with gender as part of an entertainment or performance. Usually involves a man performing as a female character or a woman performing as a male character, but anyone can perform drag regardless of their gender or the gender of the character they're playing.

Homophobia is Misogyny in Disguise

I've talked about this a fair bit in the past. Male gender role expectations, as we know them in Western culture, were developed in direct opposition to all things feminine. They are built upon the notion that women are peripheral, inferior and subordinate, while men are central, superior and dominant.

Men are expected to be strong, tough and hard-edged not because those are 'such great qualities to have', they are expected to be those things because that's how a 'real man' differentiates himself from women. Men are men not because of what they are, but rather because of what they are not: women. Conventional gender norms state:

Women are soft, pretty, delicate, emotional, nurturing, dreamy, relationship-focused and passive, with the home as their domain.

Men are hard, rugged, tough, rational, disciplining, pragmatic, task-focused and dominant, with the world as their domain.

A man who wants to be a man needs to reject all feminine qualities and interests and dig into everything masculine. He can't cry, he can't be gentle and sweet, he can't nurture and support others, he can't follow other people's lead, he can't look polished or worry about his appearance, he can't be in any way fragile or tender.

Queer men aren't hated because they fuck other guys, they are hated because they embody aspects of femininity.

A man who fucks another man isn't automatically viewed as transgressing manhood. Every hot-blooded man can understand wanting to stick your dick into something and, in a pinch or if the mood strikes you, why not a pretty man? That doesn't make you gay, it makes you a virile man. (Or so the thinking goes).

However, a man who takes another man's cock is basically a woman. A man who sucks another man's cock is basically a woman (incidentally, a 'real man' doesn't go down on a woman, either, that's too subordinate). A man who wants to love and kiss and marry another man is basically a woman. A man who partners with men when there are beautiful women available is basically a woman.

A man who plays with fashion, with delicate mannerisms and tone of voice, with makeup and hair and language, with movement and dance in the context of fashion - such a man is basically a woman.

Queerness is one of the most serious transgressions against the patriarchal social order. That's what makes it so powerful. That's what makes drag and other aspects of queer culture so powerful. It's why queer men find these things so empowering. They are taking back their right to be whoever they want be. They're breaking down the walls that society is trying to box them into. They are saying 'fuck you' to the social order that oppresses them.

The Waacking Scene

Waacking started in LA gay clubs in the 70's, where primarily people of color (latino, black, asian), influenced by disco and funk styles, incorporated dramatic moves and poses from magazines, movies and TV to create a powerful new style of dance. This style had deep roots in drag, and was inspired by drag performers who would strike poses to the beat of the music.

Waacking was an act of defiance against the oppression and erasure these gay men were experiencing in their daily lives. In fact, in the beginning it was called 'punking', a reclamation of the term 'punk' which was at the time a homophobic term used against flamboyant gay men.

The spirit of waacking is 'be yourself - show your true self', and it is a safe place for dancers to express themselves and defy gender roles. It's common for waackers - both male and female - to incorporate drag elements into their performances, and it's common for male dancers to be referred to in feminine terms such as 'queen', 'princess', 'sister', 'girl', etc. by their fellow performers.

This is also common in drag circles and in queer circles in general. More on that later.

Drag vs Transgender

Many people find the distinction between drag and transgender confusing. If you are one of those people, I hope this clears things up for you.

Drag

Drag has a long history that goes back to the earliest days of theatre, when men or young boys would perform the female roles. Drag is a form of entertainment that plays with, subverts and performs gender in ways that are often unexpected, humorous or artistic.

Over the years drag became an empowering way for queer people to explore and express aspects of their identities that were being suppressed by mainstream culture. By taking on appearance and mannerisms that did not match the gender roles they were being shoved into in their daily lives, queer people were able to liberate themselves from those roles in big, dramatic ways.

This can be especially powerful for queer men. Societal expectations of manhood are extreme in ways that are often overlooked. Especially in terms of appearance and mannerisms.

While it's commonplace to see women in baseball caps, jeans and work boots, it is extremely uncommon to see men in makeup, skirts and high heels. For a lot of queer men, drag can be a powerful way to push back against the often suffocating gender norms that are enforced upon them.

The euphoria drag performers describe feeling when they perform is often about a sense of belonging, empowerment and fun. They describe feeling a sort of 'high' from the experience. One of the most common things first time drag performers talk about is the euphoria of putting themselves out there and getting so much support and acceptance from the community, the audience and their friends.

This acceptance and support can be a powerful feeling for men who have been raised to believe doom will rain upon them if they ever express any femininity (i.e. most men).

Drag is often silly, exaggerated and tongue-in-cheek, but the support and safety of these spaces is Serious Business.

For performers, drag is about being playful, having fun and breaking down labels and expectations. Focusing on whether you think the performer is gay, straight, bisexual, cisgender or transgender misses the entire point of the performance. Drag is about freedom from all of those things.

Drag is also not about 'performing womanhood', it's about 'performing a character'. It is about developing and creating a persona through which to examine and break down stereotypes and expectations around gender and sexuality. There is a widespread misconception that drag is just a way for gay men to satirize women, and that couldn't be farther from the truth.

Transgender

When each of us is born, we are assigned a sex - male or female - based on a quick glance at our genitals. If someone is lucky, that sex matches how they feel inside about their gender identity and they will go on in their lives having their gender identity affirmed and validated through the way people speak to or about them, the ID they are issued, the expectations placed upon them, etc.

If someone is unlucky, that sex will not match how they feel inside about their gender identity and they will go on in their lives having their gender identity undermined and invalidated through the way people speak to or about them, the ID they are issued, the expectations placed upon them, etc..

Transgender people will often come to a point in their lives where they have to face the tough decision of whether to continue living the way they have, or to transition to begin living as the gender they identify as. This can often mean completely upending their lives, and/or being rejected by friends, family and colleagues who are unwilling to let go of the perception of that person as the gender they were assigned.

These struggles are often a matter of life or death for transgender people. A recent study on suicide rates among adolescents gives us a glimpse into how serious the issue is.

The study looked at 11-19 year old adolescents over a 36 month period. 14% had reported attempting suicide. An examination of the percentage of kids attempting suicide from each gender identity group is shocking and heartbreaking.

50.8% Female-to-male transgender

41.8% Non-binary

29.9% Male-to-female transgender

27.9% Questioning

17.6% Cisgender female

9.8% Cisgender male

Many transgender people experience gender dysphoria - a feeling of unease, discomfort or distress from being perceived and treated as a gender they do not identify with. Dysphoria varies widely in terms of type and degree. There are many cases where it is so severe that it can drive people to suicide. For many people, transitioning to live as the gender they identify with can cure that dysphoria.

As you can see, this is a very different thing from drag or drag performance. Transgender people aren't 'playing with gender' or even 'exploring or subverting gender', they are grappling with identity, with how they are treated and perceived in the world, and often with their very lives.

For trans people, dressing and taking on the characteristics of gender is a matter of survival, and a matter of affirmation of who they are inside. Bringing their identities as human beings out into the world so they can experience harmony between who they are inside, and how they are treated and perceived by the world around them.

The euphoria described by transgender people when they are recognized and treated as the gender they identify with is deep and powerful. A sense of rightness, of harmony between how they feel inside and how they are perceived. A feeling of having a bone-deep itch finally scratched. They describe feeling joyful, confident, optimistic for the future.

This is why it is so important for us to support and affirm gender identities, and advocate for proper health care and human rights for transgender people. Words can have a big impact on people, trans or not, and trans people are some of the most vulnerable in our communities.

If transgender people take on the visual cues and fashion of a particular gender, it is to affirm their very identity. That identity is not something they can take off or on like a costume. Even when a drag performer has deep identity needs they are exploring through drag, they are still creating and performing a persona, whereas trans people are living their true identities.

Queer Culture in Other Regions

I have limited access to information about queer culture in mainland China, but as far as I can tell, queer identity politics are quite different in China than they are in North America. People are much less likely to identify strongly in an alphabet soup (LGBTQPAI2+++) sort of way like people in the west tend to do. In China it's common for people just refer to and think of themselves as 'not straight' and leave it at that.

- Sidebar -

I vastly prefer that approach over the whole alphabet soup thing. I dislike the increasing atomization of community that happens as more, and more individualized, identity divides are created. I understand why some people have found those divides necessary, but they still sadden me.

Not only do I feel they separate people into smaller and smaller isolated silos, but they also lead to people being increasingly defined by specific aspects of their queerness in ways that feel - to me - unnatural, constrictive and alienating.

Labels often become a crutch both for the labeller and the labelled, and they become a lens through which we view ourselves and each other. One that often obscures and distorts as much as it reveals.

I think we all have a natural tendency to react to things based on our own experience. However, it's useful to consider cultural context and remind ourselves that different people in different parts of the world might approach things in a different way. Things that we might take as signs and cues in our own community might mean something entirely different somewhere else. Even where the meaning is the same, the weight or significance given to that meaning might be dramatically different.

The Queer Tradition of Language Subversion

Throughout history queer people have used language to:

Protest and subvert social expectations around oppressive gender norms (for example, gay men calling themselves queens).

Bond with other queer people via a shared playfulness and sense of freedom around gender (for example, gay men calling each other 'sister' or 'girlfriend').

Protect themselves from discovery and/or persecution or prosecution (for example, a woman writing a love letter to her girlfriend using a masculine name and pronouns).

Reclaim gendered terms that have been used against them as slurs (for example, Rupaul telling performers, 'You better sissy that walk!").

Freely explore and express aspects of their personality that rigid societal gender norms won't otherwise allow them to (for example, 'linguistic drag' - intentionally putting on a manner of speech that doesn't traditionally match your gender).

This is a common practice across the globe. Queer men referring to each other in feminine terms. Queer women referring to each other in masculine terms. General subversion and manipulation of gendered language both as a form of play and as a political act.

In those circles, linguistic gender bending is accepted and even welcomed. However, a guy wouldn't call his best friend's girlfriend 'honey'. Similarly, it's not considered acceptable for someone from outside of the intimate circle of a particular queer scene to use those gender-play terms. These people refer to each other this way because they have a close intimate relationship.

In fact, when used by people outside that scene, those terms can often be viewed as insults or slurs.

TL;DR

These can be complicated, nuanced issues and even I - someone who spent my entire teen and adult life immersed in the gay club/drag scene - sometimes struggle to find the right footing. It's OK to be uncertain, and OK to ask questions, and it's even OK to get it wrong from time to time.

I can't tell you what's the right approach, I can just tell you what I do, and why.

Assuming gender identity because of gender presentation - particularly in the context of performance of this nature - is a tricky business.

Is AC transgender? I don't know. It's possible. But if he's trans, he doesn’t appear to be out publicly as such. I refer to him in male terms because I don’t feel comfortable going against how he is presenting himself to us as an audience, even though it’s possible that there is more to the story than what we see on SDOC.

I will leave the readers to form their own conclusions and approaches to this. Hopefully everything I've said above will give you food for thought and help you navigate these issues.

I recognize I could have just kept this post short by cutting it down to this last section, but I think it's always useful for people to have a deeper insight into an issue. Particularly when it comes to things like identity, queer culture, etc. in a world where sex education and queer culture education is often lacking.

Edit: AC seems to be increasingly presenting as female in public and in their downtime, so I’ve revised my personal position on this topic. However, I still urge people to go with what feels right for them.

[scuttling]

Interview

Fandom: Criminal Minds Pairing: Aaron Hotchner/Latina OFC Sophie Cortes Word Count: 1,729 Tags: SFW, Pre-relationship, First meetings Summary: Aaron finally gets the greenlight to hire a new agent. Collection: Sophie Cortes timeline, 0-6 Months at the BAU (See Masterlist for reading order) A/N: Sophie and Reid are partners, because I love them! Link to AO3 or read below!

It takes two months for Hotch to convince Section Chief Strauss to open a requisition for a new member in the BAU. There was a lot of paperwork to be filled out, including detailed explanations as to why he felt the team needed another profiler. He thought it was obvious: for all they do work together as a cohesive unit, Morgan and Elle were technically partners, and when she left, Prentiss took her place. Reid doesn’t have a partner, which makes him feel like a third wheel, sometimes.

(He won’t admit to it, but Hotch notices things. It’s kind of his job.)

Needless to say, the position becomes available, but it takes another couple of months—and several interviews—for Hotch to find the right person to fill it.

Agent Cortes comes highly recommended by the Intelligence Section’s unit chief, someone he worked on a case with in his early days at the BAU; she is young, just 29, but she is more than qualified, and the referring agent is someone whose opinion he respects, so he’s hopeful.

Gideon sits in on the interview because he respects his opinion, too, although Hotch will make the final decision.

Cortes is Latina, petite and polite, with a firm handshake, a warm smile, and dark, striking eyes. Gideon looks at her with somewhat passive interest (something only Gideon can pull off) as they go over the highlights of her resume.

“You have bachelor's degrees in Psychology and Sociology, and master’s degrees in Behavioral Science and Criminology, all from the University of Chicago. How did you manage all of that, at your age?” Hotch asks, wondering if maybe she is gifted like Reid.

“A lot of hard work,” she replies, and it’s an answer he likes. “I graduated high school, enrolled in a dual major program and completed the bachelors’ at 22. Then I was hired onto the Chicago Police Department, and I worked there and got my Criminology degree at the same time. The Behavioral Science degree came after; I began it in person, and they let me finish online when I moved here to join the FBI.”

“What interested you about behavioral science?”

“I grew up in a city that was rich with diversity, but I still noticed that certain people were susceptible to falling into certain patterns, and became curious about why we as people do the things we do. I was already interested in criminal justice, so it seemed a natural path to take.” He nods, jots down a couple of notes before looking back up.

“Tell us about your time with the Chicago Police Department.”

“I went through training while finishing my Criminology degree, worked a beat for about six months before being assigned to the Intelligence Unit; my sergeant found value in the way I was able to get people talking, and a large part of my work was with criminal informants. I worked in Intelligence for three and a half years, and for the last two I was on the Tactical Response Team as well.”

“Tactical Response—that’s SWAT?”

“Yes, sir.”

“How did you end up in SWAT?” Gideon asks, speaking up for the first time; she looks over at him for the first time, as well. “I mean no offense, you’re clearly more than capable, you’re just… small.” She gives him a brief smile.

“Well, there was a hostage situation, the team leader determined that we could get a vantage point from an air duct... and I was the only one who fit.”

“You don’t seem resentful of that,” Hotch notices, a bit surprised. It’s not an origin sorry everyone would be proud of. Her eyes turn back to him.

“I find it’s more important what you do with your time somewhere than how you got there. I contributed to many successful responses over the course of two years that had nothing to do with my size.” It is a great answer, and he holds back a smile of his own, simply nods.

“So you left Chicago to join the bureau; did you have your sights set on any department in particular?”

“I was torn between Language Analysis and Intelligence and ended up somewhere in the middle.”

“Intelligence because of your background, why Language Analysis?” Gideon asks.

“I speak 6: English, Spanish, and Italian as my native languages, plus Russian, French, and German. I have an ear for them.”

“Impressive,” Gideon says, nodding, lips pressed together. Cortes smiles, modest.

“It’s helpful; more than 30% of the population of Chicago speaks a language other than English at home.” Hotch does crack a smile at that, because the statistic reminds him of Reid.

“How would you describe your current role with Intelligence?”

“The official title is Intelligence Liaison. I’m part of a team that travels domestically and internationally, to law enforcement or government agencies, to debrief them on threats we’ve identified, or potential threat activity, and to help them formulate offensive countermeasures.” There is a lot of experience there that would translate well to the BAU, that much is clear. If anything, she may be overqualified, but they would never turn down the help.

“What’s the most frustrating part of your job?” It’s a question he always throws in, because true frustrations—and how one handles them—can say a lot about a person.

“When they don’t listen and people die. I do my best to make sure it doesn’t happen often.” He looks up from the form to the woman, who, in that moment, shows the things she’s seen all over her face. They’re gone from one blink to the next, and he breaks eye contact to choose his next question. No follow up needed there.

“It sounds like you have experience interacting with law enforcement, which is important here at the BAU. We can’t work on a case unless we are invited by the agency with jurisdiction, so maintaining healthy relationships is vital. We have a communications liaison who deals directly with police departments, sheriff’s stations, FBI field offices, and the media, but knowing how to handle them is a big part of the job.” It’s not a question as much as a confirmation, and she nods.

“I’m confident in my ability to interact with other law enforcement in a direct but respectful way. It’s something I’ve done a lot of as Intelligence Liaison.” He has one final question, and though he’s already more than pleased with the interview, the answer will make or break his decision.

“Why the BAU?”

“Curiosity is what got me interested in behavioral science, but it’s empathy that makes me interested in the BAU. My current work helps to save lives, but it’s all very large scale, and it can be detached, cold. I can be detached and impartial when I need to be, but I can’t deny it would feel like a better use of my skill set to make a more tangible difference.” He agrees, can already tell that she would thrive in the environment of their unit, and it’s just the kind of answer he’s looking for; he takes a few more notes, glances over at Gideon for input.

“Anything else you’d like to ask?”

“I think we’ve covered it,” he says, and he stands abruptly, which makes Agent Cortes stand as well. Hotch follows suit. “Nice to meet you. He’ll be in touch,” Gideon adds, shaking her hand briefly and leaving the room. She is left looking a little lost, and Hotch steps around the desk.

“I apologize for him, he’s a little…”

“Capricious?” she offers with a smile, and he laughs lightly.

“That’s accurate, actually. Please don’t take it personally.”

“I won’t. I’ve heard a lot about him, so he kind of lives up to my expectations.” She tilts her head, looking curious. “You don’t, though. Unit Chief Roberts told me you would be stoic; I expected someone much more aloof, but you’re actually rather warm.” He is a bit surprised by her directness, even more so that she would find him... warm.

“I doubt that my colleagues would agree with your assessment,” he says, thinking of the number of less than kind words used to describe him in the past. She just smiles again.

“I guess you really do need me on your team, then.”

He finds it hard not to agree.

“There are a few more things we’ll need from you, such as a psychological evaluation, recent performance reviews, a physical. I’ll be in touch with Agent Roberts, and then you, if we determine you are the right fit. I’ll see you out,” he adds, gesturing to the door, and she follows. The team, who was not yet in the bullpen when she arrived, looks on, curious, as they head to the glass double doors.

“Thank you for the opportunity to interview. I hope to hear from you soon,” she says with another firm handshake, and he nods.

“We’ll be in touch. It’s a pleasure to have made your acquaintance.”

“Likewise, Agent Hotchner.” She gets onto the elevator, and he heads back to the bullpen, stops specifically at Reid’s desk, though everyone is nearby.

“Congratulations, Reid: you’ve officially got a partner.” Reid smiles, looking pleased.

“Who is she?”

“Special Agent Sophia Cortes. She currently works for Intelligence. Bachelors’ in Psychology and Sociology, Masters’ in Criminology and Behavioral Sciences. Fluent in six languages. Got her start at Chicago PD like you, Morgan—Intelligence there too. And SWAT.”

“SWAT?” Morgan echoes, impressed. “She’s gotta be 5’2” out of those heels.”

“She’s got glowing reviews from her superiors there, and from her unit chief: he called her resilient, determined, empathetic, a team player. She’s good at communicating with law enforcement, victims, even unsubs. The BAU is the right place for her. We’ll just be waiting on paperwork to make it official.” He crosses his arms, leans back against the filing cabinet. “I’d have introduced you, but she doesn’t know she’s being offered the job just yet.”

“She must have made quite an impression on you for you to decide on the spot,” Prentiss says, and he nods his head in agreement.

“I think she’ll fit in well. I saw a little bit of each of you in her, and she’s very…” He tries to think of one word to sum up the woman he just interviewed, and decides with a half-smile: “warm.”

[duchess-of-mandalore]

Hey! I loved your Ben nickname analysis, I’ve always wondered where that came from! I was wondering, do you have any thoughts on the dichotomy of Bo Katan and Satine’s names? Like, they’re not remotely similar-sounding and tbh the style of Bo’s seems more like Obi Wan’s name than Satine’s. Just curious!

Oh, thank you! Sometimes, I wonder if people find my analyses detailed to the point of being boring, so when someone asks me for more, I'm elated!! You've made my day! (And I hope you enjoy my conclusion!)

This is something that I’ve always wondered as well. Bo-Katan just doesn't feel like it has the same aristocratic feel that Satine has, and I've always wondered if there's a reason behind their names.

First, I just want to say that I think it's a coincidence that Bo-Katan and Obi-Wan's names are more similar in structure. They come from different planets and different cultures which influence their languages differently. My headcanon for Obi-Wan's name is that Stewjon is basically space Scotland. People are identified by a patronym starting with the prefix "ken" to show their clan or family line. So Obi-Wan is literally "Obi-Wan of Clan Obi" or "Obi-Wan, Son of Obi." In a society like that, "Obi" would probably be a popular first name, so "-Wan" is an additional identifier so that they can keep all of the Obis straight!

But back to our Mandalore sisters:

CW writer Henry Gilroy named Satine but has never mentioned what the inspiration behind that was. He still maintains that it's complete coincidence that she bears the same name as Ewan McGregor's love interest from Moulin Rouge, but even Dave Filoni finds that hard to believe!

Dave Filoni named Bo-Katan as a funny portmanteau of his wife's name and her cat's nickname:

The name "Bo-Katan" was created by Filoni as a nod to his wife's cat. Filoni's wife, Anne, calls the cat "boogie," and Filoni derived "Bo-Katan" from "boogie-cat-Anne."

It might be tempting to say that Dave created Bo-Katan without any thought to the Kryze family (since she was a character in Season 4 before being revealed to be Satine's sister in Season 5). However, Dave said that he always had it in mind that Bo was Satine's sister (however, he opted not to tell George Lucas until after Anna Graves and Katee Sackoff worked together on The Lawless, and George agreed that the two characters would work as sisters). So ... all that is to say that it was Dave's intention to have these two be sisters, in spite of their rather discordant names (and different accents).

-

So using Mando'a, can we come up with meanings for Satine and Bo-Katan?

As I mentioned in my other post, Satine sounds like the Mando'a word saviin [sah-VEEN], meaning violet. The word sarad [SAH-rad] means flower, so I could see her name having something to do with flowers, which would be appropriate given the Mandalorian lilies that she wears, and considering that flowers so often have a connotation of peace.

How about Bo? I'm playing fast and loose with roots to come up with this, but please consider:

The Mando'a root "bor" is related to words meaning work: - bora [BOH-ra], noun - "job" - borarir [boh-RAH-reer], verb - "to work" - verborir [VAIR-bor-EER], verb - "hire, buy, contract"

And "aka" is related to a whole bunch of fighting words, including: - aka [AH-kah], noun - "mission" - akaan [ah-KAHN] noun - "war" - akaanir [ah-KAH-neer], verb - "to fight"

So how about this?

Let's say the root "bor" contracts to "bo," and that "akatanir" is an older form of the word "akaanir" (which later contracted). Combine them and drop the "ir" verb ending, and you get:

Bo-Katan - "mercenary, warrior" [literally "the war worker," "one whose work is war."]

Huh? Huh?! I kind of like that!

That's not nearly as non-sensical as I though given that I was starting with "boogie-cat-Anne!"

-

So ... why? Why would their parents have given their girls such different names? (Sidenote: in at least two sources, Dave has used the phrase "when Bo and Satine were six-years-old" to describe a particularly formative experience they had. That implies to me that they're probably twins, which carries its own relevance in the world of Star Wars).

Even though he wasn't mentioned in Clone Wars, we know that Bo and Satine's father, Duke Adonai Kryze, was a great warlord and the leader of Clan Kryze. It doesn't surprise me then that he'd give his daughter a name that means "warrior."

So if that's the case, Satine's name may be more of the outlier, but I think that can be explained as well (though this is more of an assumption than canon). In the Legends Mandalorian culture, there was a clan culture that included a bit of a hierarchy, but it wasn't rigid or defined by class. However, Clone Wars established that the Mandalorians (or at least the New Mandalorians) have an aristocratic class (there's Duke Adonai, Duchess Satine, Lady Bo-Katan, and Prince Tal Merrik, from what we see). Some fans have assumed that the Mandalorian aristocracy came about because some Mandalorians (not necessarily pacifists) were influenced by Core World cultures that also had aristocratic societies.  

In any case, Satine's more aristocratic name could be reflective of the Republic influence that her father had subscribed to, while Bo-Katan's name may reflect his continued commitment to what he saw as "true" Mandalorian culture.

If that's true, it feels like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Adonai Kryze literally named his twin daughters "war" and "peace" ... and his daughters absolutely lived into those names.

[kerra-and-company]

Hey there, I hope you're having a great day! I'm probably late to the party, but for the planet asks - would you want to give us Pluto for one of your characters? ^w^

I am in fact having a pretty good day, thanks! And I hope you are too! :) Don't worry, you're not that late, and I'd be happy to--I saw that you enjoyed my Cio post yesterday, so let's give these a shot for her! (Thank you by the way!! <3)

𝟏𝟎.   𝐏𝐋𝐔𝐓𝐎   !

( 𝗌𝗒𝗆𝖻𝗈𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖾𝗌   : transformation,   power,   death,   rebirth,   evolution. )

what   does   ‘ power ‘   mean   to   your   muse   ?   and   how   important   is   it   to   them   ?   is   death   something   that   frightens   them   ?   how   do   they   handle   death   ?   do   they   believe   in   reincarnation   ?   rebirth   doesn’t   necessarily   mean   dying   and   being   reborn   as   another   person   or   thing,   it   can   also   mean   something   as   simple   as   changing   something   drastic   about   themselves,   so   do   they   believe   a   person   can   truly   change   ?   transform   their   flaws   and   be   reborn   as   a   better   person   ?

Cioffi:

Power can mean many different things, but the most relevant to Cio are these: control over your own life, control over others, magical power, and political power (there's a bit of overlap there, but yeet). As for how important it is to her, she has yet to meet a politician she trusts (Cio is not a fan of the Arcane Council), and she's wary of those who openly claim to have great magical power. Some of them are mostly fine, if arrogant, but better to be safe than sorry, in her experience. She has fought hard for control over herself and her life and values that very highly, but she doesn't crave a leadership position in the Priory or the Pact, which, funnily enough, is partially why she ends up with one.

On the topic of death, Cio's parents died in front of her--rather violently, actually--but she was only about two years old and was too young to remember. She grows up recognizing death as loss and as something that hurt her older brother, but she's not personally scarred by it. The first person she truly loses is Sieran, at Claw Island, and it cuts very, very deep. She handles it as well as she can, which isn't particularly well, and "deals with" reminders of it during HoT by pretending she isn't phased by any of the deaths there at all. It takes a bit for her to learn how to grieve in a way that's healthy. If she lost someone now, it would still cut deep, but she'd deal with it at least a little bit better.

Cio's view on change comes from a very scientific source--reactions are transformations, not erasures. She believes it's very much possible to change, but you'll never become an entirely different person. You're still you, you're still a person who has done XYZ things, but you can learn from that and grow more until that's more your starting point than anything else. (This doesn't mean she's always going to forgive people who make mistakes, but it does mean that if someone's put in the work to do better she'll take that into account and consider it.)

Also, sorry in advance but this prompt is forcing me to write a tiny Cio on Claw Island drabble thingy, so if you want angst, check under the cut. Claw-Island-typical warnings for it.

Cio hammers against her friend's arms with her fists. She can feel them glowing, glowing, burning--a distant part of her recognizes that she must be hurting Nisha, but xe doesn't let go, and she can't stop.

"If we have to run, come with us."

Her throat is already sore from screaming, and it tangles with the moans and shuffling of Risen on the docks. Nisha ducks and spins around the dragon minions as their companions' blades and arrows cut them down, unable to fight but unwilling to let her go.

"There's too many of them. We have to stay. You have to get back and warn the Priory, the other orders, Lion's Arch."

Cio's eyes are fixed on the gate. It's closed, it's closed, but she could get it open, she could blow it open, it's not that far away, she could go if she ran if she was let down she could save--

She's unsure which words she's yelling and which she's thinking. She doesn't care.

"Let the others stay!" It's selfish, she knows it as she says it, but--

A hammer flies toward her face, covered in muck and dirt and blood. Nisha moves away just in time for it to catch xem on the shoulder instead. It must hurt, but the tall sylvari is silent, the only sign of pain a stiffness and a shudder that shakes Cio's entire body.

"Three have a better chance, and you know it, Ci."

"Let me go," she hears herself plead, rough and broken. Her throat hurts. She opens her mouth again. "Let me go, Nish, let me go--"

An arrow flies past her face, burying itself in the Risen's head, and it collapses with a rattling exhale of air.

"Whether it's one, two, or three, you have no chance, please, I--"

"Let me go!" It's a hoarse cry rather than a scream. Her voice failing her, she thrashes and thrashes and thrashes, but Nisha holds her with both arms, and xyr grip stays strong.

"I always wanted to fall in love just once before I died."

Somehow they've reached the boat, now, and Nisha flings the two of them onto the deck, curling up in a corner around Cio and holding her as still as xe can.

Their companions follow, faces Cio will identify later--Trahearne, the Firstborn, dragging an injured Lionguard soldier; the young Warmaster, with tears streaming down her face and a staff that looks too big for her; and the Lightbringer, the other sylvari, whose eyes are fierce and angry and broken as she shoots Risen after Risen with arrows like targets at a firing range.

"Sieran, please--"

The ship pulls away from the docks. It's too slow and too fast all at once but whichever it is, Cio can feel it, and the toes of her boots thud against the deck in a last-ditch escape effort.

"I'm so glad I got to love you."

"SIERAN!" Cio's voice shatters on the name. A breaking. A letting go.

She stops struggling. She'll notice later that she's left scorch marks on the deck planks.

I love you too, she whispers to a ghost.

[the-lightning-strikes-again]

VLD S8 – The Purpose of Lance’s Altean Markings, Allura’s Canonically Inconsistent “Death,” and Voltron’s Mysterious Interstellar Road Trip in the End: Are Things Really As They Seem?

Hello dear ones, I received asks to follow up on my previous post about Allura’s capability to live a very long life if she hadn’t died in s8. I’d mentioned in this post that Alfor had connected Allura’s life force to the indestructible Voltron, and that this had significant implications for Lance’s strange Altean marks and Allura’s “death” in s8. So this is me, attempting to follow up on those requests! 

Let’s start with those strange marks. It seems like a lot of us who have watched Voltron: Legendary Defender season 8 scratched our heads over Lance receiving Altean marks at all:

This event happens when Allura and the paladins are standing in the “connected consciousness of all existence”—which is this…Mother-Brain realm for every consciousness that ever existed ever. Allura is preparing to sacrifice herself alongside Honerva, because they both have to give of their energy to regenerate the fallen multiverse. Honerva is already accepting of this and already interacting with her dead family whose minds and forms are preserved within the Mother-Brain space. It seems, even so, Honerva is still alive because she hasn’t yet completed the foretold Wild Sacrifice Move of Ultimate Alchemy alongside Allura: 

The Big Boom of Life happens after this point, so there’s something fascinatingly screwy about this realm. The typical separations between the Living and the Death are just…totally meaningless. We’re actively seeing a living Honerva physically interact with the minds and forms of her fallen son and husband. And if this Mother-Brain location truly preserves the consciousness of all existence, then I suppose it actually makes sense to me that Allura and Honerva could still be alive themselves while also being able to interact with the Dead who are preserved within this realm…

But Allura—she turns to the paladins and tells them that they’re all about to experience a massive fragmentation from her. It seems pretty heavily suggested that she’s going to die. In doing so, she kisses Lance and then gives him Altean marks: 

And the first question I have is….whyyyy the marks? What the heck was that for? Because I think it’s really weird that she’d just give Lance the most visually identifying mark for her own species. At least, I think it’s weird on the surface. The more important question may lie within Allura’s motives...and that gets into some much larger implications for ways to view those marks and the show’s ending. Some of the theories I’ve seen about those marks:

Theory 1: Lance as Trans-Species to Preserve Allura’s Species and/or Allura Giving Lance Some Unknown Gift/Power

I want to bring this up because it appears to be a largely accepted theory that I’m now heavily questioning. I’m not sure who first vocalized this understanding of canon, but Neko Chicana offers the theory in their Youtube video “Why did Lance get Altean markings!?” The theory is that in Allura’s last-minute panic about dying, she was trying to ensure The Chosen Altean vibes got passed down. This would mean that Allura infused Lance with deep Altean powers to inherently change him from being human into being a trans-species human/Altean.

But I struggle with this interpretation, because…she already had an entire colony of Alteans, many of whom clearly were presenting with high quintessence sensitivity and would have been even potentially fit for Oriande. And it’s not like Lance was going to know how to apply alchemy without learning it anyway.

In terms of the transformation itself, it’s incredibly superficial. It’s a face-lift and that’s it, as Lance never exhibits any other features of a standard Altean. And not just from a visual perspective, but also from a physiological one. He definitely is not shown suddenly freaking out over having alchemy powers. He isn’t shown connecting with anything on the astral plane. I would even posit that he appears to be aging right alongside his fellow humans, given his more adult/less baby-face facial structure in the epilogue, just like everyone else:

This article here seems to contain a similar level of skepticism about a genuinely trans-species Lance. 

And what would even be the point of converting Lance to have a token visage of Alteans, if Allura knows that his true heart and soul lies with his human family? Just by Allura’s reaction of disgust to his rounded ears in season 1, it seems pretty obvious that other Alteans would see him as “other.” If anything, a trans-species interpretation overly complicates the show here and generally can’t provide a self-contained, meaningful reason for its existence at all. 

Theory Two: The Markings as a Token of a Lost Lover/Remembrances

Another suggestion has been that Allura gives Lance such markings just as…a reminder? Of herself? But I don’t feel this at all makes sense with seven previous seasons of her character behavior.

Allura is shown consistently trying to sacrifice herself and her things at all costs, without anything in return or demanding that people remember her. She did it in season 1 to regenerate a Balmera, knowing full well she could die. But we don’t see her asking Coran to sing a pretty song for her. She sacrifices herself again for Shiro, by tossing him out of the way of Galran soldiers, without even begging that he come back for her. She sacrifices herself in Oriande to the White Lion. She sacrifices her crown in season 7 to stabilize Shiro. She even gives up her dresses and her station as a princess in order to better fit in with the humans in season 7. It’s not inherent in Allura’s character to demand anything in return for her sacrifices, much less that she be remembered for them. As a matter of fact, she’s very particular about ensuring that other people get recognized for their actions, and she’ll often place her own good work as part of a “whole” accomplished by the many. Here’s an example from season 6, episode 1:

So here we see her raising up other people and their contributions rather than demanding some offering or worship for her actions.

Princess Allura doesn’t even hold a grudge for Keith being accepted as Black Paladin or Lance as Red Paladin in s3, despite the fact that she secretly cried over it.

So, Allura wanting anything in return for what she sacrifices, or trying to intentionally drag down someone’s spirit for her own comfort, is not inherent to her character. If anything in s8, Allura consistently seems to want the paladins to move on without her:

In response to the emotional distress of the other paladins, she doesn’t give them an everlasting token to memorialize herself, but instead gives encouragement for the future:

And even Shiro! He warns her that she’s about to become the multiverse’s most anonymous hero:

And Allura’s response to this?

So Princess Allura went into this s8 self-sacrifice, fully expecting that the paladins would keep her actions totally secret. She was completely and utterly prepared to accept the very reality that Lotor had threatened her with in season 6:

So literally the only reason in s8 that anyone remembers Princess Allura…is because the paladins choose to honor her memory despite her stated sentiments against it:

So…all of this is to say, I don’t think it makes sense to assume that suddenly, Allura would want to forever keep Lance from moving on. She’s literally handed them her blessing to move on, and suggested that they even hide what she’s done. It’s the paladins who choose to remember her. So I think there’s a lot of evidence to suggest against an interpretation where Allura was intentionally trying to mark Lance to be her forever-doomed lost love. It’s completely inconsistent with other surrounding details about who Allura is.

I think there’s instead evidence to suggest a new theory about these marks. And if anyone’s suggested this before, please feel free to jump in, lol. I’m like, 1.5 years behind the times here, although I did find this article that also would seem to support the theory: 

Theory Three: Lance’s Altean Marks as a Tactical Homing/Location Beacon, Strengthened by His and Allura’s Shared Bonds With Blue Lion

Before she casually walks off to her alleged death, Allura tells Lance, “I’ll always be with you.” And then she gives him the Altean marks:

While I think this “I’ll always be with you” statement has some classic lessen the hurt of impending death vibes, Allura herself actually states she’ll always be with him. How certain are we that she’s not being actually serious? That this isn’t an intentional decision to ensure some kind of ongoing link?

So backing up here, we know from previous seasons that Altean markings can glow, unlike the rest of their body. They appear to glow in response to external stimuli. For example, in season 5, Allura and Lotor’s markings glow because they are within the vicinity of Oriande and have a deep well of quintessence within them. And this glowy activity is discriminatory, because Coran’s marks don’t glow:

Lance’s own markings initially glow when activated by Allura:

So for Lance’s markings to glow at all, that means something is happening. It means that an all-new, external stimulus is making those markings react, and that the magic of it is active. And that Lance is now housing enough magic to react.

That article I linked to earlier suggests that perhaps Allura intended to use the marks as….a communicative link with Lance. However, in a full year since Allura’s disappearance, we see no evidence that Lance has been talking to a mysterious spirit!Allura. He seems pretty depressed, and everyone seems largely accepting of the concept that Allura is dead and also is incapable of interaction.

In which case, if you did have a link to a supposedly dead person, even if you wanted to keep it secret, wouldn’t you at least look a little more…happy? That they’re not actually gone? So something’s a little screwy there too, that makes me think Lance wasn’t in some kind of interdimensional communication with Allura.

But I do think Lance’s markings, and how they glow in response to external power sources in the final episode, suggest something about Allura’s state of being.

So let’s jump in. We know that Allura’s life force is inherently tied to Voltron:

As I’ve mentioned in a previous post of mine: Right in season 1, episode 1, Coran admits that Alfor has done some pretty wild alchemy. He physically connected Allura’s essence with the essence of Voltron—the single source of self-regenerating, infinite quintessence throughout the whole of the entire universe.

I don’t know if a person’s life force being personally connected to Voltron would confer physical immortality, but I do think there’s a lot of evidence to suggest that as long as Voltron exists, Allura’s essence would be preserved within it. And as we saw in season 6, Shiro was capable of interacting with other paladins despite his physical death, because Black Lion had preserved his essence….

All of this backstory and worldbuilding means at the very least that Allura was also capable of linking some part of her quintessence to Lance as well. And that, even if she hypothetically didn’t have a body on the material plane, that she would be very active on the astral one.

So why specifically Altean marks, then?

This isn’t the first time in the show that strangely powerful bonds have been made by the touching of faces and the transfer of energy around Altean marks. As a matter of fact, we might have even seen Alfor actively bind Allura’s life-force with Voltron, right here:

In which case, Allura was simply mimicking the work of her father as she knew it, but on a much smaller scale. Because she knew from her father that it was possible to bond life-forces, and for some reason, that alchemy trick appears to involve the face or else something to do with Altean markings.

So therefore, the activation of this marking “link” and alchemical bond might help to explain why Lance actually appears to be smiling with tears in his eyes when the Voltron lions fly away:

But why even Lance specifically?? What about all the other paladins she’s made connections? What makes Lance so totally special?

It might not be unintentional that, out of all the lions possible, the one to respond to some unknown activator one year later—with massive amounts of quintessence in the bond—is Blue Lion.

Notice that while the other lions are in flight, none of them are glowing like Blue Lion. There’s something inherently special about Blue Lion right now, especially given that it’s not even the leader of the pack.

In this scene, we see the paladins rushing out per all the ruckus. Lance’s markings start to glow:

And then the lions powerfully surge off on their merry, totally unexplained way:

So…in looking back at this, it’s interesting that Lance’s marks are shown glowing in ONLY two instances: 1) When Allura first activates them, and 2) When the marks themselves mysterious activate again in response to Blue Lion glowing outrageously blue, and the lions soaring off into space as well…

Is it a mistake that Lance just so happens to be the only other living Blue Paladin in the universe?

Allura’s life force might have been connected to the full of Voltron, but season 3 shows that her communicative/mental connection to it is through Blue Lion alone. Because Black Lion certainly had nothing to say to her, at the very least.

So Allura’s life force is connected to Voltron…Blue Lion responds to an unknown source of massive, pure quintessence, and then Voltron follows…Lance’s markings start to glow....

Could it be that in order to even re-locate Voltron and the paladins again in the larger scheme of the multiverse, Allura needed Lance’s connection to Blue Lion as well? To keep Allura in spiritual/mental communion with Voltron and with that universe?

With Allura gone and the Atlas portion of Voltron totally missing from Voltron, there’s the hint that possibly the Lion Musical Chairs event has undone itself and reconfigured once more. Blue Lion has re-accepted Lance, with Keith and Shiro piloting Red and Black. The lineup in the screenshot below would suggest that Shiro’s the one in Red this time, resulting in an interesting addition to the Keith and Shiro relationship arc. It suggests that Shiro is now back on the team as an established paladin, as the right hand of the Black Paladin, and is actively supporting Keith’s ongoing growth as a leader:

But if Blue Lion were Allura’s only true connection to “speak” with and interact with Voltron on a material plane, then it would make sense that she would intentionally connect her own life-force to the last Blue Paladin.

Lance, out of all of the paladins and with respect to this lineup shown here, is the only one who would be even remotely capable of ensuring this link in their universe (notwithstanding as well that canonically, Allura was in a romantic relationship with him, which might have something to do with this too, idk).

So what does this mean for Allura’s state of being? What’s exactly happening in this moment? Why do the lions leave their paladins? Is everything truly so pointless and nihilistic?

So Lance’s markings and the exit of the Voltron lions result in what I feel are two interpretations of the entire end of Voltron. And I think one is potentially more consistent with the overall show than the other:

Theory One: Allura Really Died/Shed Her Physical Body/Was Lost to the Material Plane After a Year of Hard Work

So, we do have evidence that the work to restore the full of the multiverse began pretty quickly, and that there was an explosive event to jumpstart it:

We otherwise have no evidence to support that this image meant the work (to restore every thread and all things within the threads) was DONE. Yet. It may have taken an entire year to regenerate the multiverse, which would explain the Voltron lions suddenly reacting strangely after that span of time. If we assume that Allura really died, then this would suggest that—with the overarching multiverses finally totally restored—her energy is spent up. She’s physically dying. And per the extinguishing of her own life force, Voltron….somehow can’t exist on the material plane without her? Because let’s not forget, the whole mecha is connected to her life force. So this interpretation would suggest that in her dying/being unable to remain on the material plane, Voltron itself has to die as well. This could explain why at the end here, they activate to go be with Allura and team in the shiny afterlife party in the Mother-Brain dimension. Lance may be crying here because he feels or recognizes the last of Allura’s energy slipping away. And it’s possible I was misinterpreting his smile earlier, because it’s, idk, maybe a sob.

And there does seem to be some canon support for a potentially permanent break between Allura and the material plane, as well as for why Voltron would leave:

But I’m really struggling to understand the deathy interpretation of these events at the end of s8, from SEVERAL angles, haha.

Strike One:

This scene would appear to blatantly and outrageously contradict previous show worldbuilding. To accept a “death” interpretation, one must also accept that s8 completely rewrites the inherent properties and behavior of quintessence, as well as show details that Alteans/Altean technologies more consistently function as conduits/capacitors of external energy sources rather than as massive batteries by themselves. The true batteries, even into season 7 with Shiro and Atlas, appear to be becoming from sources external to the power-wielder. This reality largely relieves the personal cost of any alchemical action/draining oneself, just so long as you have a powerful enough battery. In which case, given the resources and deep knowledge available to Allura and Honerva even in this apocalyptic moment, any action resulting in physical death feels...unearned.

If you’re interested in more specifically about this, I have a few other posts looking at these basic worldbuilding details:

Question on Quintessence and General Worldbuilding in     VLD S8

The Search for the “Bluest Quintessence” and S6 - The Most     Unnecessary Conspiracy In VLD?

It’s entirely possible I could be missing some information that would reconcile the s8 worldbuilding contradictions about quintessence and Altean energy back to the previous seven seasons. I suppose it’s possible that this s8 regeneration trick resulted in Allura and Honerva being physically unable to handle the amount of power they were conducting. But just after casually re-watching the show, I heavily question whether this is possible or consistent with everything else, haha.

Strike Two:

The concept of Voltron not being needed in a peaceful universe is nonsensical. So this show is telling me that a gigantic mecha capable of massive construction projects and space anomaly protection services couldn’t reorganize its paladins or get new ones, and transition to a new day job? Because Voltron has to exist in a combat theater only? This is wildly myopic, especially considering that Voltron already has a team of five who could pilot it again via a little game of musical chairs…and even the final lineup shown would suggest that Shiro had already taken over Red. I guess if the Galra aren’t attacking?? This must mean that there won’t be any civilizations in need of help or in need of being protected from imminent natural disasters?? At the very least, a new day job would be an incredibly meaningful way to convert Voltron from a war machine to a champion of the people. And it would still give the paladins a reason to come back together as a team and to exercise the bonds they’ve forged together as defenders of the universe.

Strike Three:

After this s8 scene, and even assuming Allura has physically died, Voltron existed before Allura got linked to it. And it existed as a largely infinite and indestructible source of energy. Even if Allura did die, the loss of her personal quintessence was of no account to its existence. The worldbuilding of Voltron as a mecha suggests it didn’t need her to continue existing on the material plane like it had existed before their alchemical link from Alfor. And even if she’d died, taking Voltron’s life-force with her away from the material plane, then why in the world wouldn’t Voltron just…totally power down? Become completely inert with the lights fading from its eyes? But then, oh wait, according to the last seven seasons, Voltron is supposed to be indestructible and constantly self-regenerating even when temporarily drained, so how could it power down forever? Even the concept that Voltron could physically destroy/remove itself from the material world to fully join Allura on the astral plane is an oxymoron.

And even if Allura’s life force was fading out and the Voltron lions are dying too, how in the world could Lance’s Altean markings suddenly even manage to glow in response to an active and powerful external stimulus? And why would the lions themselves suddenly be lighting up and capable of expending massive amounts of energy on a sudden, random interstellar space trip?

Even if the Lions themselves longed to reunite with its dead creator or its missing piece per their Allurian life-force link (despite them clearly not caring when Alfor died or when Allura got put in stasis 10k years ago), this show would have me believe that Voltron wanted to die or give up? And...for what? To lounge about in an afterlife Cabana for Retired Mechas, sipping quintessence drinks while the universe experiences ongoing natural physical disasters or anomalies that could endanger entire galaxies? What if more trans-reality comets fell from the sky? They appear to not be an isolated incident, and where there’s one, there’s usually more…What if that causes more rifts to open? And let’s just assume for a moment that those two comets are the only two trans-reality comets in the multiverse. I guess we can all sleep tight tonight because Voltron is unconcerned that the universe still has several weak stitches between it and the quintessence field, where dark entities and rift creatures roam? Lol, what?

Lotor even confirms these weaknesses in season 4:

“Zarkon believed Alfor’s plan to blow up Daibazaal and destroy the rift between realities actually worked. No one comprehended that the experiments of my mother, Honerva, could never be undone.”

Lotor’s statement here would suggest that after everything that’s happened, it might be even easier to break open rifts. But okay cool, time for Voltron’s retirement/death, I guess. Just leave a peaceful universe to be one day swallowed up and destroyed by shadow rift creatures, dark entities, apocalyptic comets, and natural disasters…

Everything about the Allura/Voltron death theory doesn’t make sense to me and raises more questions than answers. So let’s look at another way of viewing this ending!

Theory Two: Allura Didn’t Die At All—She Just Finished Working for the Year And Needs a Ride Home

The fact that Voltron survives and is activated into movement by an external source of massive, pure quintessence suggests that Allura is likely NOT dead and is STILL ALIVE. In this case, the astronomical undertaking of regenerating a multiverse still took a full year to complete. We do know there’s no major time slippage between the paladin’s universe and the Universal Consciousness realm, because the paladins were seen right back in the heart of establishing/confirming peace when they returned to their universe. And again, s8 also shows people being able to interact on the border between the Living and the Dead, so Allura simply existing within this realm should not be enough to kill her. Because life and death are largely meaningless concepts in this space where all consciousnesses are preserved.

So, if Allura is alive and just finished her work, then oop, now she’s stuck in the middle of Space Nowhere without a certain ride home. So who ya gonna call? Ghostbusters. Voltron is the only ship that Allura has a deep psychical and life-force link to, so it would be within canonical bounds that if she just helped resurrect the multiverse, then surely one hard-working princess could use Lance’s markings (her own life force) to relocate her own universe, and then use that bond on the material plane to call Voltron from across the universe to come pick her up, lol.

I really like this re-interpretation of canon for several reasons:

One, it feels a lot more consistent with the world-building and the overall tone of the show.

Two, it suggests a much happier ending where canon confirms—sort of like the Iron Giant (1999) ending—that Allura would eventually reunite on the material plane with the paladins.

Three, it suggests that there’s been a full one-year span of time where Allura and Honerva were both working together to restore the universe…while in the presence of and even interacting with Alfor, Zarkon, and Lotor, and probably a billion other dead people they thought were gone forever, but who were preserved in form and mind within the Consciousness of the universe. I feel like there’s just LOADs of possible content someone could get out of this. Did Honerva and Zarkon reunite? Did Alfor get to hug his baby girl again? Did Allura and Lotor have a major heart-to-heart discussion about the Altean colony and his quintessence insanity, and positively reconcile? Which, regardless of however you interpret what Lotor’s accused of, Allura had already…exonerated his motives and turned him into, like, a Joan of Arc figure well before she saw him again. And she even wanted Honerva to honor his memory by doing the right thing:

So there’s some clear signs that Allura and Lotor could have reconciled now that there’s no apparent quintessence insanity or witch shenanigans afoot... And it’s very likely that Allura might have even reconciled with the true, uncorrupted Emperor Zarkon himself:

 And in the meantime, what would the paladins of old be like? Were there other victims of this war who would have found it meaningful to interact in some way to obtain justice for themselves…or to obtain something more??

And this gets into reason four of why I like this re-interpretation of the ending. So canonically, mechas created out of the trans-reality comet are infinitely regenerating and indestructible. So not just Voltron, but also the Honervian/Sincline mecha. This suggests that Allura already had a ride home.

So why would Allura need more ships?

This interpretation has the potential to reverse all the painful deaths that happened throughout the show. The original paladins, the Alteans and Galrans who perished for various reasons...Alfor, Bandor, Lotor, Kova…even deaths we didn’t see.

And in calling Voltron back to her, is Allura maybe…planning to bring some new friends with her too? If she already has the Honervian/Sincline mecha to fly home, why does she need all five lions, anyway? Who would pilot them? Who else is waiting patiently in the celestial mind/heart of the multiverse to return to reality with her?

And reason five, on a simpler and maybe less galaxy-brain note, this interpretation provides a completely different context, however apparently sorrowful, for Allura’s canonical goodbyes:

Allura’s path did end here...at least as a paladin of Voltron. Because that position was temporary anyway. Restoring the multiverse was going to be an ultimate act. And there’s probably nothing after this that Allura could perform to outdo herself in saving things, lol. This is the height of everything she is and has worked for. She intentionally identifies this as her purpose:

“It is my purpose.”

Her action in s8 is the full and total culmination of everything she has learned and grown capable of doing since s1. Everything has been leading up to this. It’s her one chance to undo all the universal pain. And through restoring the multiverse, she’d be restoring balance in her own life too—to reconnect with her fragmented past, to give those from her past a chance to live in the new universe with her….

The other paladins, though—they were still needed in the meantime to confirm peace with the Galran empire, to convert it (however questionably) to a democracy, and to establish relations between Earth and other vast galaxies of people. Allura was not wrong that their paths as paladins had not ended. Because she needed them to ensure their universe would be truly at peace while she was up in the stars, working to restore and reconcile with all that had been lost in painful war.

And all of this would ultimately suggest that she would return to the universe, to the paladins, and probably take back the piece of her life force she’d given Lance that ensured a link with Blue Lion. Because…that homing beacon wouldn’t be needed anymore. Perhaps Allura would even consider decoupling the remainder of her life-force from Voltron, to fully reconcile herself to herself. To finally be whole and just Allura again, idk.

The only major problem with the “Allura is Alive and Bringing Some Friends/Family Home” interpretation is that...lol, the development team for the show doesn’t subscribe to it, at least not in any outward way I’ve heard. Based on their March 28, 2019 interview with Let’s Voltron, the executive producers talk about Allura like she’s dead. They say that they wanted to show sacrifice, the impact of death, and how important it is to honor the memory of the dead:

And we definitely feel it. There is a massive weight of loss and memorial in the finale here. Coran looks just this side of totally broken as he remembers Allura, and he didn’t even get a chance to say goodbye. He reiterates just how much Allura means to the people still alive in this universe:

“For some of us she was a diplomat, a teacher, a leader, and a friend. But to those of us around this table, she will always be family.”

The EPs have suggested that, like other shows, there may be ways to resurrect Allura, and there may have been happier endings possible. But again, please see the Theory 1 statements above regarding the massive worldbuilding contradictions when assuming that Allura had to die in the first place.

In which case, hilariously, the EPs have also expressed their interest in creative works that keep going, with plot tensions that require even supposedly dead heroes to return, as in this article here: 

“You can kill Captain America a million times and he’ll always show back up.”

So creator statements are just all over the place regarding the finality of “death” or even of “separation” in this universe. We definitely don’t get a body to prove that Allura is dead. And we also know that canonically, there is a place where the rift between the Dead and Living breaks down. And oh, by the way, Allura just regenerated entire multiverse strands that had been destroyed. So even if it’s not as simple as…holding someone’s hand as they step out of the consciousness realm, what canonical detail or limitation would keep her from resurrecting them herself? It is well within Allura’s canonical range to bring back all of these people without dying herself. 

Conclusion

Regardless of creator intention, the various contradictions in the worldbuilding itself make the angst of Allura’s death, the memorial statue, the lingering pain of the characters (oof, poor Coran and Lance especially), and all the interviews talking about Allura’s death feel excessively unnecessary. And at the same time, I’ve been very fascinated by what one can do with the details about the Consciousness Realm; the inherent properties of comet-based mechas, quintessence, and alchemy; Lance’s strange marks; and even the odd, last-minute Voltron interstellar space trip surging toward the Allura in the stars, with Blue Lion in the lead:

It appears that Allura could be very much alive in the final screenshot of her in the stars. Through Lance and their shared connection via Blue Lion, she’s maintained a homing beacon for her own reality, activated Voltron to complete a massive interstellar trip to come get her and likely several others—and now, she’s faithfully waiting in the Consciousness Realm with everyone, preparing for a family trip back to their resurrected worlds, in their trusty mechas.

I watched s8 on the day it dropped. I was in a daze about all of its wild and painful messaging. I wrote some unhappy metas about the sheer nihilism of this show. It’s taken me, lol, 1.5 years to actually go back and re-watch several episodes at a time. And I don’t believe this interpretation of the ending would fix every problem in Voltron: Legendary Defender. Sometimes, trying to make sense of this show feels like trying to reconcile quantum theory with classical mechanics, haha. So I’m sure one could poke holes in this post. And to even arrive at these conclusions, I had to throw out or reinterpret some of the worldbuilding and scenes, in direct conflict with the stated perspective of the show’s development team.

But even so...I derived most everything for this interpretation from the show itself. And even if the development team didn’t intend this happy ending of resurrections and reconciliations as I’ve suggested…it seems that this finale—at least while I’m thinking about it right now—is canonically possible and an attempt at consistency with the material provided across multiple seasons. It offers resurrections, redemptions, reconciliations...

Its ultimate message even genuinely coincides with the last episode’s title.

The End Is the Beginning.

And I really like that.

[theoniprince]

If you had to pick one name/alias/moniker to go by, fandom-wide, what would it be?

Where, besides Tumblr, can people find you doing fannish things? (Obviously only mention sites and usernames you actually want to be found at. Don’t expose your secret identities on my account.)

What other names have you gone by on these platforms, including Tumblr, if any?

When did you join the IT fandom? And what got you into fandom, to begin with?

What are your favorite ships, or characters, if any, and why? What do they mean to you?

In what ways do you participate in fandom? (ex. Posting memes, reblogging/commenting on content, writing fanfic, making fanart, creating fanmixes, etc.)

Do you have any in-fandom inspirations? Other members of the community that drive you? (And if you have the time/energy, in what ways do they inspire you?)

Name and link some of your favorite works, please!

Do you have any works of your own that you feel particularly proud of, or wish more people would’ve consumed? Please provide links if possible.

Have you ever participated in a fannish event (ie. IT Week, a fic Big Bang) or applied to be a part of a fanzine? If so, which ones, and can you please link them?

Without any form of bashing or lashing out, what is something you feel this fandom is missing?

First of all thank you so much for asking me!!! 8D It was a pleasure to answer all these questions. During this I got quite emotional (haha Stanpat, Eddie). It showed me again how much I love this 8DDD

( I apologize in advance for all misspellings and my sloppy English =_=)

If you had to pick one name/alias/moniker to go by, fandom-wide, what would it be?

Oh, what a start XD I'm not that into nicknames. Generally people using my first name to address me or my username which is mostly onyprince (in reference to a character from Hakuouki) ID Sometimes they say Oni or J(ay) (Nickname for my first name). Do as you wish (though I like ‘J’ the th most) 😉

Where, besides Tumblr, can people find you doing fannish things? (Obviously only mention sites and usernames you actually want to be found at. Don’t expose your secret identities on my account.)

Twitter. But everything I post there is also here. Feel free to follow my account, but you don’t have to. https://twitter.com/oniprince_

What other names have you gone by on these platforms, including Tumblr, if any?

Oniprince_ (Twitter) yeah… you see, I am pretty boring XDDD

When did you join the IT fandom? And what got you into fandom, to begin with?

Actually 23 years ago (haha I am old XD) When I was eleven I saw the miniseries with my cousins for the first time. The horror factor wasn't that important to me or maybe I didn't see it that way. It was more like an adventure story with an unfunny and nasty clown. A group of friends who had to endure an adventure. In any case, it entertained me well, even if I was not aware of some elements like that it’s a story about growing up, friendship, love and all these issues around becoming an adult XDD Then with 13 I read the book. It was a  new experience, and I loved every single word. Over the years I talked with friends and Kingsianer (XD) about it and read it for a second and a third time. At this point I could start a list with things I don’t like about the movies, but I’d rather mention on thing I really appreciate about them: they are a good opportunity for a new generation to explore this universe. Every adaption like the book itself is a reflection of a specific decade and what is more yeah… immortal, universal and diverse than a story about growing up. It was a discussion with a dear friend about book to movie adaptions some weeks ago that probably brought me back to this fandom

Nevertheless there are things from the book I would have loved to see in the movies. Let’s be honest at this point if you want to adapt such a brick of a book you simply have to cut some elements. You can’t please everyone

What are your favorite ships, or characters, if any, and why? What do they mean to you?

Ships:

Stanpat - orz q__q they are such a sweet couple and it is so heartbreaking, they never ever had a real chance to become parents. They would have been excellent parents. Imagine them on a beautiful summer day. They have a picnic with their children and Stan would watch birds with them. He would tell them all about the birds and keeps a journal about their observations with his kids

Reddie - Despite the constant teasing their realtionship seems like a natural, casual und easy thing from the start. And Eddie likes the nicknames. These secret names are like another identity. He can be someone else. They take care of each other. Their relationship is a deeper friendship that runs mostly on an emotional level and is sometimes expressed through small, physical gestures. The chemistry between them is indescribable. It is cute when 90s Eddie immediately starts to giggle as soon as Richie makes a dumb joke at their reunion. And thing about the little moments when Richie pokes Eddie and calls him cute. I am won’t quoting this one passage in the book that leaves much room for speculations, but there is no doubt their special bond is official. In any case, the decision to make Richie gay in the movies gave the ship another push. I don’t complain. I love it. Though I still think Eddie would have been a better option. There are already some scenes in the book which are like an invitation to speculate about his sexualityTheir chemistry is very obvious and believe me, there is nothing I would more appreciate than a happy end for them Q__Q

Benverly  „Your hair is winter fire

                   January embers

                  My heart burns there, too

This is one of sweetest things I have ever read in a book and that is all I need to explain why I love this ship.

Fav, Characters:  Hmm when I read „IT“ for the first time I had a crush on Bill. He ist the born leader and in my childish, pre-teen way found his stuttering cute. There is something about him that cast a spell on you. It is perfectly understandable that he was a role model and an inspiration for his friends – especially for Eddie. In my personal opinion book!Bill ist the best Bill.

Richie - I love this chaotic megane dude. He is this silly type who use jokes, pranks to protect himself. His voices are like safe heaven (the same goes for Bill, whose stuttering almost disappears, when he pretends tob e someone else). He hides himself and his insecurities behind them. It is a shame that he doesn’t know what an impact he had on his friends. Richie seems to never ever shut up and sometimes his trashmouth is still talking, when he better should be quite. And I am famous to fall for funny characters. He can lights up the mood immediately ( and OMG…. I love Harry Anderson in the miniseries. A real entertainer, BUT BILL HADER…. Bill Hader…just to make it clear BILL HADER  did such an amazing job. He rocked the movie and I still think, not just because I love this dude since over a decade, without him… the movie wouldn’t  have been so entertaining)

Eddie - He is in these abusive relationships. First with his mother, who keeps him small and makes him believe that he is weak. At the end her own fears of beeing left behind prevented her son from becoming a self-confident adult. Eddie always thought he is weak and fragile. Although he knows that he doesn’t need all this medication, his childhood experience were the reason for his coping-behavior as an adult – he still uses his inhaler. He married a woman who is like his mother. Mike's call was something of a turning point. Until this call Eddie could not overcome his fears and had to face them again as an adult. I can remember. While reading the book there were several moments of silence and I stopped reading and thought: poor Eddie.

Ultimately, his story is about a hero who surpasses himself, overcomes his fears and by sacrifice himself he protects what is most important to him - his friends. It just touched me. Eddie gave his life for his friends and I think you can say he's my favorite character. His death may be a tragedy, but it was necessary for his character arc. My theory is that Eddie represents someone who has lost track in his life and prefer to stick on old but unhealthy patterns.It is almost like Eddie stands for missed opportunities, but at the same time it is never to late to change something. He is a hero. There are so many things I would like to talk about, therefore I should start an own thread XDDD

Oh and Bev - I could always identify with her (not bc of abuse or domestic violence. My childhood was amazing). She is the only girl around the losers and I was the only girl in my  favourite clique too. We spent most of our time outside  - it was great. Of course I had other friends (female) as well, but with my boys… it was always special).. As you know as an adult she falls back in old patterns. Her husband is tyrannical man like her father. Again Mike’s call is a turning point.  Maybe the Benverly arc is the most satisfying. I was… I am very happy that Bev got her happy end.

Last but no least - I like Ben, Mike and Stan too. They have all there unique character treats and you sympathize with all of them. The Loser’s club is bunch of adorable idiots who just doing their best to become adults. I think it is normal that their friendship feels more intimate in the book – I highly recommand the book.

In what ways do you participate in fandom? (ex. Posting memes, reblogging/commenting on content, writing fanfic, making fanart, creating fanmixes, etc.)

Mostly fanarts, but recently I thought about posting my own theories and sharing my hcs and random stuff about the characters and the different relations.  

Do you have any in-fandom inspirations? Other members of the community that drive you? (And if you have the time/energy, in what ways do they inspire you?)

The fandom is full of amazing artists and writersand actually it would be a, but i want to name those who inspired me the most (mainly artists – hopefully I copied the links correcty):

https://tonyofthetrees.tumblr.com

https://meowsteryyy.tumblr.com

https://slashpalooza.tumblr.com/ ( you have to check out ‚Loose Ends‘)

https://coldcigarettes.tumblr.com

https://vvanini.tumblr.com/

https://eggocrumbs.tumblr.com

https://twitter.com/10_sgan

https://twitter.com/kasphacked

https://twitter.com/tac_nor

(oh.. the list got longer than expected IDDD)

Do you know this?

https://ragnarozzys.tumblr.com/post/189890790551/those-early-hours-after-a-sleepover-when-you-wake

Have you ever seen something as cozy and cute before I///D? – me neither XD

Trust me they are all worth a visit and I am sure most of us already know them 8D

Do you have any works of your own that you feel particularly proud of, or wish more people would’ve consumed? Please provide links if possible.

My art I provide on tumblr can be found here:

https://theoniprince.tumblr.com/tagged/myart

Honestly I like these the most:

https://theoniprince.tumblr.com/post/649446311120273408/my-first-reddie-sketch-now-scanned-the-quality

https://theoniprince.tumblr.com/post/649548606679007232/close-to-you-now-scanned-with-coloured

https://theoniprince.tumblr.com/post/650697175346593792/hammock-iconic-richie-is-reading-a-monthly

Have you ever participated in a fannish event (ie. IT Week, a fic Big Bang) or applied to be a part of a fanzine? If so, which ones, and can you please link them?

Oh… unfortunately I am not feelin‘ very confident about my own artworks. Sometims I have the feeling I am not creative enough and that my ideas are more or less boring. Nothing special ID Totally dumb – I know. As I mentioned before I came back lately to the fandom… I guess I missed many amazing IT weeks. I participated in some weeks/mainly shipweeks in other fandoms (Yakuza/Ryu ga Gotoku, FFXV) If I find an interesting annoucement I can imagine to participate in the future ; )

Without any form of bashing or lashing out, what is something you feel this fandom is missing?

In general… the fandom is really friendly – I hope so. Lately I have seen some salty comments on different stuff, topics… and well.. I have just an advice: life can be exhausting enough and time is always running. Don’t spend time on things you don’t like. Discussions can esclate quickly and worde can hurt too. So, just thing about before you jump in.

Thanks again! <3

(Special lil sketchy piece of art I did for this ask)

[kevv]

a goodbye letter- abandoning current social media

i'm not the best at writing out my thoughts. forgive me if this feels scrambled and scraped together. my best friend, Fox, once said in abridged words; "it takes two to play out an abandonment fantasy, one to have it, and the other to follow suit".

i've known several handfuls of people who fear abandonment, or more specifically, being the one abandoned; scared that one day everyone in their life will take leave. and sometimes, like a self-fulfilling prophecy, they do. they leave in mass exodus, set into motion by one person who wants to set-forth their own abandonment fantasy– abandoning everyone else.

for me, my own fear of abandonment is not anyone abandoning me, i'm unbothered by people entering my life and leaving of their own accord; i'm scared i'll be the one to abandon everyone in my life. because i have. several times. i still do, even. i'll meet people in my lifetime that i loved harder than the universe itself, a deep love so terrifying i feel that it'll demolish cities and townships, friends and lovers and found-family. my skin will buzz and blaze alight with such an intense fear, a fear that i will ruin them and everything they are so i must run. it's unfounded, but it drives me away, and i fight tooth and nail to get to that escape route for those who won't let me leave quietly, until it ends in disaster. it's my own abandonment fantasy. i recall once, an ex-lover wanted me to stay. tried to lock the door and toss away the key, and said it hurt that i wanted an out. so i caused problems until i could break out through the window. not being allowed an option to leave made me feel like a feral, caged animal; because in the end, that's all i am. i hadn't done it on purpose. the need to escape everything had been there months prior. the events leading up to it had been fuzzy at best, sickly at worst, and i had been spoonfed misinformation. not on purpose, not in malicious intent, but still it struck genuine fear in my heart. like a feral animal, i want the option to roam. to come and go as i please. i can't be kept, i just want the trust that i'll find my way back eventually. if i feel contained, i scratch and bite until i'm released. but if you hold out your hand and wait patiently, i'll come to you. but don't ask me to stay. please don't ask me to stay. there's a lot that lead up to this current migration. the inability to be allowed to stand on my own two-feet and exist as just purely Kevin, not adjacent to someone, was a big one. still to this day i am asked about a youtuber i am no longer affiliated with by my own choice. i don't like attention, it's something i've said to her, said to many, and why i chose to never appear in her videos. which seems contradictory for an artist who posts on social media and previously did all of her older channel art. but maybe now i'm realizing that truthfully, i wanted recognition for me, not for others or for who i made myself sick in order to create content for. it's inescapable. i harbor no hard feelings anymore, i understand i was in the peak of my codependency and was willing to ruin myself for the benefit of another. to run myself broke and dry because at 19 years old i was still a child who didn't know how to handle the extent of his emotions. i want to apologize to penny. neither of us are really blameless, but we were inexperienced and young– still young. it's easy to not know what we're doing, to unintentionally take advantage of someone who was willing to burn themselves to give you warmth, or to latch onto an unfounded rumor and bare my teeth. i hope you're doing well, and i'm sorry. i'd like to give you a proper apology one day, when i'm more ready. that day is not today. sometimes i feel like there are four people living inside my brain, all with dissenting opinions and voices that i can't tell who i am anymore. i feel like i'm constantly contradicting myself because i don't know what my own thoughts are. i don't know who i am anymore. i don't know who i am anymore because i'm several different people all trying to be "kevin", all with different beliefs that go against a previous one. i prematurely deleted my twitter account for this reason, i couldn't stand a second more of being in a toxicity cycle i had previously taken part in, because sometimes that's all social media is. it's very... Online. i want to be one, unified person. whose thoughts and feelings are unadulterated by others surrounding him. additionally, there's the elephant in the room. some have already guessed it, suspected it, saw something like it coming from miles away. but for others who have known me for the past decade, it might be a surprise. someone once told me that words have power, and while at the time i disagreed, i'm starting to understand what she meant now. i've been afraid to speak it into existence, because it means it's real, and coming to terms with this unavoidable truth is a terrifying experience, one i need to face and stop running away from. 

i'm detransitioning. giving life to this phrase doesn't make me feel any better. words have power, and that power is to make me crumble and break. since as early as 4 years old, i felt as if i was born a boy who was just being raised as a girl. at 12 was when i learned about and started identifying as transgender. at 18 i legally changed my name. for a decade, i lived as a transgender man. i've mentioned this before, but i'm intersex. i have an androgen insensitivity syndrome. what this means is that androgens, male sex hormones, have no effect on me. they instantly are reconverted back into estrogen by my body. this has been a reoccurring nightmare of mine since i was 14, and having it become my reality is.. heartbreaking, to say the least, crushing a lifetime of dreams and wishes. i've tried testosterone, self-medicated in my teen years, and "officially" more recently. it has no effect on me. a friend of mine says i shouldn't give up hope until i properly see an endocrinologist about HRT, but the reality is– i know my body, and i know my condition. i don't grow body hair, and my body cannot masculinize. these are unavoidable truths. i don't need to spend hundreds of dollars to be told what i already know. HRT will not affect me; i will never be able to transition. any attempt will become a scientific study in which i'm a guinea pig. i don't want that. i will never pass for male. my voice is high, my body is undoubtably female, my face is feminine, and i'm 4'11". it's disheartening and i've shed many tears over it. for what feels like my whole life, i've longed for SRS/GRS, top surgery, a deeper voice, and a couple inches of height. i ache for body hair, masculine fat redistribution, and male pattern baldness. all the good and the bad associated with testosterone is what i so desperately yearn for with such a soul-crushing depravity. i am genuinely heartbroken. maybe it's my punishment for all the bad things i've believed in or done. it's what i'd deserve, i guess. this punishment. it is for those reasons that i feel like i can no longer find comfort in identifying as ftm, to struggle seeing myself as a man. it's crazy, i've referred to myself as male since early childhood, and now that i'm coming to terms with my intersex condition am i feeling wrong in every conceivably way of identity. truthfully, i don't even identify as anything anymore. i'm not nonbinary, cis, or i guess trans. i feel as if i just exist. i just am. you can still call me kevin. it's my name, my legal name– which i love to point out. i'm not changing it. it's the first time i made a decision purely for myself, and went through with it. i love my name. i don't think i will love anything about myself quite like my name. i chose it when i was 12, it was my first choice. i never wanted another name. i still don't. but i like nicknames, particularly kitty and K-K. you can call me those too. these have always been options available. i reiterate– i really like being called nicknames. (: you can still use male pronouns for me. i never minded being "misgendered" because, well, i never passed, and i made peace with that years and years ago. while being called she/her or otherwise will probably always leave a stale taste in my mouth, i've learned to accept the reality of what i am a long time ago. biologically female. you can still use male identifiers for me, like husband or boyfriend or whatever other male terms there are...... actually you'll have to pry those out of my cold dead hands. i will not accept being called a "girlfriend" i will literally go feral and foam at the mouth and bite your ankles until you take it back. there's comfort in these things that i'm not ready to let go of, and frankly, i don't think i'll ever feel ready to. moving forward, i don't really know what i'm going to do. right now i'm taking a break from the internet, so i can soul-search and truly find myself, in all senses of the word and every iteration that it can be built upon. i'll make a new twitter account when i'm ready to, probably. there's a lot more i want to say, to add onto this in addendum, and pour so much of myself into this until it spills out the sides and trickles down into tiny cracks. but truthfully, i don't know how to say it. i don't know its relevancy to this eulogy of an account, and quite honestly, there are still some things i can't find myself able to say. to speak into existence. to give power to those words. admitting aloud to a 6-year long love that burnt like candles catching a home on fire was intense enough (hi Charlotte it's you, it's you and it's always been you and everyone knows this). so maybe i'd rather keep some things to myself, perhaps. preferably. so i guess that's it. i've bared my heart and soul and skin and bones to whoever will read this piece of myself. it's the end to katidoj, one that's been a longtime coming. i've never been very good at staying in one place for very long. please take care, i love you. and i'll miss you. a piece of my heart left with you, here buried deep in this account. (pressing the submit button has never been so hard in my life.)

[thelostgirl21]

Pansexuality, Bisexuality, Asexuality, and experiencing sexual attraction towards a person regardless of gender...

Alright you guys, here’s the thing.

I’m seeing a lot of hurt, resentment, and misunderstanding in the pansexuality tag, coming primarily from pansexuals and bisexuals alike, and I think it’s high time we sat the fuck down together, and had a good heart-to-heart as a community.

Actually, I’m inviting asexuals to the table, too, because they happen to be much closer to a specific subset of pansexuality than a lot of people seem to believe, and might be able to offer valuable input and insight into that whole debate.

First, I know there are a lot of different views, versions, and definitions of what pansexuality is. Some identify as being sexually attracted to all gender expressions, others as being sexually attracted to people regardless of gender.

Here, I’m going to address what “regardless of gender” actually entails in terms of how one experiences sexual attraction towards another person without regard to their gender.  This is the definition of pansexuality that I wish to delve into and explore, so hopefully we may gain a broader perspective of why some of us feel that having a distinct space within the LGBTQ+ community matters.

First off, here is an especially important concept that does not seem to be well integrated for many people:

What orients human sexuality is not restricted to gender.

I repeat: What orients human sexuality is not restricted to gender.

What does it mean?

This means that every human being that do experience sexual attraction towards another human being does so according to a huge multitude of personal criteria that they perceive in another human being that - when combined together – trigger that sense of sexual attraction, and lets us perceive a person as being sexually attractive.

When we say that someone is "hot" and that “we want them"; usually, it is because there is that *special something* about the way they act, the way they move, the depth of their voice, the sound of their laughter, the mischievous glint in their eyes, their overall projected personality, how they carry themselves, their height, their weight, their confidence, their vulnerability, the shape of their forehead, their nose, the texture of their hair, the roundness of their buttocks, the culture they belong to, their intellect, etc., that is perceived as being sexually desirable traits to be found in a “mate”.

Some of these perceived traits tend to carry more weight, and thus will be taken into consideration, more than others.

However, assuming we are not asexual, we all sexually respond to an array of perceived physical, emotional, psychological, spiritual, intellectual, etc. features we see in another human being that makes us go "Yup! I wanna have the sex with you!"

For the vast majority of people, gender tends to be what they assess first - something that is significant enough to orient their sexuality - or that is, at least, perceived as being significant in some way.

For example, they will see a woman with luscious red hair, a gorgeous smile, an aura of authenticity, a resonant laughter, a soft, curvy body, freckles, a shy gaze yet a very firm and assured handshake, and their body will respond to said woman in a way that awakens some desire in them.  They will want to have sex with that woman, and they will typically appreciate that she is a woman while doing so.

Some will have a preference for cisgender or transgender women, but for the purpose of the issues I’m wishing to bring into light, please always assume that whenever I am referring to a woman or a man, this includes both cisgender and transgender individuals.

This is crucially important. Because I’ve sadly seen many people claiming that they are “pansexual” because they like every gender, even “transgenders”, while arguing that bisexuals only like “cisgender men and women”, and that makes absolutely no sense.

By doing so, you are pretending that your sexuality is “more inclusive” towards multiple gender identities, while at the same time pretending that, in order to be bisexual, a transgender woman would need to feel no sexual attraction towards other transgender men, and/or women of her own gender.

You are unwittingly relegating transgender individuals to the role of being someone else’s object of sexual desire, while not giving them the role of being the ones expressing that desire in how they identify.

The gender is “woman”.  The gender is “man”.  The gender is “non-binary”.  The (absence of) gender is “agender”.

You absolutely have the right to be exclusively sexually oriented towards men whose assigned gender at birth (usually determined by their genitalia) matches their gender identity.  

But that is a personal preference of yours in “how you like your men”.  

I know quite a few girls that are not sexually attracted to men that are smaller than themselves, and yet they are still heterosexual or bisexual.

Preferring someone whose gender matches the gender they were assigned at birth based on their genitalia is nothing wrong.

Pretending that transgender men and women should be excluded from the definition of bisexuality based on being transgender, is.  It reflects a failure to acknowledge that transgender men and women are the same gender as cisgender men and women.

So, everywhere you see me refer to “men” and “women”, please do assume that it includes both cisgender and transgender individuals.  Whenever I am talking about a specific interest in certain types of genitalia (that are associated with the gender assigned at birth vs the gender identity of a person), I will make that precision.

Otherwise men and women are men and women, period.

That being said, to go back to the notion of all the different variables influencing our sexual orientation, I believe that in order to properly understand the nuance found in pansexuality, it would be helpful to take a good look at an asexual’s experience of their own sexuality.

When people hear “asexual”, they often make the mistake of assuming that everyone that identifies as asexual are sex-repulsed, or that they can’t find pleasure in the act of sharing sex with a partner, romantic or otherwise.

All that asexuality means, really, is that the person is not sexually attracted towards other people.

It says absolutely nothing about an inability to experience sexual arousal and enjoy an active, satisfying sex life.

What it tells you, is that other people won’t be what will trigger the desire in them to have sex.

Let’s say you love ice cream!

Most of the time, you eat ice cream on your own, because you crave how good it tastes and enjoy eating ice cream for the ice cream itself.

It relaxes you, makes you feel good, and is very self-gratifying.

The sight of another person holding an ice cream cone, or even explicitly offering it to you, does not make you want to eat ice cream, however.  Your cravings for ice cream happen totally independently of how other people behave about ice cream, about you, and are not tied to the social aspect of enjoying ice cream with a partner.

You’re fine managing your ice cream eating habits on your own.

HOWEVER, sometimes, when you are with someone you strongly care about and trust, even if their presence changes nothing to your own impulses to desire eating ice cream, since eating ice cream *is* something you find personally pleasurable, you may find yourself wanting to share that pleasure with them.

You might even be open to spoon-feeding them the ice cream yourself.  Not because you are instinctively driven to eat ice cream in the company of another and share it, but because you do enjoy the whole aspect of togetherness, and the strengthening of social bonds that eating ice cream together brings you.

For sexually active asexuals, “sharing sex” with someone is often something that they will willingly engage in because they are very receptive to the feelings of intimacy and togetherness that engaging in sexual activity with someone they deeply care about - or might even be romantically engaged with - brings them.

It becomes something that is sought as a way to reinforce such social bonds, rather than an instinctive drive to have sex based on a desire that is triggered by a partner.

A human being can desire to bond with another person through something that leaves them as vulnerable and open as sexual intercourse, without perceiving the person they choose to have sex with as being sexually desirable themselves.

What will happen is that they will find ways to sexually arouse themselves through tactile stimulation, certain thoughts, and/or other ways – often rather unique to them – that they have experienced with, and they know can trigger a state of sexual arousal in themselves.

Once sexually aroused, they are free to enjoy the sexual activity in the company of someone that they care about.

In the context of a romantic relationship, there is also the aspect of empathy, of desiring to make someone they love feel good, and happy.

But the acceptance and understanding that an asexual does not sexually desire their romantic partner, and thus respecting their own limits and comfort zone in terms of how much sex they are willing and comfortable to share with a sexual partner, is absolutely crucial.

They do get something out of it, too (i.e. it’s not JUST about making the other feel better).  But the drive to “eat ice cream together” may be less than in someone that sees “ice cream” in someone else’s hands, and can barely contain their excitement and need to eat some.

Some asexuals do not ever feel comfortable having sex with other people, and that is perfectly ok, too.

But being asexual, in the context of a sexual orientation, doesn’t automatically mean being unable to sexually engage in sexual activity with others, being repulsed by it, and/or finding nothing rewarding in having sex with others.

It just means that other people are not something that orients their sexuality, and that they don’t trigger anything in them that makes them want to have sex with them.  At least, not without some secondary objective (ex: fostering a greater sense of emotional intimacy) in mind.

An asexual’s sexuality can be expressed regardless of the person.

If you can understand that, then you might understand how being pansexual feels.

As a pansexual, I experience sexual attraction to a person, but said attraction occurs regardless of that person’s gender.

I do not find women sexually desirable. I do not find men sexually desirable. I do not find non-binary gender identities sexually desirable.  I do not find agenders sexually desirable.

I can listen to a bisexual trying to explain to me what they find sexually exciting about girls, boys, agenders, etc. using terms to describe certain gendered traits.

Except I am unable to personally relate to any of the feelings they are describing.

Not because I am gender blind.

I do see your gender.

Just like I do see how tall you are, what your body type is, your hair color, your nose, etc.

And yet, people do not typically go around insisting on defining sexual orientation in terms of:

- Heterosexuality: being sexually attracted to people with different hair colors than yours.

- Homosexuality: being sexually attracted to people with the same hair color as you.

- Bisexuality: being sexually attracted to both people with different hair colors than your own (experiencing patterns of heterosexual attraction), and the same hair color as you (experiencing patterns of homosexual attraction).

- Pansexuality: Being sexually attracted to a person regardless of hair color, without experiencing any patterns of either heterosexual or homosexual attraction.

They do, however, keep insisting that another human being’s gender is one of the many traits they have - that may or may not outwardly be express - that should make you feel “something” about them.

Gender is supposed to be one of the key factors of sexual attraction that orients one’s sexuality.

But that is not always the case.  My body, my sexual impulses, instincts, or drive - no matter how you wish to call it - do not respond to gender.

And insisting that I should find anything about one being a woman, a man, or otherwise sexually attractive quickly becomes irritating.

If I were to live in a world where hair color was perceived as playing an important role in someone’s likeliness to find a person sexually attractive – and people were persecuted and discrimated against based on the hair colors they found themselves sexually attracted to – I wouldn’t feel it would be any different than the sexual orientation system we’re stuck in right now.

In terms of the genitalia that is traditionally associated with the gender assigned at birth, or even reassigned genitalia, I do not find anything remotely sexually interesting about vaginas and penises (and all their variations).

Yes, they are physically there, I can use them in the context of sexual intercourse, but they don’t offer anything more stimulating or interesting to me than what could be achieved with the use of fingers, a tongue, and/or especially toys (toys are notoriously difficult to beat in terms of functionality and versatility, actually).

Your genitalia is not about me, but about you.  I do not find your penis or your vagina sexually attractive.  They are body parts that look rather weird and funny to me (I’m including my own vagina in that assessment), and I don’t get what’s supposed to be sexually stimulating or interesting about having the opportunity to see or interact with that part of someone else’s body.

I’m not repulsed by your genitalia, but they don’t inspire me to have sex, either…

…UNTIL I’ve been having sex with the same partner for long enough that I manage to generate mental associations between your vagina or your penis with other aspects of yourself that do trigger some sexual desires in me.

My sexuality is expressed in a way that is highly empathetic.  So, as soon as I’m starting to truly bond with a partner and develop a long term connection with them, their own expression of sexual arousal will be an extremely strong trigger in terms of how sexually attractive they will look to me.

When I see my partner’s penis, it’s not the penis itself that I see.  The image that will instinctively and automatically pop into mind is the way his body lightly trembles under my touch, it’s the delicious little quiet moans and sighs escaping his lips, it’s the hungry looks he gives me, it’s the intimacy and the vulnerability behind each action, it’s the light sheen of sweat covering his skin, the rise and fall of the chest as his breath quickens, the pulse on his neck beating increasingly fast.

Every penis in the world looks to me like an oversized big toe, and they are totally irrelevant to my sexual interests, except for being “instruments” that I can play to make my partner experience heightened sensations, and bring them sexual satisfaction…  

And I can play with every instrument of origin and/or with every reassigned instrument… or none at all!  If you’d rather use toys that you control by yourself, and have me interact with the rest of your body during sexual intercourse, instead, it’s 100% fine by me.  I don’t need to get in direct contact with your genitalia to find sexual intercourse sexually satisfying, either.

As long as it remains something interactive we are sharing together, my pansexual arse will be perfectly fine!

But there comes a point where my partner’s penis no longer quite looks like “just a penis” to me - it looks like the whole experience of having sex with him.

And I’m sexually attracted to him.  I’m sexually attracted to elements of his personality, yes, but also to his body.

A bubble butt remains a bubble butt, regardless of the gender it belongs to.  And bubble butts are very sexually attractive.

You’ve got the bubble butt?  In my own personal list of personal features likely to make me perceive you as sexually attractive, bubble butts rate very high.

So, while my partner’s penis does not orient my sexuality, and I could have done with or without.  My sexual attraction towards other aspects of him (oh yeah, he’s got the bubble butt, alright!) allows me to embrace that part of his body as something “more” than “just a weird looking big toe that inflate and deflate”.

The way I feel about vaginas is pretty much the same. I don’t find them attractive or interesting, but since I’m interested in making my sexual partner feel good, too, over time I’ll learn to develop an appreciation for my own partner’s vagina.

Therefore, trying to argue that “biological sex” or genitalia should be perceived as “mattering more” or being “more relevant” in the context of describing how we experience sexual attraction towards a person than one’s hair color – and therefore, I should pay more attention to something that is traditionally being used to define gender upon birth than someone being a ginger – does not work with a pansexual that identifies as such, because they experience sexual attraction regardless of gender.

I’m not repulsed by your genitalia, I don’t desire it. What I need, what I want, is having someone close to me I can kiss, caress the curve of the small of their back, run my fingers through their hair, bite their shoulders, grab that bubble butt with both hands and feel those muscles offer some resistance against my fingers, etc.

A person’s overall body is what is perceived as being sexually attractive and will orient my sexuality.  Their genitalia, or even specific gendered traits associated with their body, not so much.

Which brings me to the infamous question pansexuals keep being asked over, and over again every time they try to tell someone that they are sexually attracted to a person regardless of gender.

“Oh, so who they are, their personality, matters to you more than what’s between their legs or how they look?”

*NOISE OF RECORD BEING SCRATCHED. *

Alright, hold on.  Are you telling me that if you remove “gender” from the equation, regarding what we can find attractive in another person, the only thing you’re left with becomes some utterly disembodied entity that is “all hearts and no parts”?

Are you telling me that gender is something so big, so powerful, that someone’s whole physical appearance become entirely swallowed by it?

Are you saying that gender has absolutely no bearings, or influence over one’s emotional, intellectual, spiritual, psychological traits?

If that is, indeed, what you are saying, how is it, then, that society keeps yapping about how men and women are supposed to think, what they are supposed to wear, what they are meant to like and dislike, what personality traits they are supposed to have and/or are more socially appropriate to express, and how their relationship dynamic is supposed to be build in terms of how male and females relate to each other?

Socially, I think we can agree that talks of gender tend to be quite prevalent, and generally, gender is an aspect being perceived as coloring every single aspect of a person…

And yet, if I’m telling you that I can be sexually attracted to a person regardless of their gender, are you really telling me that the only place where, suddenly, gender seems to be important, is in terms of what’s between the person’s leg, and how they physically LOOK?!

How does that work for you?

So, here is what appears to get really confusing for both the pansexual being asked the question, and the one asking it.

People that have a sexual orientation towards one, or even all genders, will tend to find aspects of someone being a woman, a man, non-binary, or even agender sexually attractive.

They may love all forms of possible genders expressions out there, and maybe even love them all equally and for the same overall reasons.  Their body may experience sexual attraction towards men, women, and non-binary genders equally.

But there’s something about one’s gender they still perceive as being relevant and “hot” and they will notice as being sexually desirable in relation to gender.

They can read about what’s great about dating women, men, and non-binary (assuming they are also romantically attracted to certain people), or having sex with them, and personally connect with those feelings.

They might find penises and vaginas to be sexually interesting and stimulating, and the direct contact with a sexual partner’s genitalia will be something they enjoy, cherish, and naturally seek as being a significant pleasurable part of their sexual intercourse.

Their sexual instincts, their sexual drive, etc. does respond to the gender of their sexual partner.

A pansexual that experiences sexual attraction to a person regardless of gender does not experience such a response.

And, for those of you that are sexually sensitive to other people’s gender, it can apparently seem rather inconceivable that you can be totally dispassionate about gender when it comes to being in a sexual relationship with a partner.

Whether we are talking about a quick “one-night stand” type of encounter, or in the context of a long-term romance, gender is utterly irrelevant, and not an aspect of the other person that triggers any feelings of sexual attraction for pansexuals.

It doesn’t orient our sexuality.  We have no sexual orientation and have never known what finding women, men, or other gender expressions sexually attractive feels like.

So, as we are saying “we experience sexual attraction to a person regardless of gender”, people that like one or many genders out there will naturally go for what feels familiar to them.

They try to understand how that can even be possible.

For many, especially those that feel strongly about having sex with specific gender(s), the key component associated with a person’s gender seems to be the genitalia and/or other physical traits that tend to be gendered in their eyes.

A woman will tend to have a body that is less muscular, a higher pitched voice, wear their hair longer more often, they have enlarged breasts and nipples, etc.

There is thus a natural association between “how someone looks” and “gender”.

To the pansexual, while they may “see” the elements of physical femininity and masculinity of a person’s body, their brain does not respond to those perceived “gendered traits” as something exciting or desirable.

It feels neutral, irrelevant, we do not understand why we are supposed to care about the difference between massaging a woman’s breast or a man’s chest within the context of sexual intercourse, or how it’s supposed to be really different.

Ok, yeah, there is a difference, but in terms of how my instincts prioritize that difference, it’s the same as gazing into a pair of green rather than blue eyes.

That difference is so trivial to me that it is not worth paying attention to it during sexual intercourse.

Gendered traits are not where I find my sexual inspiration.  The physical traits I do find sexually attractive tend to be perceived as being very gender neutral in the context of sexual attraction, even if most people consider them “gendered”.

Like your penis, your vagina, or any reassigned genitalia, I can learn to develop an appreciation for your masculinity, your femininity, your gender-fluidity, etc. as we go deeper into the sexual relationship and it has the opportunity to evolve.

I may not give a damn about gender sexually or even romantically, but I care about you.

I care about making you feel valued, seen, and wanted for everything you are.

I may not be sexually or even romantically attracted to every single aspect of yourself, but just like an asexual might still take the time to “share the sex” with their partner because they appreciate the feeling of intimacy and togetherness, because they want them to feel good, because finding the right balance between their own needs and their partner’s needs matter (always withing their own personal limits and comfort), and thus, they will find their own “payoff” in the pleasure in watching someone they care about enjoy themselves in such a way…

Well, I’ll gladly worship at the altar of your femininity, and make a conscious effort to develop an appreciation for the gendered aspect of who you are in the context of sexual intercourse, so I can help fulfil that particular aspect of your needs. Whereas, as I stated earlier, someone that has a sexual orientation will see a woman with luscious red hair, a gorgeous smile, an aura of authenticity, a resonant laughter, a soft, curvy body, freckles, a shy gaze yet a very firm and assured handshake, and their body will respond to said woman in a way that awakens some desire in them.  And, in response, they will want to date that woman and they will instinctively appreciate that she is a woman.

A pansexual will see a person with luscious red hair, a gorgeous smile, an aura of authenticity, a resonant laughter, a soft, curvy body, freckles, a woman gender, a shy gaze yet a very firm and assured handshake, and their body will respond to said person in a way that awakens some desire in them.  And, in response, they will want to date that person and they will instinctively appreciate who she is, but without necessarily putting any emphasis on the gendered aspects of her identity.

However, since we do see gender, we can develop an acquired appreciation for it.  It’s so far down the list of things we may consider in a partner that it does not orient our sexuality.

That appreciation will not be instinctive, but a taste we will learn to acquire and manifest for the benefit of our partner and the health of the whole relationship.

Gender may be but one of the many parts of your identity, and carry no more weight when it comes to choosing a partner than your hair color from my perspective, if that is a part of your identity you feel strongly about and tend to put at the forefront, I will thus make it one of my priorities within our relationship, too.

I can’t control how my sexual instincts respond to you.  I can’t “make myself” be sexually attracted to you being a woman.  But I can easily appreciate the aesthetic beauty of your womanhood, learn to appreciate all the aspect of being a woman that matter to you, and regularly reflect those aspects back to you in a positive, nurturing, appreciative manner.

And my compliments will be sincere, whether I find those aspects sexually arousing or not.

I experience my sexuality in a way that is one “person” away from being asexual.

So I really can’t blame those that do experience heterosexual (attracted to a gender not their own), homosexual (attracted to their own gender), or both heterosexual and homosexual patterns of sexual attraction to be confused as to what “regardless of gender” really means for some of us, and thus jump to conclusions.

“Oh, so who they are, their personality, matters to you more than what’s between their legs or how they look?”

That’s simply their way of expressing “I don’t get it.  Doesn’t everyone have a gender identity?  How can you sexually disregard gender in the way someone looks while still finding them sexually attractive?”

The mistake they are making, in asking this question, is disregarding all the other aspects of a person that plays a role in their own sexual orientation, too.

Why, as a straight woman, aren’t they trying to get into the pants of every person they perceive as being male or that identify as men?

Gender may be one of the key factors orienting their sexuality, but they also have preferences in nose shapes, height, weight, voices, accents, attitudes, etc. that will orient their sexual desires.

Our inability to feel anything attractive about a prospective partner’s gender, doesn’t remove our ability to experience attraction towards other aspects of their physicality that we find sexually attractive.

Truth is, I’m pretty sure the vast majority of straight, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, among others, naturally prioritize personality and the overall “vibe” they get from a person over their physical looks and what’s between their legs.

But, just as someone who is gay may have no idea what being pansexual feels like…  A pansexual has no clue how being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual (in the sense of being attracted towards own gender and other genders) truly feels like.

We don’t relate to gender in the same way other people seem to.  At least, when I hear them talk about gender and describe how they feel about men, women, and others, that feeling doesn’t seem to match my own experience.

So, being continuously asked to define our sexual orientation in terms of gender attraction – when it has no bearings on our sexuality – at some point, might end up being perceived as some form of harassment and micro-aggression for us, especially when we are asked to “justify” how that can even be possible, and have people argue that because everyone has a gender, then we are all attracted to their gender by default.

(Yeah, everyone has a thumb by default, and no one is forcing me to define my sexual orientation by the fact that I’m sexually attracted to their thumb.)

So, imagine our relief when, suddenly, the focus is driven AWAY from people’s gender.

When we hear “Oh, so who they are, their personality, matters to you more than what’s between their legs or how they look?”, we are suddenly being offered the possibility of being sexually oriented towards a person based on something that is not defined by the one asking the question as “predominantly gendered”.

We very naïvely assume that, if the other person is asking the question, it is because heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals feel that a person’s looks, and/or their genitalia, typically matter more to them in terms of how they experience sexual attraction, than the non-gendered aspects of their personality.

If you ask someone who is straight “Does someone’s personality, who they are at the core, matters more to you than what’s between their legs or how they look?”

They may very well answer “yes”, because they will only think about the current context of that question, and find truth in it.

If you ask me, as a pansexual, the same question, my first instinct is going to be to also answer “yes”.

However, if I take a moment to fully analyse that question, the record goes to a scratching halt!

Not every pansexual has the required amount of patience and personal insight to dissect everything that is sadly implied by such a loaded question, and will instead focus on the overwhelming relief of having finally found an “out” from a system that doesn’t fit them.

They will embrace that suggestion, think that this sets them apart from those who do respond to gender as part of their sexual orientation, integrate it as a key concept of their whole sexuality, and start proudly declaring that they are pansexual, because they are sexually attracted to “hearts, not parts!”

Doing so, they sadly attract the ire of straight, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals that FINALLY have their own moment of epiphany and go “Wait a minute?!  Are you saying that all that matters to us in a sexual partner is what’s between their legs?! Are you saying we are all physically-obsessed whores that only care about looks without giving a damn about personality?!  I may be bisexual, but if a man has an awful personality, there’s no way I’m going to be having sex with him!  Get off your high horse, you pompous, higher-than-thou pricks!”

Suddenly, they all seem to forget where the suggestion that we were caring more about “hearts” than “parts” came from in the first place, and then resent us for it!

Yes, it is absolutely wrong to define our sexual orientation in such a way!

“Hearts, not parts” has nothing to do with pansexuality.

But just like I won’t blame people with a gender-based sexual orientation to ask the wrong types of question based on their own confusion and inability to spontaneously relate to what being pansexual feels like; I won’t blame pansexuals for having made the mistake of appropriating that slogan to try to escape a system that suffocates them, without realizing that they’ve failed to clearly help them understand what pansexuality is like.

I will correct them, and try to make fellow pansexuals understand that, while “hearts, not parts” may reflect something they consider as being an important aspect of their own sexuality, it is not what sets them apart from people with a gender-based sexual orientation.

Pansexuals like parts just as much, or as little, as people identifying as straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc.  

How much importance we instinctively assign to the physical appearance of the person we are sexually attracted to does not say anything about how we respond (or, more accurately, fail to respond to) gender.

All we are saying is how physically vs mentally and/or emotionally we tend to be sexually orientated towards prospective sexual partners.  This is an aspect of one’s sexuality that can be applied to all, regardless of how they feel about gender.

Even in the context of demisexuality, parts usually do matter.  Experiencing secondary sexual attraction, only after a strong emotional bond has been formed with someone, won’t remove the aspect that the demisexual then needs to experience a sense of secondary sexual attraction towards the other person.

If a demisexual wanted to have sex with every single person they emotionally connected with first, they’d be unable to form any sincere, trusting, platonic friendships.

Not all demisexuals are interested in being in a romantic relationship, either.  They can be sexually attracted to a very close friend they would trust with everything they are, yet don’t experience any desire to develop a romance with or become sexually exclusive.

The nature of the strong emotional bond that occurs before secondary sexual attraction comes into play can greatly vary from one demisexual to the next.

In any case, prioritizing a person’s personality over looks in one’s relationship is something that can occur regardless of sexual orientation and even romantic inclinations.  It does not set pansexuality apart.

What sets us apart, is our inability to perceive gender as something of any significant influence in the way we experience sexual attraction towards another person.

A pansexual grows up in a world that uses a classification system to define sexual orientation that feels confusing to them.

They see people around them getting all excited about a boy or a girl in school, expressing what they feel is attractive about them being a boy or a girl (back when I was a teenager, the binary was extremely predominant, so at least that aspect is slowly changing) without feeling any inclination either way, or even understanding what parts of them being male or female is supposed to be sexually (and/or romantically) exciting.

They will learn to parrot what they hear from others, to use other people’s terms to describe their own sexual attraction. They are so convinced that everyone MUST have a sexual orientation that they will be actively (and sometimes, desperately) looking for it.

They may identify as straight given they found themselves sexually attracted to someone who was a girl, and thus deduce that must mean that they “like girls”.

But then, another person they feel sexually attracted to a year later happens to be a boy…  So, are they bisexual instead?

Except, they no longer feel anything significant about girls in general…  Does that mean they are gay?

Then, they meet another girl, and feel sexually attracted towards her – same they did with the first girl.

Were they really bisexuals, but have just “forgotten” about it?

Except now that they are attracted to that girl, they feel nothing remarkable about boys in general, either…

What the hell is going on?!

We find people sexually attractive typically on a case by case scenario.  We know, deep down, we aren’t opposed to having sex with people from any gender, but we don’t find members of that gender sexually attractive per say.

If we look at our history, we will find people from all gender identities that we may have been sexually attracted to at different points of our lives, but we never feel like their gender mattered more than the color of their eyes or that there was a sense of attraction that came from how we perceived or acknowledged their gender.

Except we are constantly told about how great and desirable women, men, and other genders are.  

But no matter how much efforts to make to “feel something” about people’s gender, we don’t get it.

With time, we tend to feel like an alien within society and sadly, even among the LGBTQ+ community.  We internalize the way we process our sexual orientation and our lack of gender orientation as meaning there is something wrong with us, that we are “missing parts” that should be there, because every definition we see regarding sexual orientation fails to clearly reflect our reality.

We either adapt by constantly changing labels to describe our sexual orientation, depending on the gender of whoever we are in a relationship with at the time.

We end up giving in, and calling ourselves “bisexuals”, although the “regardless of gender” aspect of bisexuality tends to be absent / underrepresented within that community, and we are still surrounded by people gushing about liking men, women, non-binary, etc.

Or, we often end up making the choice of abandoning the system, no longer caring about whatever label people ask us to identify as, and often refusing to offer any clear or definitive answer to questions we feel don’t apply to the way we experience our sexuality in the first place.

If it appears I’m never quite offering you a satisfying answer, or you can’t accept I don’t feel anything special about the gender of a prospective mate, what else am I supposed to tell you?

When I’m not taking the time to really get into all those nuances and details, I do say I find men, women, non-binary people sexually attractive regardless of their gender, because I am able acknowledge that someone is a man, a woman, or elsewhere on the gender spectrum.

Society talks about people in terms of “men”, “women”, “bigender”, etc.  So, it makes sense to use the same language.  

Except, by doing so, I’m always referring to the fact that I can be sexually attracted to people that happen to be of all gender identities; and not expressing that I’m sexually attracted to them with regards of the gender identity they have, or what I see about themselves that I perceive to be feminine, masculine or otherwise.  Be those traits physical, intellectual, emotional, spiritual, etc.

Yeah, I’m sexually attracted to men, women, non-binary and agender people in the context where we are using those words to describe their gender identity; but it has nothing to do with my own instinctive sexual response to their gender.

I’m sexually attracted to brunettes, blondes, gingers, and other hair colors as well in the context where we are using those words to describe their hair color, and not my own instinctive sexual response to their hair color.

Oddly enough, I experience my sexuality in a way that is “inclusive” of all genders out there…  but only because my sexual impulses are instinctively rejecting gender as an aspect that influences my sexual desires towards them, and making me likely to want to get into a sexual relationship with them. Bisexuals usually tend to be openly appreciative of all forms of gender expressions out there, and welcome them with open arms.

Pansexuals will just want to have sex with you regardless.

While saying this, however, I’m aware that there may be plenty of bisexuals that identify with what I’ve explained since the beginning, and to them, this is also what their bisexuality means.

Maybe they don’t feel irritated by the way people keep insisting that it doesn’t matter whether one identifies as “sexually attracted to all genders” or “sexually attracted regardless of gender”.

Perhaps they decided that they were fine with adopting a label that was “close enough”, so that others would be satisfied with the answer, and leave them be.

Or maybe they got lucky, and found other bisexuals that clearly explained to them that it was totally normal to feel like gender was totally irrelevant to how you experience sexual attraction towards another human being.

But some of us did experience a lot of doubt and confusion that ended up taking a certain toll on our self-esteem (at least, for a while).

Some of us do feel more strongly about truly being seen for who we are: people without a sexual orientation with regards to gender.

Some of us also feel a special kinship with the asexual community, whose asexuality will sadly often be mocked, invalidated, or heavily questioned as soon as they choose to engage in sexual activity with a romantic partner.

I’m fully open to recognizing that the bisexual label, historically, might have been designed with the idea of including people that experience sexual attraction towards another human being regardless of gender into it.

But how we define sexual orientation and human sexuality, and the vocabulary used to describe it, is bound to keep evolving over the next few years as people start recognizing and identifying with complexities that weren’t as easily recognized, expressed, and accepted before.

It took me about 30 years to discover that there were other people out there that didn’t have any sexual orientation towards other people’s genders, and could be sexually attracted to them regardless.

I sincerely would have benefited from having had access to other pansexuals; people that, perhaps, would have been able to put words on what I was experiencing, help me understand and sort out my feelings, and figure out why being asked which gender I found sexually attractive tended to fill me with confusion and a sense of disconnectedness from the people around me.

I would have appreciated to have people describe sexual attraction and orientation to me in broader terms that put little to no focus on gender, and helped me explore my personal preferences in a more gender-neutral way.

What I’m trying to explain to you, is that I don’t feel that there is anything more inclusive, noble, or great about identifying as being pansexual, especially not as opposed to bisexuality.

But what I am trying to convey, name, and identify, is a very specific need that I had, growing up as a queer child, that sadly I feel hasn’t been addressed and properly met by the LGBTQ+ and the bisexual community back then.

It wasn’t because there were any ill-intents from bisexuals that would talk to me about how they found men and women, for example, sexually attractive…

It wasn’t because people were trying to be unwelcoming or deny my own experience.

It was simply because I did not have the words, the maturity, and the level of personal insight back then to futher explain what I was feeling.

I could not tell you why listening to bisexuals describe the way they were sexually attracted to multiple gender identities was generating more distress than it was helping me understand myself.

I could not tell you why I felt like my “sexual interests” kept changing according to whoever I liked at the time I liked them.

I could not properly realize that sexual orientation went WAY beyond gender, and that you could find a bubble butt to be a sexually attractive feature on someone, without giving a damn about any perceived male or female characteristics of said bubble butt, or the gender identity of the person you were sexually attracted to.

What I’m trying to say, today, now that I’ve had time to put all of this into words, is that those of us that experience sexual attraction towards other people regardless of gender might greatly benefit from having their own space.

I don’t care about calling it “pansexuality”.  You can call me “non-gender-oriented-sexual” or whatever else you like (as long as it remains respectful).

What matters to me, is that the current and future generations of LGBTQ+ kids be given the opportunity to meet with other people without gender-based sexual orientation, connect with others that can validate and clearly name what they are going through, and receive some guidance from those of us that have grown fully comfortable embracing that aspect of our sexuality and defining our sexual orientation in an alternative manner.

I am talking about clearer visibility, and access to resources for people we are supposed to care for and help.

I do not care about being right or wrong.

I’m telling you that some “non-gender-oriented-sexual” people, that currently tend to identify as pansexual, feel highly uncomfortable using gender to describe their sexual orientation.

And thus, insisting to put them all in the same category where a subset of people that understand what experiencing heterosexual (sexual attraction towards a gender different than our own) and homosexual urges (sexual attraction towards the same gender) feels like we are reinforcing the notion that there is something abnormal or wrong with them, rather than making it easier for them to get access to the resources they need and receive guidance from people that (fail to) relate to people’s genders in the same (or very similar) way they do.

I’m not trying to say the bisexual manifesto has no value or was wrong, either, simply trying to point out that there are some aspects and implications, regarding the personal experience of people that are sexually attracted to others regardless of their gender, that might have been overlooked back then.

And that we likely have everything to gain, as a larger community, by taking a good second look at all of our current definitions, without fear of redefining ourselves in a way that better reflects today’s context and reality.

I’m asking for help, understanding, acceptance, and hopefully visibility for others like me, so they don’t have to suffer the same issues I suffered from when I was a kid.

I want to help open the dialogue with the pansexual, bisexual and asexual communities, to get their own input on this and see what could be done to help us better support each other.

I’m open to many alternatives and solutions, but from the current look of things, I think this is a discussion that really needs to be had.

[amphtaminedreams]

J.K Rowling & The Echo Chamber of TERFs: Why Nobody Wants your Transphobic “Opinion”

TW// Discussion of Sexual Assault and Transphobia

SO...

I’ve seen the term “allyship fatigue” going round a lot lately on Twitter, since the issues of police brutality, institutional racism, and now transphobia have taken central stage.

And it’s weird. To be honest, hearing other white cis people calling themselves “allies” has always sounded kinda self-congratulatory. Taking this to the level of martyrdom that the phrase “allyship fatigue” evokes makes me want to heave. It’s shit that anyone even has to be saying Black Lives STILL Matter, but it does seem to unfortunately be the case that every time there is a highly publicised murder of a black individual by police, the explosion of us white people calling ourselves allies and retweeting and reblogging statements of solidarity only lasts so long before half revert back to being complacent with and uncritical of a world seeped with casual racism. Is that what “allyship fatigue” is? The excuse for that? Not only does the term take the focus off of the marginalised group the movement is centred around but it makes supporting equal rights sound like some kind of heroic burden we’ve chosen to take on rather than addressing a debt we owe and being not even good but just plain decent human beings. WE are not the ones shouldering the weight here, and if your mental health is suffering, that is not the fault of the people asking for their rights. Log off. We have the privilege to do that. It just doesn’t need to be a spectacle.

At the same time, this public onslaught of ignorance and hatred that the coverage of the Black Lives Matter movement has triggered (that let me again emphasise, black people have had to involuntarily be on the receiving end of their whole lives) and the frustration and anger that comes from seeing these absolute trash takes from people with no research into the subject who build their argument purely on “what about”isms is do-I-even-want-to-bring-children-into-this-fucking-world levels of miserable. In terms of earth beginning to look more and more like the prequel describing the events which lead up to a dystopian novel, the chaos of the last 4 weeks or so (2020 has not only shattered the illusion of time but also danced on the shards, I know) is the tip of the iceberg. I saw a thread about what’s going on in Yemen at the moment, which I had no idea about, and immediately felt consumed by guilt that I didn’t know. With the advent of social media, there’s been this sudden evolutionary shift where we’re almost required and expected to know about, have an opinion on, and be empathetic with every humanitarian crisis at once. I think young people feel this especially, which is why I say that sometimes it’s worth talking to an older person before you brush them off as a racist or a homophobe and see if they’re open to hearing different opinions-in general, I think we’re a generation that is used to being expected to consume a huge amount of information at once. They are not. For a lot (NOT all) of the older, middle-class, white population, ignorance isn’t a conscious choice, it is the natural way of life. The parameters of empathy until very recently have only had to extend just past your closest circle of friends to encompass people you “relate to”. That doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of caring about other things, and sometimes we owe them a chance to change their perspective first, if for no reason other than to advance the cause of, well, basic human rights for all.

So where does J.K Rowling come into all this? I hear you ask. Why doesn’t she just stop rambling? You potentially wonder. Well, I’m getting to it. 

J.K Rowling isn’t an unconsciously ignorant people. She is what I would call consciously ignorant. And of all weeks to flaunt this ignorance, she chose a time when people are already drowning in a cesspit of hatred. The woman whose whole book series supposedly revolves around the battle between good and evil didn’t even try to drain the swamp. She instead added a bucket of her transphobic vitriol into it. 

Let me preface this by saying that I wouldn’t wipe my arse with the Sun. What they did with the statement she made regarding her previous abusive relationship, seeking out said abusive partner for an interview and putting it on the front page with the headline “I slapped J.K”, whilst expected from the bunch of cretinous bottom feeders who work there, is disgusting. That being said, the pattern of behaviour J.K Rowling has exhibited since she first became an online presence is equally disgusting, and just because the Sun have been their usual shithead selves, doesn’t mean we should forget the issue at hand, that issue being her ongoing transphobia and erasure of trans women from women’s rights.

As I’m sure is the case for many people on Tumblr, J.K Rowling has always been such a huge inspiration for me, and Harry Potter was my entire childhood. My obsession with it continued until I was at least 16 and is what got me through the very shit years of being a teenager, and that will forever be the case. I’m not here to discuss the whole separation of the art from the artist thing because whilst I ordinarily don’t think that’s really possible, at this point the “Harry Potter universe” has become much bigger than J.K herself. I was so pleased to see Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint all affirm their support for trans rights-I was raised on the films up until the 4th one which I wasn’t old enough to see at the cinema, and the DVD was at the top of my Christmas list. They were always my Harry, Hermione and Ron. It was only between the fourth and fifth films that I started to read the books to fill that gaping in-between-movies hole, but as I grew up, I read them over and over and over again. Any of the subtext that people are talking about now in light of her antisemitism and transphobia went completely over my head, though who knows, whilst I can sit here and write that I’m certain I didn’t, maybe I did pick up some unconscious biases along the way? The art/artist discussion is a complex one and I don’t know if I’ll ever read the books again at this point.

There was absolutely no subtext, however, in the “think piece” on J.K’s website addressing the response to her transphobic tweets. There wasn’t all that much to unpack in the first tirade, they were quite openly dismissive-first that womanhood is defined by whether or not one experiences menstruation (I currently don’t due to health issues but I’m betting this wouldn’t make me any less woman in her eyes), and second, regurgitating an article which furthers the fallacy that trans women simply existing erases the existence of cisgender lesbian women. Rowling’s initial response to the backlash was to blame it on a glass of red wine, I think? Which is such a weird go-to excuse for celebrities because not once have I ever got drunk and completely changed my belief system. If you��re not transphobic sober, you don’t suddenly become transphobic drunk. What you are saying is that you’re not usually publicly transphobic (which isn’t even the case with Rowling because this is hardly her first flirtation with bigotry via social media) but that whoopsies! You drank some wine and suddenly thought it was acceptable!

Now what is her excuse for the formal response she wrote to the backlash, dripping with transphobic dog whistles and straight up misinformation (UPDATE: and as of yesterday, blocking Stephen King quite literally for replying to her with the tweet “trans women are women”, in case you thought that this whole thing was a case of her intentions being misconstrued)? Drunk tweets are one thing but if she managed to write a whole fucking essay whilst pissed I imagine there’s a lot of university students out there who’d pay her good money to learn that skill.

Here is the bottom line. TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN. There is no discussion around that. And if you don’t understand why, at the very least, you can be respectful of the way a person chooses to identify, especially when that person is an already targeted minority.

Obviously, sex and gender are complex things. Based on the fact that we don’t walk around with our nether-regions out, we generally navigate our way through the world using our gender and the way we present our gender. Gender of course means many different things to many different people; some see it as a sliding scale kind of thing whereas some people can’t see themselves on the scale at all, and choose to use terms other than man or woman to express how they identify. But, whatever gender one chooses to identify as, we live in a modern world-with all the scientific advancements we’ve made and all that we now know about the brain, using what is between people’s legs to define them is an ignorant, outdated copout. You’ll find that a lot of transphobes can live in harmony with trans women who conform, who have classically feminine features, maybe facial feminisation surgery, trans women who keep quiet about how they’re seen by cis women and don’t kick up “too much of a fuss” (which is in itself still a perfectly valid, brave and understandable way to live your life after years of feeling like you don’t fit in btw). The trans women that Joanne and her friends take the most issue with is the ones who want to expand what womanhood means and stretch the boundaries of what is and isn’t acceptable, destroying the confines of simplistic model that TERFs feel comfortable operating within. The ones who fight to be recognised as no “lesser” than cis women. Calling a person a TERF is quite literally just asserting that they are someone who wants to exclude trans women from their definition of womanhood, or in other words wants to cling to the old, obsolete model. If J.K Rowling cannot let the statement “trans women are women” go unchallenged (which we’ve seen from her response to Stephen King’s tweet she cannot), then she is by definition a TERF. It’s not a slur. It’s a descriptor indicating the movement she has chosen to associate herself with. Associating the descriptor of the position you so vehemently refuse to denounce in spite of all evidence and information offered to you with the concept of a “witch hunt” when trans women are ACTUALLY brutally murdered for an innate part of their identity is insulting, at the very least.

Let’s get this straight: despite transphobes trying to conflate sex with gender and arguing that sex is the only “real” identifier of the two, our existence on this planet and our perception of this world is a gendered experience. It is our brain, where the majority of researchers agree that gender lies, which decides and dictates not only who we are and how we feel but also how we interact with everyone around us. I don’t think it’s an outlandish statement to say that when it comes to who we are as people, that flesh machine protected by our skull is the key player.  PSA for transphobes everywhere: when people say penises have a mind of their own, they are NOT talking literally. The more you know. 

Gender is obviously a much newer concept than sex-it is both influenced by and interacts with every element of our lives. It’s also much more complex, in that there are still many gaps in our understanding. I assume these two factors combined with the familiarity of the (usually) binary model of biological sex are a part of why TERFS fundamentally reject the importance of gender in favour of the latter. Yes, most of the time, we feel our gender corresponds with our sex, but not always, and nor is there any concrete proof that this has to be the case. Most studies tend to agree that our brains start out as blank slates, that we grow into the gender we are assigned based on our bodies. In other words, our sex only defines our gender insofar as the historical assumption that they are the same thing, which in turn exposes us to certain cultural expectations. To any TERFs that have somehow ended up here-if you haven’t already, I suggest looking into the research of Gina Rippon, a neuroscientist whom has spent a large portion of her professional career analysing the data of sex differences in the brain. Whilst she originally set out to find some kind of consistent variance between the brains of the 2 prominent sexes to back up the idea that the brains of men and women are inherently different, she found nothing of significance-individual differences, yes, but no consistent similarities in the brains of one sex that were not present in the other. Once differences in brain size were accounted for, “well-known” sex differences in key structures disappeared-in terms of proportion, these structures take up the same amount of space in the brain regardless of sex. Her findings are best summed up by her response to the question: are there any significant differences in the brain based on sex alone? Her answer is no. To suggest otherwise is “neurofoolishness”. Not only does her research help put to bed the myth that our brains are sexed along with the rest of our bodies during development (this is now believed to happen separately, meaning the sex of our bodies and brains may not correspond), but also the idea propagated by the patriarchy for centuries that basically boils down to “boys will be boys”-a myth used to condone male sexual violence against women and even against each other on the basis that it is inherent and “can't be helped”. That they are just “built differently”. Maybe at one point in human evolution, men were conditioned to fight and women were conditioned to protect, but whilst the idea remains and continues to affect our societal structures (and thus said cultural expectations), we’ve moved on. I mean we evolved from fish for fuck’s sake but you don’t see us breathing underwater. 

Gender identity is based on many things and admittedly we don’t fully have the complete picture yet. The effects that socialisation and gender norms in particular, as much as we don’t want them to exist, have on our brain are huge; there’s evidence that they can leave epigenetic marks, or in other words cause structural changes in the brain which drive biological functions and features as diverse as memory, development and disease susceptibility. Socialisation alters the way our individual brains develop as we grow up, and as much as I’d love to see gender norms disappear, they’ll probably be around for a long time to come, as will their ramifications. The gap between explaining how socialisation affects the brain of cisgender individuals compared to the brains of transgender or non-binary individuals is not yet totally clear, but as with every supposed cause and effect psychology tries to uncover, there are outliers and individual differences. No, brains are not inherently male or female at birth but they are all different, and can be affected by socialisation differently. In one particularly groundbreaking study conducted by Dick Swaab of the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, postmortems of the brains of transgender women revealed that the structure of one of the areas in the brain most important to sexual behaviour more closely resembled the postmortem brains of cisgender women than those of cisgender men-it’s also important that these differences did not appear to be attributable to the influence of endogenous sex hormone fluctuations or hormone treatment in adulthood.

Maybe dysphoria is something that evolves organically and environmental factors don’t even come into it. Like I said, we don’t have the whole picture. What we DO know is that for some people, as soon as they become self-aware, that dysphoria is there, and the evidence for THAT, for there being common variations between the brains of cisgender individuals and transgender individuals, is overwhelming. You can be trapped in a body that does not correspond with how your brain functions, or how you wish to see yourself. Do individuals like J.K Rowling really believe it is ethical to reinforce the idea that we are defined by our sex and that our sex should decide the course of our lives, should decide how we are treated? That we should reduce people to genitals and chromosomes when our gender, the lens through which we see and interact with the world, could be completely different? Do they not see anything wrong with perpetuating the feelings of “otherness” and dysphoria in trans individuals that results from society’s refusal to see them as anything more than what body parts they have? In a collaboration between UCLA MA neuroscience student Jonathan Vanhoecke and Ivanka Savic at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, the statistics collected pointed to what trans activists have always been trying to get at-the areas of the brain responsible for our sense of our identity showed far more neural activity in the brains of trans individuals when they were looking at depictions of their body that had been changed to match their gender identity than when this wasn’t the case; when they saw themselves with a body that corresponded with their gender identity, when they were “valid” by society’s definition, they felt more themselves. When J.K Rowling tells trans people that their “real identity” is the sex they were born with, she is denying them this right to be themselves and due to her large platform, encouraging others to do the same. YOU are doing that, J.K. And who knows why? Where does your transphobia come from? Peel back the bullshit layers of waffle about feeling silenced and threatened, which you know you are directing at the wrong group of people, and admit it’s for less noble reasons. Taking the time to unlearn the instinct embedded into your generation to see people according to the cultural status quo of biological determinism is effort, I know-but you wrote a 700+ page book. I’m sure you can manage it. Or is it an ego thing? You don’t want to admit that you may have been uneducated on gender and sex in the past, and now have to stick by your reductive position so your image as an “intellectual” isn’t compromised. I don’t know. Only you do. But your position is irresponsible and dangerous either way. You can make up bullshit reasons as to why the link between trans individuals and the incidence of suicide attempts and completions isn’t relevant or representative of the struggle that trans people face due to the hatred that people like you propagate but it is there, and you J.K Rowling, someone who has spoken in the past about the horror of depression, should know better. You should know better than to CLAIM you know better than the experienced researchers who have found the same pattern time and time again-that the likelihood of trans individuals committing suicide is significantly higher than that of cis people. 

No, Rowling’s transphobia has never been as upfront as saying “I don’t believe transgender people exist” but she continues to imply that when she makes claims such as womanhood being defined by whether or not one experiences menstruation, and the completely subjective concept of whether an individual has faced sex-based violence from cisgender men. I’m sure she’d be out here taking chromosome proof cards like Oysters if it wasn’t for intersex individuals throwing her whole binary jam into a tailspin. Yep, there’s even suggestions that the binary biological model might not be so binary these days-just because two people have, say, XY chromosomes, does not mean that these chromosomes are genetically identical between individuals-the genes they carry can, and do, vary and so their actions and expressions of sex vary. 

Ideally, what TERFs want to do with their language of “real womanhood” is create an exclusive club that trans women are left out of when they too suffer under the same patriarchal society that those who are born female do. Yes, they might not experience ALL the issues a person born with female genitalia do, but no two women’s life experiences are the same anyway. Trans women also have their own horrible experiences with the patriarchy, and are often victims of a specific kind of gendered violence that is purported by the idea of “real womanhood”. Don’t throw trans sisters under the bus because you’re angry about your experience as a woman on this planet-direct your anger at the fucking bus. Don’t claim that “many trans people regret their decision to transition” when the statistics overwhelmingly show that this is the EXACT FUCKING OPPOSITE of the truth (according to British charity organisation Mermaids, surgical regret is proportionately very low amongst gender affirmation outpatients and research suggesting otherwise has been broadly disproven) because you’ve spoken to a selective group of trans individuals probably handpicked by the TERFS you associate with to confirm their biases, and then have the nerve to claim that trans-activists live in echo chambers on top of that. Don’t use anecdotes and one-off incidences where “trans women” (I say trans women in quotation marks because we’re pretty much talking about a completely statistically insignificant group of perverted cis men who have, according to TERFs, somehow come to the conclusion that going through transition will make their already easy-to-get-away-with hobby of assaulting women even...easier to get away with?) have committed sexual crimes to demonise and paint as predatory group who are largely at risk and in 99.9% of situations, the ones being preyed on. It’s a point so disgusting that trans activists shouldn’t even have to respond to it, but the idea that an individual would go to the pains of legally changing their gender and potentially the hell of the harassment that trans people face, the multiple year long NHS waiting lists to see specialist doctors,  just so that they can gain access to women only spaces is ridiculous. It’s worth noting here just how sinister you repeatedly bringing up this phantom threat of cis men becoming trans women in order to assault women in “women only” spaces is. The implication here is that they should use the toilet corresponding to the sex they were born as, right? Because it’s all about safety? Well, statistically speaking, far more trans women are abused whilst having to use men’s toilets than when they use women’s ones and the same goes for trans men, and yet you don’t mention it once. Your suggestion also puts people born female who identify as women but maybe do not dress or present in a typically feminine way at risk of being ostracised when THEY need to use the women’s bathroom. The idea that by ceasing to uphold values like yours we are putting women at risk is quite simply, unsubstantiated; the legislation to allow individuals to use the bathroom corresponding to whichever gender they legally identify as has been around since 2010 in the UK and yet we’ve yet to see the sudden spike in the number of women being assaulted in bathrooms you imply will exist if we create looser rules around gender identity and let people use whichever toilet they feel the need to. Similarly, in a study of US school districts, Media Matters found that 17 around the country with protections for trans people, which collectively cover more than 600,000 students, had no problems with harassment in bathrooms or locker rooms after implementing their policies. If cis men want to assault women, they will. They don’t need to pretend to be trans to do so. Don’t pretend to be speaking as a concerned ally of LGBTQ+ individuals when you’re ignoring the thoughts of the majority of individuals who come under that category.

(Just Some of the Trans Women Murdered for Being Trans Over the Last Couple of Years, L-R: Serena Valzquez, Riah Milton, Bee Love Slater, Naomi Hersi, Layla Pelaez, and Dominique Fells)

Trans women are not the threat here. Bigots like you are the threat. HOW DARE you use your platform to reinforce this rhetoric that gets trans people killed when there are so many much MUCH more important things going on right now. Two black trans women had been murdered just for being black trans women in the week you wrote your essay defending those initial tweets. This is an ongoing issue. As a cis woman, my opinion should read as sacred texts to you right, Joanne? Because I’ll say with my whole chest that I feel far more threatened by bigots like you who do not care for the harmful impact of their words than I do by trans women. I do not feel threatened by trans women AT ALL. And yeah, to me, unless they tell me otherwise that they like to go out their way to affirm their trans-ness (which I completely respect-it takes a lot of courage to be proud about your past in a world that condemns you for it), they’re just WOMEN like any other. Yes their experience of “womanhood” may be different to mine but no two individuals experiences are the same anyway and our gender related suffering has the same cause. As a rich, white, cis woman, it’s wild that you are painting yourself as the victim in this debate when trans people can face life in prison and in some places a death sentence for openly identifying with a gender different to their sex in a lot of countries. Nobody is saying that you can’t talk about cis women. Nobody is saying you can’t talk about lesbian issues either, though it’s a bit of a piss-take that you like to throw that whole trans women erase lesbian existence argument out there as a kind of trump card to say “look, I can’t be a transphobe, I’m an LGBTQ+ ally!”, an argument akin to the racist’s age old “I can’t be racist, I have black friends!”. You know from the responses you get to your transphobia that majority of the LGBTQ+ community are very much adamant that trans women are “real women” and that the same goes for trans men being “real men”, so don’t claim to speak for them. You cannot simultaneously care about LGBTQ+ rights and deny trans people their right to live as who they are, however veiled your sentiments around that may be. The whole gay rights movement of the 60s and 70s exist partially BECAUSE of black trans women such as Martha P Johnson if you didn’t know, and though it’s kinda common knowledge I’m doubting that you do because very little of what you tout is backed up by any kind of research. The articles you retweet, echoing the views of lesbians who also happen to be TERFs do not count-the idea that trans people existing simultaneously erases the existence of lesbians only applies to individuals such as yourself who don’t see trans women as women in the first place. That is the problem! Most people don’t have an issue with the fact that you may have a preference for certain genitalia, but I would argue that ignoring exceptional circumstances related to trauma or some other complex issue, relationships are supposed to be with the person as a whole, not their “organic” penis or vagina and it’s kind of insulting to anyone in a same sex relationship to reduce their bond to that.

Back to my point though, of course there are issues that cis women and lesbians face that need talking about, but trans people are affected by the same patriarchal system. You don’t need to go out of your way to mention that they’re not included in whichever given specific issue when there are also cis women who may not have experienced some of the things TERFs reference. You especially don’t need to act as if trans women are the reason we need to have these discussions in the first place. As I’ve said, as MANY women have said, repeatedly-they are NOT the threat here. It is disgusting to see someone I once had so much admiration for constantly punch down at a group that is already marginalised.  It’s 2020, J.K, there’s so much info out there. YOU’RE A FULLY GROWN WOMAN. There’s no justification. We get it, you had a tomboy phase. You weren’t like “other girls”. You didn’t like living under a patriarchal system. So you think you understand the mindset of people who want to transition. You think you’re not doing anything wrong by helping to slow the advancement of trans rights because well, you turned out fine? But you clearly fundamentally misunderstand what being trans is. It’s not about your likes and dislikes and having issues with the experience of being a woman (god knows we all do but I doubt anyone truly thinks for one moment that being trans would be any easier), it’s about how you think and feel at your core. It’s such a complex issue, and all the majority of trans people are asking you to do is LISTEN to them. You may be determined to live in binaries, yet the bigger picture is always more complex and fluid and it’s ever-changing, so all we can do is keep an open mind and keep wanting to know more and gather more evidence. If you’re capable of the mental gymnastics required to retcon the piece of work you wrote in the 90s to make it seem as if you were “ahead of the diversity game”, to the extent that you are now claiming Voldermort’s snake has always actually been a Korean woman and see nothing wrong with that when paired with the fact that the only Asian character you originally included was called Cho Chang, then well…I’m sure you can put your ego aside and do the groundwork to understand what trans people are trying to tell you too. You inspired a lot of children and teenagers and even adults, and got them through some very difficult times, taught that the strength of one’s character matters far more than what anyone thinks of you. You claimed you wanted to stand up for the outcasts.

Well, stand up for the outcasts. Now’s a better time than any. And once again: TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN AND TRANS MEN ARE MEN. They shouldn’t have to hear anything else.

Lauren x

[DISCLAIMER: shitty collages are mine but the background is not, let me know if you are aware of the artist so I can credit!]

[imsorryaboutallthejack]

Theory time!

(I don't remember who made this title. Please, someone, let me know so I can credit them)(warning essay post)

Is no one gonna talk about how investing the personifications of Thomas’s sides have gotten? No talking about the expansion of the Sanders Sides’ as personas? 

I feel that they have been getting textured in a far more believable manner, namely Patton. We have learned of the character’s identity in regards to Morality and in being its embodiment, the strict and oppressive nature of it. 

Personally, I love the layering of doubt, stubbornness, and dejection going into the representation for them all.

Virgil and his past erasure, denying the essence of who he used to be and whom he used to affiliate with.

No one listening to Roman.

Also, can we all just accept that Deceit is dismissed way too easily by most of the sides? He suggests lying even once (always after someone else considered it) and everything else he says is lobbied out the window. (Yes I know he’s my favorite so I hAvE a BiAs)

I’m. So. Pumped! I have so many theories. 

You know what?  I’m about to get into it. Warning Long post!

FULL ESSAY MODE ENGAGING!

First: Let’s talk about the general character’s representations.

Within the realm of the series structure, we have learned about the weight of Thomas's opinions of his sides and their personifications. We’ve seen this with the Duke’s arrival, Marking him as the unwelcome side of Thomas’ creative thoughts. 

This representation style for the character Doubles as a ground for individual motivations as well as the metaphysical repercussions of a side’s role, mentally for Thomas. Much Like how Thomas questioning his own good natured-ness being a discussion by Deceit and Morality, but also “Patton” and “whatever Deceit’s name is”.

Which means that a Side might make a decision or an appearance-based upon either a character choice-- which tends to be personal, or their supposed position in the ’Thomasphere’. 

For example, Virgil is an anxious character who seeks to protect Thomas from poor decision making.  However he also compulsively brings up information that he is aware is troubling to Thomas. Because in that regard he cannot separate himself from the role he plays in Thomas’s mind. Virgil could also make decisions based squarely upon personal bias. Such as avoiding telling Thomas about the “others” despite Thomas asking directly. 

I mention this because Thomas’s general opinion regarding a set of traits dictates the representation of the characteristic when embodied. Take for example if Thomas looked more harshly on the idea of repressed thoughts. Morality’s character could have just as easily been called “Denial”. This still would have played into the character’s person being both stubborn, dismissive, and childish. A line like “where do babies come from?” despite being a dad could have been a reinforcement into the idea that Thomas couldn’t trust that voice in his head to be rational.  

This simple implication leads me to leave that due to Thomas’ view on selfishness, that he too was erasing the potential contributions to be offered by a character like Virgil at the beginning of the Series. If Thomas valued vigilance more, then Virgil would have been seen as something like ‘Caution’ or ‘practicality’. 

What I mean when I mention this is, Thomas is not an inherently reliable narrator, and thus the representations of characters framed by his opinion should be under scrutiny as well. We all can very easily see the value of a character like ‘Anxiety’ now that Thomas’s morality has taken the time to paint it in a positive light. 

But why his morality and not Character Thomas alone? Because these ‘sides’ are all facets of Thomas. So there must be a part of him that is making these decisions about himself rather than just him as a whole. That part, in my opinion, is Patton. 

Why does this distinction matter? Because the sides are also Characters. They have individual wants that--though they are not separate from Thomas, are separate from each other. They don’t inherently know each other’s names, they don’t know their memories, and they very specifically don’t know all they contribute. What they do know is how they interact with each other from their perspectives and experiences. 

Does it seem like Deceit and Morality disagree? Well of course they do. One relies on self-sacrifice and the dismissal of negative identities, the other can spot lies and dishonesty, and functions on self-preservation and self-honesty as a priority. Of course, they can’t mix. But, whose claim to power would affect the other the most? Tell me, which of these two do you believe would cast the other to a forgotten part of Thomas’s mind? The direct selfish one, or the repressive, abnegatious one? (i may have made up that conjugation) 

So by character and characterizations standpoint, there is reason to believe that the side with the most authority is Patton, Thomas’ Morality. This stands to reason why Thomas has spent the last few episodes questioning whether or not his ‘goodness’ is intact whenever he has to face off his own “banished” dispositions. Because if there is any part of Thomas that should dictate who he chooses to identify himself with, it is his Morality. (I believe)

It is for this reason that I have ‘Beef’ with the response Thomas has to Deceit, an entity who ‘by Patton’s own words ”acts with the one intention of self-preservation.” ( CLBG => 23:54) and Remus a literal stream of consciousness.  

With deceit, I think there is more to the character than a personification of being untruthful, but instead, there is the willingness to be untruthful and the recognized deceit in others. He knows when any character is misplacing the truth and urges them to honesty, as though it is fine for Thomas to lie as long as it's not to himself (though deceit himself doesn't follow that rule). Which Is why I find it telling that he appears after the ‘Moving on’ episode (if we dismiss the Christmas episode). Patton--Thomas’s morality and framing for the rest of his thoughts, was lying to himself, and by association, to Thomas.

Second: The Deceit Character response

(I separated this from the first bit because I get VERy lost in the sauce when I talk about my Snake son.)

I’m gonna start off talking about the internal perception of deceit from the characters. Then go into the personification of the sides Dark sides included. This will include timestamps to the Selfishness v. Selflessness Episode.

Let’s look at the beginning of the episode (3:53) "so I can't join in and give my honest opinion"

It’s bizarre that should Deceit directly say that Thomas wanted to go to the callback, the core sides would have said he was lying. This character has to LITERALLY disguise himself for anyone to listen to him. He then continues to go out of his way to show the rest of the group Evidence as to why Thomas felt this way. That seems to be what it takes for them to even think about it. 

He tries to be straight forward at (5:25) "do you want the part in the movie or not" no lies no tricks. But when Thomas won't answer, Roman does. Then this happens.

(6:26) "maybe Mary and Lee will understand" - Roman

(6:28) "Roman, this is their big day. We have to be there for them" - Patton

(6:32) "We don't have to do anything" - Deceit

What the literal Frick Patton? He can't even ask? Roman suggested a non Deceitful option for Thomas to make and you slapped it down. But now that Deceit suggested lying, Roman had to throw that whole decision out the window?

Also, you wanna hear toxic self-talk? "But what about us? What about us?" Think about if someone else said that.

"but what about me" "what about you?" That's horrible! You Fricken matter dude! Sure it's not ideal, but you weren't born to be a doormat for your friends.

There is a point where Patton’s opinion on Thomas’ friends exceeds even the suggestions of said friends. Apparently, Thomas is to throw away his chances at happiness for the sake of his friends’ without even knowing if that would make them happy. I can’t see how this is a fruitful way of thinking. 

Plus as an added bonus, there is as much disregard for Thomas’s say on the matter as his friends. Anything that doesn’t align with a perfectly selfless gesture is thrown out, outright. Even Thomas’ own decisions. 

(7:16) "you don't mean any of this" Patton that definitely doesn’t sound a little gaslighty. But to be fair, he acknowledged that much at the end.

Then a bit later, when Patton is telling Thomas how he feels. You could see that Deceit knows No one would believe him should he call mortality dishonest, though his character can literally tell. (7:21)

Ughhh I can't wait for this thread to be resolved. It is literally killing me.

I feel that this is more than enough reason to at least consider: Deceit is trying to be helpful. He is self-preservation, (though with more plots of deception) and serves a purpose in Thomas’ thoughts. Just. Like. Virgil.

Though Virge isn't exactly the best at fully accepting himself either. He didn't want to tell Thomas that he was a dark side and refuses to associate with his past. Though he knows he was doing it for a good reason. Isn't it telling that even when Virge is doing it for self-preservation reasons, he doesn't think Thomas will think it's ok? And who determines what Thomas thinks is ok?

(30:58) “If Thomas wanted to be seen as a good friend more than he wanted the role of a lifetime, well then I’m all for that. but I just don’t buy it.”  

He is instinctual and Thomas' views on self-preservation seem to be what makes Deceit unwelcome to the group in the first place. Like Remus. Like Virgil. How do we know Thomas’ views on things like self-preservation? His morality shouts it out.

(29:52)

"acting in your own Self Interest" - Deceit

"but that's wrong" - Patton

Only later do we find out in Intrusive thoughts that Patton’s repressive and strict nature can be potentially harmful to Thomas. Just as high expectations for one’s self can negatively skew one’s self-sense of worth and decency. This is something I get and absolutely value in Patton’s characterization. 

Morality in itself is a strictness with our thoughts, actions, and beliefs. To truly encourage good deeds there must be either a reward or a punishment. They can be small but the choice to obey must be an indispensable resource. For the sake of good deeds coming to action, It is necessary that Morality behaves this way. Granted that there are Checks and Balances for its authority. But again, there can be too much strictness, as Intrusive Thoughts portrays.

I feel that this is important to keep in mind for Deceit's personification. He has to exist in a way that still protects Thomas while under Patton's stronger ideals. So how must he guide Thomas? 

When he actually had to make Thomas say what he wanted himself, He asked about four times. And interestingly enough all he did was make Thomas be honest. It was at this point where I wished I could have gotten to hear what the scenario was for. Because I find it very telling that Deceit only hurt Thomas by making him be honest about his wants. Thomas looked so defeated. Not about wanting to lie about it. But about the actual truth spurring on the lie. Why did it hurt him to want to follow his dreams?

I feel that this representation of the character is more conducive to expressing Thomas’ unhealthy expectations for himself. 

This is terrible working conditions as a voice of self-gain to be heeded. How is anyone meant to look after Thomas when their intentions are so actively misinterpreted? Deceit works to make Thomas Happy and seems to be the only one doing so consistently (out of the only two and a half episodes he was in).

If there is anything more telling of this, it is the fact that Thomas “taking care of himself” went from Patton (Way Too Adult) to Roman(Growing up) to Logan(WDWGOoBiTM). No character has been able to sustainably take care of Thomas in this way despite their role in his life. Even Roman is willing to dash his dreams if met with enough opposition.

Thomas’ morality does not dictate his self-care or his general wants, neither does his logical side or Fanciful one, unfortunately. If they did, Deceit would not have to be the one making the rest of the aspects listen to Thomas’s Wants.

Roman is literally Thomas's ego. Hence why Deceit mainly shows up for him, both times. Deceit is internal maintenance while Patton is the external (intercommunication-al) maintenance, it would seem.

Finally: A Resolution

I think "Discovering Balance" would be a great addition to this series, by having Virgil and Deceit come to an understanding as much as Deceit and Patton.

Plus Deceit must have been in a similar position to Patton when Virgil was a dark side, encouraging him to keep Thomas alert, for Thomas' preservation. Seeing as the character also hold s the reins over Remus. But it's fairly important to note that Virgil's external worries come from logic and internal ones come from perceived moral failure. Such as ruining friendships. 

Which means Patton's inability to see the worst in people (even Thomas) and strong values would make a character like Virgil particularly susceptible to wanting to both protect and gain the favor of him. This might mean washing away his past, a thing he has yet to resolve. 

I have no doubt that Patton can come around to any of the dark sides. He’s been pretty open to understanding things, (if presented the way it is destructive to Thomas to avoid). But I think having Virgil lead him and Thomas through it, would be far more valuable. Thomas needs to learn to love himself and he can’t do that by hiding from difficult truths. I think a chance to have the dark sides accepted openly and directly would help put Thomas at ease with himself.

But again there needs to be balance. Thomas must keep his behaviors to others in mind, but also his own self-care. 

At the current state of things, The fact that he isn't allowed to seek out external opinions on his behaviors (like not talking to Lee and Mary Lee) is a sign that there isn't balance on this side either. And he's not seeking any reinforcement for his wants being VALID. That just won’t do.

He needs to talk to his friends. I can't stress this enough.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

P.S. I do love Patton, but I think it is irresponsible for the character not to acknowledge the pressure he’s putting Thomas under. He seems to be getting around to it, so I still love him. But that does not mean I have lost any love for my Snek boi.

[ruminativerabbi]

Pandemic Purim

Purim was a slightly melancholic experience at Shelter Rock this year: first we cancelled the dancing, then we cancelled the party, then we cancelled the whole evening so as best to conform to the advice we were getting indirectly from the CDC in Atlanta, less indirectly from the Nassau County Board of Health, and not at all indirectly from physicians in the community who felt we would be putting people—and particularly our seniors—at risk by bringing them together in large numbers in a confined space. I suppose some must have felt we were over-reacting. But can you really over-react when we are talking about the health and welfare of a whole community and specifically of its oldest and youngest members? Better safe than sorry!

And yet, even so, the whole experience left me feeling a bit despondent, a bit blue—but not specifically because I was or am suffering over the decision itself. When I analyzed my thinking, in fact, I realized that my mood had more to do with the way the decision—and the whole coronavirus outbreak—had somehow managed to shift the way I think about Purim itself, moving me along from considering it basically to be about the great success of the Jews of Persia in standing together to defend themselves to focusing instead on just how vulnerable those people were in the first place, how completely they would surely have been annihilated if Queen Esther hadn’t found the courage to enter the king’s throne room uninvited, if she hadn’t found the words to stir the king to action on her people’s behalf, if she hadn’t been the paragon of virtue and bravery as which we more than reasonably remember her. It all worked out well, of course. But it also could not have…and that sense of vulnerability is what I noted coming to the fore in me and displacing the raucous delight our happiest holiday generally elicits in me easily.

And then I read Meir Soloveitchik’s essay published in the New York Times on Purim day itself. Rabbi Soloveitchik, the rabbi of the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue      on Central Park West, is one of my favorite essayists. (He is also only the synagogue’s tenth rabbi since the American Revolution, which detail seems impossible to believe and yet is apparently true.) He writes in several different forums, all of which I try to keep up with, but this Op-Ed piece for the Times (click here) made a special impression on me both because it both confirmed my mood but also because it helped me understand about the whole concept of vulnerability that had somehow come to the fore in my thinking about the holiday.

Rabbi Soloveitchik’s basic point is that there is something slightly both slightly self-serving and seriously strange about celebrating the happy end of the Purim story without pausing to contemplate the political instability that is, after all, at the heart of the tale. He cites a comment made by his uncle, the late Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik’s in the latter’s book, Days of Deliverance: Essays on Purim and Chanukah, which I would like also to quote. “If,” the elder Rabbi Soloveitchik wrote, “a Prime Minister who just yesterday enjoyed the full confidence and trust of the king was suddenly convicted and executed,” he reflected, “then who is wise and clairvoyant enough to assure us that the same unreasonable, absurd, neurotic change of mood and mind will not repeat itself?” And, of course, the answer is that none of us is: King Achashveirosh is depicted in the Megillah as the most terrifying political figure of all: the idiot-king possessed of immense and unchallengeable power who is so pathetically eager to please the world that he basically agrees to whatever proposal is put to him no matter how malign or barbaric, and no matter how reliable or unreliable the person putting it to him might be.

The younger Rabbi Soloveitchik, the essayist whose work I so admire, then goes on to ask the obvious question: if his uncle’s observation is correct, which it certainly is, then why exactly is Purim celebrated as a holiday at all? It’s a good question. And his answer is also a good one. Queen Esther, he writes, embodied precisely the character traits— and foremost among them initiative, bravery, and insight—that made it possible for the Jews to survive both the terrifying imbecility of an Achashveirosh and the malign savagery of a Haman. And so we celebrate, not the specific incident that gave rise to the holiday, but rather the possibility of heroism that constitutes its greatest lesson. That last phrase “the possibility of heroism,” comes directly from the final paragraph in Rabbi Soloveitchik’s essay, where he writes that, for all Purim “marks the fragility of Jewish security,” it also represents the possibility of heroism in the face of that vulnerability. And then the essay concludes with the thought that Purim “is therefore a holiday for our time. Around the world, and especially in a Europe that should know better, anti-Semitism has made itself manifest once again. As Esther’s example is celebrated, and Jews gather in synagogue to study her terrifying tale, we are reminded why, in the face of hate, we remain vigilant — and why we continue to joyously celebrate all the same.”

In my weekly letters, I have returned again and again to the topic of heroism and the specific question of what constitutes a true hero. (Click here or here for some examples.) Esther certain qualifies: untrained in diplomacy or in strategic negotiation techniques, she somehow nonetheless found a way to identify her people’s foes’ Achilles’ heels—Haman’s preening megalomania and Achashveirosh’s pathetic need to please—and bravely to use them artfully and cleverly in the defense of her people. And so Purim really is a holiday for our time. We all feel ever more vulnerable in the world than ever as the number of anti-Semitic incidents at home and abroad multiplies, as anti-Semitic tropes creep into public discourse in a way that even a few years ago would have felt unimaginable, and as the world’s eagerness to placate Iran, Israel’s most vicious foe, feels more and more ominous with every passing week. The obvious question is how to respond forcefully effectively. And to that specific question, Purim offers a very good answer: with cunning, with forthrightness, with intelligence rooted in an honest understanding of our enemies’ motives, with selflessness and singlemindedness, and with courage and bravery. And so, because Queen Esther was the embodiment of all of the above, we celebrate her success…even though, at the same time, we take note of just how precarious the security the Jews of old Persia surely felt before Haman came to office truly was. And that vulnerability can serve us well…if we can get over our skittishness in its regard to allow it to guide us an understanding of how things actually are in the world.

Of course, all Americans are feeling vulnerable this week as the coronavirus spreads unchecked throughout thirty-eight of the fifty states and 117 of the world’s countries including every nation in Europe. But is that sense of vulnerability a problem or an asset? Or is it just the right emotion for us all to bring to the table as we prepare to elect a new (or not new) president in November? Indeed, perhaps we should be coming to the New York State primary on April 19 or the general election on November 3 possessed not of our usual American sense of invincibility but rather of a sense of the vulnerability we are all facing…and demanding that those who would be our leaders respond to how things actually are not with bluster, let alone with unfulfillable empty promises, but with the same combination of intelligence, bravery, and chutzpah that Esther brought to the table when she risked everything to prevent a catastrophe of immense proportions from befalling her people.

Since neither major party has actually nominated a candidate for the presidency, the challenge facing the American people is not prematurely to decide who to vote for, but rather thoughtfully to decide what qualities we wish to characterize those who would be our leaders. Starting from a deep sense of our vulnerability, our national and international interconnectedness to other people and peoples, and our deep and abiding sense of our personal responsibility for the welfare of others sounds like the right approach to me! Even if Queen Esther were somehow to come back to life and become a naturalized American citizen, she still would not be eligible to run for the office of President. So we’re going to have to go with someone who embodies her finest qualities, someone possessed of the courage and the cleverness, the altruism and the cunning to lead us out of this mess we find ourselves in. And who will that person be? That, of course, remains to be seen!

[demytasse]

[Izanamie] Eccentricities

    People have their own peculiarities. Little tidbits of interest that are hardly fantastic nor actively flaunted; unconscious ticks that flesh out a personality with candid delight.

As a connoisseur of human observation, Izaya found those unappreciated fidgets, twiddles, and gnaws to be a preferred form of body language. An acquired taste, if you will; much more satisfying to watch than when someone put on airs or drew their own caricature far less genuine. One was a performance, the other was a stalker’s joy.

When no one was watching, he was — when someone was locked in concentration, that was his indulgence.

    Of his frequented targets, Izaya hardly claimed favourites — at least he didn't speak of any as it was a lie he hardly felt it was necessary for others to know. A sin he’d set himself up for without foresight — what he brought into his life for another purpose, a secretary for his business, but wound up having a better purpose.

In short...

Namie was the pinnacle of human intrigue; a spectacle most enticing, his favourite of favourites.

Maybe it was an unconscious act of his own to sporadically focus on her work process rather than his own; made him an constant victim of her scold. Perhaps it was intentional, for the feisty response it spurred was always a gift and only enhanced the fact that she, herself, was tantalizing.

Of her own control Namie was stoic — left to the wiles of work duties her emotions slipped into something more relaxed, low key, yet just as vibrant to Izaya as the expressions of an attention seeker.

Sensual teething without a trace upon her pens, frequented phrases that whispered her introspection, certain smirks and shrugs she borrowed from her  employer whose role became a giant question mark on their relationship certificate.

Engrossed in a read she’d bless her computer monitor with an intimate lean, edge herself close to identify the words with more confidence, and added a scrunch to her nose that mocked a sneer. Any speak of it being cute summoned an endearing scowl — she wanted no association with the weakness, yet allowed it with silence.

There were moments her chin presented itself holy, lifted above the simpletons with a satisfied frown when menial tasks were completed with easy perfection. Namie served that snooty elitism with plated meals and reorganised chaos; that is when she turned away her smile found dignity in what she feigned otherwise.

Did Izaya share with her the world to which he looked in upon with such fascination? Did he verbally explain how naturally interesting she was without prompt, sans conscious effort?

    “Why, wouldn't it be a spoil of such a good spy?”

And Izaya knew he'd witnessed them all — memorised each charm of her own witchery; that cocky ownership he’d relinquish for a favourable surprise. Please, he’d beg the universe, bless him more flirtation of that fine specimen whose existence was a pleasure to his senses.

Which once upon a nondescript workday the call was unexpectedly met.

    Diligent as ever, a scientific study occurred in a nook laboratory — a gift that became Namie's favourite spot for befuddlement and Izaya’s favourite of bewilderment. Coattail in dust of her heels, her garb as bleached as it ever was, she positioned herself before the countertop; once again with that tilt in favour of her concentration, again with that wrinkled nose which pushed glasses to her eyes, all but an inch from a beaker. The same treats as always, just as calming to watch.

She occupied her hands with a clipboard and calligraphy; the flurry damaged page corners to define her document the least pristine thing she dared to own. Alongside the mess was her silky tangle of hair, a frustration that covered her view more often than her inclination to cut it.

The calming sensation was an obvious deterrent from her displeasure  — her hair tossed about with accentuated flicks, interspersed pets at the surface just out of focus. They were soft, her features, while she countered conundrums with that girlish play — curiously so, it was novel.

Izaya felt himself slip away from the world like the strands slipped through her fingers. All that surrounded him was a blur as her gravitational pull willed his feet; pressed him against her like a replacement shadow, his dark outfit a fair mock of what normally covered her back.

For her assistance he gathered all but a few stragglers of her hair into his left with a sweep of his right while he kept pace with a hum.

    “Izaya…”

    “Yes, I'm aware you're working, but would you let me work as well?”

Her tongue clicked at his intentionally cheesy line, but she loosened at first grace of fingertips upon her scalp.

With a slow comb Izaya twilled locks from her neck up to her crown. The artistic technique was one he’d perfected in his teens for his rambunctious sisters, in place of their mother, a brotherly duty to maintain their preferred styles. For all his faked fuss, it was an invaluable experience as he relaxed Namie’s mane with perfectionism that befitted their mutual expectancy.

She moved to the will of his dressing, the small gesture of trust straightened her posture to reciprocate his intimacy, but gave sufficient distance to let him finish the up-do with a leather lace he undid from his widespread collar. It was an impromptu solution for an accessory he didn't own, yet the precise wrap tied the ends into a well-crafted bow and left loops to fall alongside the graceful hang of her tail.

Over the curve of her shoulder she coyly expressed herself; contentment, appreciation, adoration — subtle across the width of her cheeks, her flush shined with borrowed reflection from her glasses.

    The beauty of a self-assured genius more than just kindled Izaya’s fancy, it shallowed his breath and hitched his smirk. Rather, it drove him hungry for the exposed skin below her ear, a patch that was rarely seen. Overhead light spilled across skin that Izaya only ever observed while tangled in bedsheets or separated by fogged-up glass and dazzled with water droplets. This was a different kind of sheen — without acquired perspiration, minus remnant shampoo. It was matte and flavoured with perfume, his keen taste buds’ addiction.

He bathed her neck with sensual play of his tongue and left her no choice but to grip her held glass; the surface creaked at her fingertips and threatened a chemical spill as Izaya mapped out the spread of her goosebumps. Further nips claimed her with an invisible mark, not a single blemish along her collar line, all to preserve her the masterpiece she hardly cared to regard herself.

Izaya could’ve yanked her collar away to further satisfy his desire, but in the moment all he needed was a taste of indulgence. Not long after, he set free the made-up tail and left Namie to continue her experiments.

    “Hopefully I didn’t work you up,” he chuckled while he hooked hair behind an ear.

She invited him to stay with a pat of his hand on her shoulder.

    “Don’t lie.”

Izaya obliged while he blanketed her with draped arms, celebrated her royalty with an occasional kiss at her crown.

An anomaly to her habits, Namie kept something exclusive to Izaya, a hidden smile and bright eyes that no one other than the two needed to witness.

As for Izaya it was her peculiar show of appreciation that he shared in reverse, yet in a way that was fairly normal for him — with a nonsensical proclamation...

     Even if he didn't love her, he still would’ve; eccentricities and all.

AN: Inspiration taken from @peppersnot mentioning Izaya being entranced by Namie wearing her hair up in a ponytail.

[fantroll-purgatory]

Hey, as someone who’s still going through the slow process of conceptualizing a bunch of Pride trolls, I can vibe with this guy! I’m going to put a big ol’ trigger warning up top here since I openly discuss issues of homophobia and transphobia in the review below. Please stay safe!

(tw: mentions of homophobia and transphobia)

Universe:Beforus

Hmmmm. If he’s Beforan, I might even say that his outfit is too conservative! While a sample size of 12 isn’t that big, what we’ve seen of Beforus is that trolls will take the aesthetic of a subculture and hit it HARD.

Name:Gaeiiy Ryggtz

Hah. Okay so this is obviously a fun name. If you wanna go a little bit more subtle, I would suggest Getran (gay/trans) Ynemak (backward surname of Frank Kameny, who was one of the first folks to file a claim against orientational discrimination in a U.S. court)

Age: 6.5 Sweeps

Theme: Colors and everything related to it,like rainbows or prisms

Got it! As I said before, Beforan trolls tend to have a specific subculture around which they’re based rather than a more nebulous theme, and based on the original name you gave him it’s pretty clear what that would be. That said, since the rainbow is for the entire LGBT community, I would consider possibly making your troll trans/nonbinary!

Goal and story: He is a mutant who likes being a mutant and would fight against the hemospectrum hierarchy and make every caste to be equal in power,for this, he must spread the love to make Beforus a beautiful place.

Quick note: the goal is for what you want us to do in our review! Since you haven’t specified, I am assuming that this is a general review of everything you’ve submitted.

Before I dig into the meat of the rest of your bio, I want to address this part, because based on what we’ve seen of Beforus, it does not broadcast its oppression as clearly as Alternia does. Where Alternia is an out-and-out fascist dictatorship, Beforus’s Condesce (if she is indeed called that) is an adult Feferi Peixes, whose views on the hemospectrum have more to do with coddling those who sit below you on the hemospectrum. How might your troll fight against that system?

If we want an example of how such a society might look in regards to gay and trans rights, let’s look at common criticisms of liberal politics with regards to the LGBT community, which includes support for trans people if(f) they “pass” completely as the “opposite” gender to their assigned one (a standard which is much stricter than for cis people), and support for same-gender attraction so long as it’s tucked away and isolated from straight society (a standard which can be further evidenced in biphobia towards multi-gender attracted people for “muddying” what should be clear-cut waters). All of this tied up with a biiiiig heaping of disdain for gender non-conforming people.

So how might we translate these norms to Beforus? Perhaps trans people are, once again, only accepted if they “pass” completely as the “opposite” gender to their assigned one, such that nonbinary people and trans people with a more complex understanding of their presentation are pushes either to stop identifying as trans/nb or to allow a better-versed highblood to “help” them fit into such gender norms.

Sexuality tends to be trickier since it’s stated (though not implied 🙄) that trolls are largely bisexual and preference for only one gender (though lbr it’s mostly for one’s own gender) is considered odd. I will get to that a little bit later in this review!

Strife Specibus: Flag Specibus,he uses a flag to fight.

Love it. 🏳️‍🌈

Fetch modus: Help, I have no ideas.

If he’s rainbow themed, how about a Colorblock Modus that captchalogues based on predominant color? Only problem is that whenever he wants to retrieve something the modus ejects *everything* of that color. I can also see it being weaponized in a fun way!

Blood Color: Rainbow =D

I still don’t really know how to *do* rainbow, since I feel like it would show up as sludge in his veins? What would it mean in terms of psychic abilities or resistances or strength or even his place in society? We assume that he wouldn’t be killed for being a mutant, but being a rainbowblood stretches the bounds of Beforan rules that if find difficult to incorporate into this review.

Based on the sign you gave him below, it looks like you wanted him to be a mutant limeblood, basically. Which works, but I also feel that that is a common choice when people want to justify their mutantbloods to us, if only because Karkat and Kankri are our obvious examples.

So here’s where I wanted to get back to the same-gender attraction thing, because I think it plays well into how to make this choice.

You say you want a mutant, you say you want someone who works toward justice, and you say you want a gay man.

We can do all of that if you’d allow me to make him a jade/teal cuspblood.

Teals are very strongly about justice, and it fits well for his theme as someone who is working to make Beforus a more inclusive place across the spectrum.

Jades are also a good pick since they’re associated with rainbowdrinkers, which gets you a stone’s throw from this blood color. THey are also heavily heavily coded as gay-equivalent, especially when we consider the Friendsim info that jadebloods are forbidden from pailing by tradition on Alternia, which is pretty obviously a direct parallel to gay marriage. Given that we’re on Beforus, it’s likely that such pailing is accepted, but even in today’s society we can see that the right to marry is often brandished as a sign that we’ve “won” and no longer need to fight for our rights.

As a cuspblood, where does that leave your troll? Where does he fit within the codified hierarchy of Beforus?

Symbol and meaning: Canpio, sign of the effervescent.

…This is a first, but I’m not sure I agree with any of the three things you combined to get your sign! Firstly, I did change his blood color, so that’s on me. Secondly, as someone who’s trying to change the hemospectral hierarchy, he’d be a Dersite for sure. Finally, I don’t know that he’s a Light player? I think I see where you’re coming from since his theme was rainbows and prisms, but you haven’t built a character particularly hellbent on collecting information.

That said, I don’t particularly want him to be a Blood player, lest he become dangerously Karkaty. So how about we invert the difference and see how he fits as a Breath player? Someone who pursues his own individual freedom, but incidentally gives others the strength to move forward as a consequence?

If we go with that, he’d fall somewhere between Libun, Sign of the Escapist, and Virun, Sign of the Eager. Vlibrun, Sign of the Eagcapier no wait that doesn’t sound great.

Trolltag: chromaticJusticer

Tips the hand a little too readily, in my personal onion. May I suggest prismBreak [PB], like prison break, both in terms of destroying the hemospectrum and it terms of freedom from the unjust?

Quirk: wr1te2 1n ^ll 12 c^2te2 ^nd u2e2 pr12m2, ^l2o nub2 (=B.

That is a lot! But then again TEREZ1 PYROPE SUR3 4S H3LL EXISTS so who am I to judge. That said I’m finding the quirk a little bit hard to read, so if I may suggest it be A Lot in a different way:

WR1TE2 1N △LL C△P2 △ND U2E2 PR12M2 TO CONVEY HI2 MULT1CHROM△TIC 2PLENDOR

The introduction of caps and the change of the carat to a triangle makes it harder for the eye to skip over the quirk when it appears.

Special Abilities: I was thinking of him having the abilities of all castes while still looking like a canon mutant (Karkat or Kankri) but I don’t know if this would be a lot.

I think it would indeed be a lot, and you would have to figure out how such a being would change things in Beforus! Beforus is still based on a fairly rigid caste system, and they wouldn’t see a rainbowblood and think “oh shit let’s just let this dude be in charge of everything!” He would be coddled by his “superiors!” How do you think your supposedly peaceful troll would get out from under that thumb while maintaining his pacifist leanings?

Lusus: I don’t know what kind of Lusus would fit him,but it’s also rare for mutants to get chosen by one,so I can stick with him being Lususless.

Sure! I will say that if he’s a jadeblood cusp he could possibly just like. Grow up in the caverns with some lusii that haven’t picked grubs.

Interests: Gaeiiy likes to experiment with lights while he isn’t fighting highbloods,he collects prisms and has a big collection of LEDs,lasers, flashlights and other things that emit lights.

Personality: He is the center of the universe and others find him interesting and kind,he is full of joy and cheerfulness,he is also peaceful and it’s hard to make him cry or make him mad.

So why, then, is he fighting for anything? His soul is not at unrest. Perhaps this speaks to a personal failing, but I find it deeply difficult to fight for things that don’t upset me on some level. I also don’t quite understand the “center of the universe” thing – are other trolls content to let him do as he please? Again, why is he fighting if he faces no opposition?

If you wanted to swing this in one direction, it could be that he’s so unplugged from the real-world oppressions thrust upon other jadebloods (thanks in part to his tealblood status) that he is complacent. This would definitely make him likable! He’s like, a jade, but not one of those jade jades. He’s actually cool about it and stuff. And while such an attitude may cost him the friendship of fellow jadebloods, who needs ‘em? Look at all the friends he has! He’s colorblind, he doesn’t see blood, he doesn’t understand why people want to rock the boat. (Note: if you take this tack then you may need to change a whole lot more about the character because this is no longer someone who is interested in fighting the status quo! That version of your troll would be a Prospitan for sure.)

On the other hand, how can we take someone joyful and likable and give them reason to fight highbloods? Well, they could be someone who joyfully fights highbloods when they try to stomp them down! There are some revolutionaries who might like that very, very much! And while it’s true that he’d need to feel very strongly about the cause to fight someone, it doesn’t have to be the driving force behind his actions! He can fight highbloods because he loves having his own independence, away from coddling bluebloods who think they know what’s best for him! And this makes him likable because people are inspired by his gumption and his brazenness in flaunting the rules!

Lunar Sway: Prospit.

Like I said above, I have reasons to believe he’s Derse unless you think he’s okay with the current system.

Title: ??????? Of Light?,but I also get some heart vibes from him.

And as above, I think he’s actually a Breath player! If I had to guess, he might be a Knight of Breath, fi you want to write an arc for him where he initially *doesn’t* want to rock the boat to take his freedom, but eventually grows into it.

Land: Land of LEDs and Storms.

A land full of Christmas like decorations and full of clouds that are telling you to give up on your quest,but Gaeiiy knows that even being stroke by a ray won’t stop him from ascending.

This one doesn’t need to change the name even if your Aspect does, since Storms can absolutely be a Breath thing. I do wonder what his quest would be, though…maybe he needs to part the clouds just enough that Skaia can reflect a rainbow against the torrent? It doesn’t necessarily mean your troll needs to *do* the quest; it just needs to be there.

Let’s get to this young man’s redesign. As always, we’re going top to bottom!

The most important design note I went into this redesign with was “LGBT solidarity,” which meant trying to hit that very fun “plausible deniability” look where strangers can ascertain that you’re *some* type of LGBT but have no real way of telling exactly which of those letters apply?

Horns - I edited these from Equius’s robot horns because there are some headcanons that these represent the “ideal” troll horns. I added a hook at the end of the rear horn for that signature jadeblood flavor! Also I added a piercing to the right horn similar to how gay men in the 90s/00s had one in the right ear to signify their gayness. (Which was fun because I was googling “which ear is the gay ear” like I was in 7th grade again lol).

Baseball cap - This one is adapted from @emspritesblog, which is unfortunately kind of dead now. I liked the fact that you had a rainbow on his shirt and I wanted to pay tribute to it somehow, so I added it to the back of the baseball cap using the blood colors closest to those of the original Pride flag!

Hair - I used a template from @fantrollartroom and made it curlier, because the asymmetrical undercut is like *the* look as far as I know.

Eyes - I wanted to nod back to the fact that you wanted a Karkat-adjacent design, so I edited his eyes for your troll.

Mouth - …and the mouth. But I added some fangs for that jadebloodyness

Binder/tank and symbol - I took the jade and teal symbols I suggested and tried to smoosh ‘em together a little bit! 

Flannel - ahhhh the flannel of plausible deniability. I made is a jade/teal gradient to emphasize the cuspiness. It’s Vriska’s jacket but with all the colors swapped out.

Overall outfit - I use @fan-troll sprites quite liberally to make coherent outfits, and cannot recommend the sprite sheet enough! Since the clothing doesn’t *quite* fit a standard sprite it kind of forces you to learn some spriting as you go, which is a pretty good way to get incrementally better over time.

That concludes my review of young Gay Rights [sic]! I hope my suggestions were helpful, and thank you very much for sharing him!

-TR

[albertineingomorrah]

part one of two, written early AM and too lazy to edit

I recently remembered that my mother sent me to a real therapist when I turned 18. This is touching, because the only other time my mental health was speculated at and attended to- was when I turned 15 and it became clear that I had been religiously throwing up my food after every meal. (I mean, are we even women if we haven’t endured a bout of bulimia? note* sarcasm) 

At the time, my mother thought it best to send me to a Counselor.  This level of health care would prove to be different from respectable therapy in several ways, aside from the deeply discounted (comparative) rates.  

According to my memory and without bothering to look up the specifics. The two most notable differences were as follows; the counselor whose office was run out of a church, and with whom my appointments befittingly always coincided with a local AA meeting- was able to demand that I pray with her at the beginning of every session.   

This was something I did not enjoy, and sought to thwart as I found it to be altogether a disregard for my- at the time- militant Atheism.

 ( On that topic, I have softened over the years- holding a small seed of fear that my actions will be held against me at the time of my death- I think it is more often fear, rather than feelings of perceived love which move us all to marinade in the idea of a god).

The second but related identifier was that she was also able to bring up biblical teachings; turning to the Bible often, to help guide her toward the epitomize ideal of wellness. 

I remember feeling conflicted about these visits, both pleased that my mother was taking notice of me, and frustration that this was her solution. 

In one most shudder worthy experience, I remember that both parents joined me for a session. This had come as an unexpected and somewhat unwelcome surprise. I had climbed into the passenger seat of my mothers car, only to be redirected to the back. 

On the drive over I was confronted with the reality of what this counselor was clearly hoping to accomplish with this little group outing and I remember feeling vaguely bad for her, knowing the madness that I was sure would unveil itself in front of this wildly unqualified woman. 

My mother and father sat on either side of me, and it gave a certain feeling of entrapment in the small office. I remember watching a Bluejay dive bombing a smaller bird out of the second floor window. 

The silence was broken by the sound of clearing throats. “So” the salt and pepper curls on her head bounced confidently, as she addressed us all with her most welcoming smile. “How about we start with a prayer?” She offered this idea like it was an obvious fist step. 

Resigned, I lowered my head. Hearing my father scoff, I felt mildly amused that he would be subjected to something that he felt uncomfortable with, and wondered if the joy at this discomfort could carry my through the next 45 minutes. 

After the essentials had been dealt with, the woman looked sweetly from my mother to my father. “Let’s get this show on the road” she said, looking so smugly certain of her abilities ( she probably didn’t actually say it in those exact terms, but I like the way I remember her being the type of person to use these pithy little one-liners. 

Things started off moderately well, my parents doing most of the talking. My father and his proverbial ax to grind, lamenting his own childhood abuses. These were not new to me, and at fifteen I had already relived these childhood traumas with my father on multiple occasions. Though this was the first time he had recounted them In a sober fashion. It wasn’t until the conversation turned to the relationship that my father had with me, that things went south. “ So, how close are you with your own daughter?” the wannabe therapist prodded, a well timed question after a vehement admission that he had always felt estranged from his father. 

For the first time he looked at my mother, then turning back he said 

” That is because of a dream my daughter had when she was a child”  both my mother and I looked at one another and there was an odd look of horror that registered on my mother's face. 

As if to say, “ oh god, surely he wouldn’t bring that up”, but I was curious, and I turned to face him more fully. “ Clearly having an audience was fanning the flames of drama within him, looking away from us all once more- he continued. “ my daughter began having dreams that I was molesting her when she was four and she told my wife. My stomach dropped as In the dark reassess of my mind I fathomed a memory that fit his story. I did recall having nightmares like that. I remember telling my mother a dream about my father, but I had also thought it was reasonable that as a child I’d had nightmares about him- as I was terribly frightened of him as a little girl.

Going as far as to hide in the closet when he stayed home to watch me. I’m assuming that my toddler instincts had encompassed his drunken behavior toward my mother and processed him as a threat. I remembered him finding reasons to hit me. Like the time he came to pick me up from my mothers-mother. (Who spoiled me deliciously.) She was often tasked with watching me, while my parents worked. She was my favorite person in the world.  

I recall feeling as if I was being ripped from the only safe place I had ever known, every time I was picked up from her house. I also remember sitting next to her hospice bed at the age of 6, in that very same house. Unable to take my eyes off her hollow, sickly face- such a deep contrast from the rounded, pink cheeks she always utilized to smile at me, she had died young, not even 60. 

I remember balling my little fists into her blankets listening to the adults trying to divide up the assets of her house before her body was even cold. Finally unable to listen any longer I slipped away and wandered to the kitchen, where her favorite rooster shaped salt and pepper shakers sat unused, on the kitchen table. I quickly pilfered them. Hiding one in each large pockets of my pre-owned raincoat sitting by the front door. 

Anyway, once my father had called me down from the neighbors play set, the neighbor across the street from my grandmother, the young mother would let me join her children on the ever coveted set of swings and slide. 

Positioned in the tower, I felt the windfall of air exit my chest as I heard his voice, immediately and without thinking, my legs disappeared from the slide they had been about to descend. 

Pulling my knees up close I shut my eyes, childishly believing I could just live there. When I got hungry or tired my grandmother would let me come home to her. The fever dream swept me up, and in the moment I was lost In the fantasy of living with my grandmother full-time.  “Get your ass down here” his voice was filled with venom and I scrambled down the slide. Running over, hoping I would have acted quickly enough to avoid serious trouble. As we walked to his blue- Ford truck, he gave nothing away and I settled In to the passenger seat, feeling the sadness that I normally felt upon leaving my favorite place. 

He had not let me say goodbye. I looked over just in time to see his hand collide with what should have been the back of my head, but ended up being my cheek/forehead. He swore loudly and began to shout. 

When he calmed down he informed me that I would be punished later that evening for my disobedience and sent me to bed without dinner. As I lay in bed- knowing he would come to my bedroom and knowing it was going to be painful, I would conjure up the fantasy of living with my grandmother. He would always make a game out of loudly stomping up the stairs to my room- but only halfway, so I would begin to tremble, and cry. Then he would go back down the stairs. He could do that a dozen times on a bad night, working me up to a hysterical frenzy of fear and tears. 

Then he would burst through the door, pull me out of bed, hitting me hard enough to leave bruises. He never used a belt or a spoon as my mother did, and also unlike my mother he would always remove my pants.  

I ruminated on all of this as the room rang silent after his somewhat shocking statement. 

“So, your daughter was having night terrors and your wife took her dreams seriously, which put a divide between her and yourself?” the woman tried to supply. Attempting to keep this conversation going. I looked over at my mother whose head was hung and hand clasped tightly in her lap. Not looking up.  

“Yes, that’s it.” He assented. 

Looking vindicated that someone finally understood.