#but when it comes to my religious beliefs. suddenly you stop yourself from asserting to me that i shouldnt have a problem woth meat.

[snekdood]

The way yall assume the worst about vegans is absolutely tiring. Yeah dude i totally care about inserting my hands into your life and morphing you into the way i think you should be. I totally feel like i need to exert that energy towards you and that you dont have the criticial thinking ability to think about veganism and consider if you truly can or cant. I totally totally care about that dude. Goddamn. Just. so so much.

[hamliet]

The Man-God: BSD’s Dostoyevsky and Demons’ Kirillov

So, I finally read Bungou Stray Dogs. And y’all, I freaking love this manga. It’s got themes of life, grief, death, trauma, and is chock-full of literary references and puns. 

Shocking no one, one of my favorite characters--the reason I started reading the story--is Dostoyevsky, since I’m... rather an admitted fangirl of Dostoyevsky’s novels. I’ve reread each of them at least twice and some (C&P) up to five times. Clearly BSD’s Dostoyevsky not the hopeful, faithful author, but he’s definitely a fascinating antagonist whose arc is digging into the themes of Dostoyevsky the writer’s novels--with a particular focus on the two novels that are my very favorite novels ever written, by anyone, in history: Crime and Punishment and Demons. 

But in truth, it draws more from Demons than from Crime and Punishment, right down to having BSD!Dostoyevsky directly quote it.

Demons is far, far less popular that Crime and Punishment, The Brothers Karamazov, and even The Idiot, so I was really surprised to see how often it’s been referenced in BSD (The reason it’s less popular is honestly justified: the first 100 pages are paced... horribly, but the rest of the novel is so powerful that I can overlook that). It’s been translated under a variety of titles as well: The Possessed, The Devils, and the most recent is Demons so that’s what we’re going with in this meta.

Pssst--look at how often BSD!Dostoyesvky is associated with demons or devils:

Yet Demons has been popular with literary theorists (one well-known critic has described it as containing “the most harrowing scene in all of fiction,” an assessment I’d agree with--and this is the scene I’m going to discuss in detail) and existentialists like Camus (sorry Camus). Anyways, I have a soft spot for Demons because it contains my very favorite character in existence: Alexei Nilyich Kirillov, who is the character BSD!Dostoyesvky directly quotes.

@blackandwhitemusician did a great analysis of the similar philosophies BSD!Dostoyevsky shares with Crime and Punishment’s Raskolnikov, but I want to talk about how BSD!Dostoyevsky is also modeled after Kirillov’s philosophical ideas. This isn’t to say he embodies them, because Kirillov is decidedly not a villain unlike BSD!Dostoyevsky, but BSD!Dostoyevsky definitely draws heavily from Kirillov’s ideals.

Kirillov is a character who, like Raskolnikov, embodies the contradictions of human nature, but in a hyperbolic way. He's noted to have a "calm but warm and kindly expression"and adores children, playing with them, and he even helps his friend Shatov's wife give birth (he's endearingly awkward and scared for the whole ordeal). He affirms that he is “fond of life” and yet he is determined, from the moment we meet him, to shoot himself as suicide because in doing so he will save himself and the world. 

Kirillov’s reasoning is complex and at the same time, spotty, and stems from a deep despair and disgust with human sin. Sound familiar?

Time is also a major motif with BSD! Dostoyevsky and with Kirilllov. He does not believe in time as more than an “idea.” He insists that “life exists, but death doesn’t at all… [I believe] in eternal life here. There are moments, you reach moments, and time suddenly stands still, and it will become eternal.”

(Clocks constantly appear in BS chapter 42, Dostoyevsky’s introduction, as well.)

Kirillov also draws from other philosophies such as Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am,” affirming that “man is unhappy because he doesn’t know he’s happy… If they knew that it was good for them, it would be good for them, but as long as they don’t know it’s good for them, it will be bad for them. That’s the whole idea, the whole of it… They’ll find out that they’re good and they’ll all become good, every one of them.”

In other words, reality is what Kirillov makes of it in his own mind, which is what BSD!Dostoyevsky hints his ability is (but it isn’t).

It’s still a belief BSD!Dostoyevsky holds: that his beliefs create reality.

Kirillov muses, in conversation with his friend Stavrogin (bold is Kirillov):

“He who teaches that all are good will end the world.”

“He who taught it was crucified.”

“He will come, and his name will be the man-god.”

“The god-man?”

“The man-god. That’s the difference.”

In BSD, anything written in The Book becomes truth, and Dostoyevsky plans to use it to rid the world of the sins of ability-users. Similarly, Kirillov plans to use his decision to set people free, and Pyotr plans to use Kirillov’s mental instability and philosophical suicide to erase consequences for his own sins. And as Kirillov also believes this will make moments heaven, Dostoyevsky expresses (using religious language) that this will make a heavenly reality as well:

As Demons goes on, we find out that Pyotr Stepanovich had struck a deal with Kirillov. Since Kirillov really tries to believe that everyone and everything is good, when Pyotr asks him to kill himself and write a note specifying something Pyotr won’t specify until the time comes, to help Pyotr, Kirillov agrees. Pyotr notes that he doesn’t tell Kirillov what he plans—to have Kirillov take the blame for the murder of their mutual friend Shatov, which Pyotr commits—because he thinks that if Kirillov knows in advance, “Kirillov could not be relied upon.”

The irony, of course, is that by seeking to prove the ultimate will in the universe is of the individual, that the individual is his/her own god, Kirillov becomes an unwitting tool in Pyotr Stepanovich’s terrible plots. He contributes to the unjust death of someone he cares deeply for by taking the blame. And Kirillov did not want this at all. When Pyotr comes to collect, he realizes what he’s done (bold is Kirillov_:

“He is dead!” cried Kirillov, jumping up from the sofa.

“He died at seven o’clock this evening, or rather, at seven o’clock yesterday evening, and now it’s one o’clock.”

“You have killed him!”

…

“You are a strange man, though, Kirillov; you knew yourself that the stupid fellow was bound to end like this. What was there to foresee in that? I made that as plain as possible over and over again. Shatov was meaning to betray us; I was watching him, and it could not be left like that. And you too had instructions to watch him; you told me so yourself three weeks ago.…”

…

“I won’t write that I killed Shatov … and I won’t write anything now. You won’t have a document!”

Pyotr refuses to leave until Kirillov is dead, and Kirillov explains that “I won’t put it off; I want to kill myself now: all are scoundrels.” The exact opposite of what he expressed before about things being good.

"He’s guessed the truth at last! Can you, Kirillov, with your sense, have failed to see till now that all men are alike, that there are none better or worse, only some are stupider, than others, and that if all are scoundrels (which is nonsense, though) there oughtn’t to be any people that are not?”

And then we see what motivates Kirillov is a desperate need to have a reason to match his desire to live. It’s literally one of the main themes of Bungo Stray Dogs (bold is Kirillov):

 “If you stopped yourself, you become God; that’s it, isn’t it?”

“Yes, I become God.”

…

“Let it be comfort. God is necessary and so must exist… But I know He doesn’t and can’t… Surely you must understand that a man with two such ideas can’t go on living?”

And of course, this is BSD!’s Dostoyevsky in what I am betting is a direct quote from Demons as translated into Japanese: If god does not exist, then I am god.

His man-god belief, like Dostoyevsky’s in BSD, are explained thusly (bold is Kirillov):

“I’ve always been surprised at every one’s going on living,” said Kirillov, not hearing his remark.

...

“Hold your tongue; you won’t understand anything. If there is no God, then I am God.”

“There, I could never understand that point of yours: why are you God?”

“If God exists, all is His will and from His will I cannot escape. If not, it’s all my will and I am bound to show self-will.”

“Self-will? But why are you bound?”

“Because all will has become mine. Can it be that no one in the whole planet, after making an end of God and believing in his own will, will dare to express his self-will on the most vital point? It’s like a beggar inheriting a fortune and being afraid of it and not daring to approach the bag of gold, thinking himself too weak to own it. I want to manifest my self-will. I may be the only one, but I’ll do it.”

That’s a direct quote.

BSD!Dostoyevsky manipulates human will to lead people into committing suicide, and is killing them to create a new world without the sins of ability-users:

Kirillov says this right before he finally writes the false confession to Stavrogin’s murder and kills himself:

“Man has done nothing but invent God so as to go on living, and not kill himself; that’s the whole of universal history up till now. I am the first one in the whole history of mankind who would not invent God. Let them know it once for all...

“I am awfully unhappy, for I’m awfully afraid. Terror is the curse of man.… But I will assert my will, I am bound to believe that I don’t believe. I will begin and will make an end of it and open the door, and will save. That’s the only thing that will save mankind and will re-create the next generation physically; for with his present physical nature man can’t get on without his former God, I believe. For three years I’ve been seeking for the attribute of my godhead and I’ve found it; the attribute of my godhead is self-will! That’s all I can do to prove in the highest point my independence and my new terrible freedom. For it is very terrible. I am killing myself to prove my independence and my new terrible freedom.”

Yet Kirillov is inventing god: himself. He signs the paper and then does kill himself, but it’s not without the last terrible, terrifying realization that he does not want to die. He wants to live. And he fights Pyotr, biting his finger nearly off, before committing suicide. But Kirillov, as wrong and tragic as his philosophy is, is the one who recognizes the theme of Demons.

“Stavrogin, too, is consumed by an idea,” Kirillov said gloomily, pacing up and down the room.

The point of the entire tragedy in Demons is basically if you are consumed by an idea, it will turn you into a devil. Kirillov is, along with Shatov, perhaps the most likeable main character in Demons (others are far more horrifying as their various political, religious, and philosophical ideas take them over). And so is Dostoyevsky in BSD: consumed by his ideas, convinced his will is all that matters.

It won’t end well.

[brinconvenient]

Dear cis friends who are dying to get my perspective on the latest trans story you heard in the news:

Before you read further, please know that I applaud your curiosity and your attempt to be aware of trans issues in the media.

But.

But, just because your friend is trans doesn't mean that she's qualified to answer (or interested in doing so for that matter) any trans-related question you may have. Especially on topics which are hot in the news - the reason so many trans topics are in the news and coming to your attention is because we are being targeted and used as a wedge issue by conservative and far-right groups in an effort to gin up energy and excitement to get their voters to the polls.

After they lost big on the same-sex marriage equality issue, they turned their attention to a more vulnerable and less protected group and began aiming all of their attention, marketing budgets and legislative resources squarely at us.

Since 2015, we have seen bills trying to keep us out of public bathrooms and locker rooms, bill after bill targeting our access to healthcare, identification, name change processes and court case after court case trying to enshrine the right to discriminate against us in housing, employment and public life based on someone else's religious beliefs and, of course, an administration that seems to be specifically trying to erase us from public existence and public service.

All of this is helped along through their friends in the media "just asking questions" - ones that usually have nuanced and complex (but not difficult to understand) answers. Which they don't care about, of course, because asking the question is enough.

The goal is to get you to ask these questions, too. And just the asking puts enough cognitive distance between you, a cis person, and trans people to create the "otherness" in your mind that they can use to justify our continued dehumanization. It also forces us to repeatedly have these same conversations, over and over and over again.

I have answered the exact same questions over and over again for old high school or college classmates, coworkers, random internet acquaintances, who heard someone talking about an issue they have never cared about before, but suddenly need to know the answers to.

Lately, for example, it's been trans teen athletes. Before that it was trans people in bathrooms and locker rooms and why trans people want to serve in the military and why employers shouldn't be able to let an employee up for wanting to transition.

Most of the time, I put in the work to answer those questions because I know you all mean well. And you want to know the answers to what sound like very reasonable questions and you're trying to be good allies.

Each one tied me up for days with follow-up after follow-up after follow-up. And tired me out because I had to do all the research they could have done, but chose not to do, to become at least a middling expert so that they were satisfied with hearing the answers from the one trans person they knew, instead of reading the numerous articles from actual experts and actual trans experts who have already been writing about this since this particular boil began to fester on the general public's collective posterior.

Did you stop to ask yourself why you thought I might have, given my current life circumstances, any valuable knowledge about trans teenage athletes, let alone the finer points of high school athletics regulations? Or whether I've done any research about two specific trans teenaged athletes halfway across the country from her, who happen to be the media's bugbear and the target of a lawsuit from cis competitors? Other than the fact that I'm the one trans person you know?

For the record, trans women do not have any special advantage over cis women, under most current regulation schema. Do you think that it's possible that the high school athletics organization which regulates those two particular athletes are completely unaware of their existence and are simply waiting on enough curious cis people to "just ask reasonable questions" before they consult the science and those girls' specific situation?

Have you considered how many trans athletes must exist and how you're only hearing about a handful of specific trans teen athletes who happen to be winning. Are you not concerned about trans athletes as long as they have the decency to lose to their cis competition?

Trans people have been allowed to compete in the Olympics since 2002 (I believe). Do you want to guess how many trans people have even qualified for the Olympics? Exactly 1, maybe. One trans man qualified, just last month, to try to make the Olympic team this summer. Zero trans women in *ANY* Olympic event have ever qualified. Ever.

And trans people are not new to athletics. We've competed in just about any event you can imagine.

I might be the only trans person you know, but you are not the only curious cis person I know. Consider that before deciding that my specific perspective is required for you to find some way to be comfortable learning that other trans people exist in situations you didn't previously know, think, or, frankly, care about before now.

Please understand that it is a terrifying and exhausting time to be a trans person in this society. We have an enormous target on our backs. None of that is helped by our cis friends asking us to help justify, identify and isolate the pockets of public life where it's reasonable to exclude us and discriminate against us.

We are roughly 1% of the population. Roughly equivalent to natural redheads. There's zero conversations about how natural redheads higher pain tolerance might give them some kind of athletic advantage over their competition in endurance sports.

But then, there's also no well-financed movement trying to legislatively, morally and socially ensure that you see them as a lesser form of human so that they can hold onto their political power.

When you see these stories, and your curiosity starts to churn, ask yourself these questions before you reach out to your trans friends:

1. What is this article/story/column trying to make me feel about trans people?

2. Does it rely on treating trans people as an "other"/less than human/oppressive in order to make me feel that?

3. Does it actually provide information, an opposing view and sources for its assertions or is it relying on your lack of knowledgeand expertise to create an emotional reaction?

4. Is there another article on this topic that might have more information? Has someone written a response to this article (often found by googling the headline)?

5. Does this article/story/column quote from a trans person who is not the target of the article (i.e. an expert source, not the subject of the article)? Does it even contain a quote from the subject of the article or only from those who oppose them? What have other trans people said about this story?

6. Is the writer a reliable journalist or columnist? What is the bias of the publication/media source?

7. Who benefits from this being in the media right now?

8. What emotional impact will this have on my trans friend if I ask her about it without thinking about any of these previous questions?

Please continue to feel free to ask me your questions about transness, but also please try to ask Google first, especially if it's about a news article about some new fun way that trans people are being targeted, or cis people finding novel ways to feel oppressed by our audacity to exist near them.

Please take some time to consider what emotional impact it might have on me to hold your hand through another conversation that requires me to defend the humanity and dignity of trans people. Don't ask me to make you feel comfortable with discrimination against trans people, no matter how reasonable it sounds.