#culture exclusive gender

[neopronoun-user-culture-is]

neopronoun user culture is finding sets of pronouns you like and you'd like to be addressed with but fearing that they're exclusive/you're not allowed to used them (i've personally seen on pronoun list sites and similar some sets of pronouns that were said to be for some people only, that really pushed me out of trying neopronouns on myself)

Neopronoun user culture

[aro-culture-is]

Aro culture is being sick of "They aren't dating anyone so they must be gay/a lesbian!"

Nothing against people headcanoning characters as gay or lesbian (I'm arospec ace and gay) but like. Aromanticism exists too.

(This was brought on by seeing a slide in a PowerPoint in my English Lit lesson today (13th March), I didn't see it fully since the teacher was just skipping over it quickly to check some other context stuff but it said something about how in the book we're studying, Jekyll and Hyde, none of the major characters are in romantic relationships and therefore it's possible that they could be gay. I might bring up that they could also be aro when my teacher brings it up?)

.

[torahtot]

ok ive had enough of queering judaism. can we start judaizing queerness now. or something

[rjalker]

"AFAB culture" and "AMAB culture" is ⭐biological essentialism⭐

[adamantine-ribbon]

me personally i only listen to rap about sex

[bambeebirdie]

I feel like I’ve drawn so many women recently I’ve forgotten how to draw men

[butchlifeguard]

the she/theys vs he/theys and wlw vs mlm posts are symptoms of a larger problem within the queer community 👍

[gynkgobilobo]

Something something, the drastic difference of "gender nonconformity" prevalence between heterosexual women and homosexual women is that said phenomenon in the latter category is excused via homophobic remarks that point towards sexual orientation as determinant factor for so-said nonconformity. Sexual attraction towards females being wrongfully categorized as something "inherently male" is what drives the dismissal of gnc traits found in lesbians as something to be expected based on this brand of homophobia, casual or otherwise. The excuse does not do causation, it merely pardons its happenings

Heterosexual women however, as unable to hide under the "veil of anomaly" (which I am not at all claiming is an advantage) find themselves in the position to either delude themselves into thinking they could ever alter their sexual orientation, force themselves into conformity ("growing out of it" isn't used correctly in the context of what actually happens, i.e. coercion) or to "transition" (as in forcing conformity in a different font). It should also be mentioned that some weaponize this concept of conformity as something that determines them to be the standard of normalcy against women who do not perform up to the same standard in fear that all their shitty gendered martyrdom must've been for something (it's not, yet captains die with their ships and polly wants a cracker)

In truth, gnc culture in LGB spaces is in fact a mirror into the untapped potential of heterosexual society should they renounce the laws of "gender"

[walterdecourceys]

the cultural christianity discourse is so funny to me bc it seems extremely obvious that christianity has had a huge impact on american culture. the country was literally founded by a bunch of christians. when most people think of "religion" they think of christianity. this isnt necessarily a good or bad thing but it is undeniably a thing

[falinscloaca]

cat hacker reintroduces mspec lesbian discourse into my life my brain obliterates itself in ocd-fueled recursive self-argumentation

[typicallyexceptional]

ive been feeling extremely gender lately

[whats-in-a-sentence]

It became clear to me that the reasoning of those who reject an inclusive approach relies on what they call a 'plain' or 'common sense' reading of the Bible. In his book A Place at His Table Joel Hollier explains that:

In many Protestant (especially Reformed, evangelical) circles, there is a stated theological method that seeks to take any given text at face value – we call it the 'plain reading' of a passage . . . [It] is rather more enigmatic than we would often like to admit. The reality is that everything that we read in the Bible is filtered by 2,000 years worth is theologizing through social, cultural, and political data, culminating in a strangely personalized framework . . . radically informed by our class, gender, family history, education, and political persuasions . . . If all my years in theological education taught me one thing, it is that those who hold that there are plain readings of a text are, in a strange way, misguided. There are 'informed readings', and there are 'more informed readings', but nobody approaches any text entirely neutral.

This, then, calls for epistemic humility, by which I mean a willingness to listen lots and form a view carefully.

"In/Out: A Scandalous Story of Falling Into Love and Out of the Church" - Steph Lentz

[liom-archive]

(pasted from under cut)

zachar is roughly equivalent to "male," and nekevah is to "female." tumtum is neither, lacking identifying gendered characteristics, and androgynos is both, having characteristics of both a zachar and a nekevah. ay'lonit is someone who was identified a nekevah a birth, but later gained traits associated with a zachar, and saris was identified a zachar at birth and later gained a nekevah's traits.

these are jewish genders/sexes, described in jewish religious & legal texts. they can be "hamah," through natural development, or "adam," through human intervention, e.g. a "saris adam" could be assigned male at birth but transition later in life, while a "saris hamah" was assigned male but later naturally developed sex characteristics commonly associated with someone assigned female. so, in short, just like how many conceive of "male" and "female" as something you can be born into or transition into, you can be born into or transition into these genders. you can also have your gender change due to an unintentional injury to the hormone regulators/producers that causes a change in the way your body operates.

they are of a physical nature rather than a more internal one: while they contain transgender experience as well as intersex experience, they depend upon your physicality, as noted above, and serve a legal purpose: you can walk into a congregation and tell a rabbi you're tumtum, and the expectations of your halachic practice in that congregation may change. in slightly older parlance you might associate the "adam" side of these experiences more with "transsexual" than "transgender," if you had to make a comparison.

and on that note: they are not the same as and do not smoothly translate into the LGBT community's standard terms and definitions surrounding sex & trans and nonbinary identity, and are exclusive to the cultural context of judaism. the jewish people have a six-aspect (or arguably ten- or twelve-aspect, depending on how you separate adam and hamah and whether you apply them to zachar and nekevah) gender system where the genders other than zachar and nekevah are on equal cultural standing and not "nonbinary" because we do not have a binary, like the exclusive "male" and "female" western-christian system.

in order from top->bottom and left->right:

zachar, ay'lonit, nekevah tumtum, androgynos, saris

under the cut i'll provide more information on these identities and their place in judaism, including what makes a person one of these genders.

goyim are ok to reblog this if you want to share it with jewish people, but if you start messing around with these or try to give any commentary on it i will fuck your whole life

zachar is roughly equivalent to "male," and nekevah is to "female." tumtum is neither, lacking identifying gendered characteristics, and androgynos is both, having characteristics of both a zachar and a nekevah. ay'lonit is someone who was identified a nekevah a birth, but later gained traits associated with a zachar, and saris was identified a zachar at birth and later gained a nekevah's traits.

these are jewish genders/sexes, described in jewish religious & legal texts. they can be "hamah," through natural development, or "adam," through human intervention, e.g. a "saris adam" could be assigned male at birth but transition later in life, while a "saris hamah" was assigned male but later naturally developed sex characteristics commonly associated with someone assigned female. so, in short, just like how many conceive of "male" and "female" as something you can be born into or transition into, you can be born into or transition into these genders. you can also have your gender change due to an unintentional injury to the hormone regulators/producers that causes a change in the way your body operates.

they are of a physical nature rather than a more internal one: while they contain transgender experience as well as intersex experience, they depend upon your physicality, as noted above, and serve a legal purpose: you can walk into a congregation and tell a rabbi you're tumtum, and the expectations of your halachic practice in that congregation may change. in slightly older parlance you might associate the "adam" side of these experiences more with "transsexual" than "transgender," if you had to make a comparison.

and on that note: they are not the same as and do not smoothly translate into the LGBT community's standard terms and definitions surrounding sex & trans and nonbinary identity, and are exclusive to the cultural context of judaism. the jewish people have a six-aspect (or arguably ten- or twelve-aspect, depending on how you separate adam and hamah and whether you apply them to zachar and nekevah) gender system where the genders other than zachar and nekevah are on equal cultural standing and not "nonbinary" because we do not have a binary, like the exclusive "male" and "female" western-christian system.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Analysis of data from dozens of foraging societies around the world shows that women hunt in at least 79% of these societies, opposing the widespread belief that men exclusively hunt and women exclusively gather. Abigail Anderson of Seattle Pacific University, US, and colleagues presented these findings in the open-access journal PLOS ONE on June 28, 2023. A common belief holds that, among foraging populations, men have typically hunted animals while women gathered plant products for food. However, mounting archaeological evidence from across human history and prehistory is challenging this paradigm; for instance, women in many societies have been found buried alongside big-game hunting tools. Some researchers have suggested that women's role as hunters was confined to the past, with more recent foraging societies following the paradigm of men as hunters and women as gatherers. To investigate that possibility, Anderson and colleagues analyzed data from the past 100 years on 63 foraging societies around the world, including societies in North and South America, Africa, Australia, Asia, and the Oceanic region. They found that women hunt in 79% of the analyzed societies, regardless of their status as mothers. More than 70% of female hunting appears to be intentional—as opposed to opportunistic killing of animals encountered while performing other activities, and intentional hunting by women appears to target game of all sizes, most often large game. The analysis also revealed that women are actively involved in teaching hunting practices and that they often employ a greater variety of weapon choice and hunting strategies than men.

These findings suggest that, in many foraging societies, women are skilled hunters and play an instrumental role in the practice, adding to the evidence opposing long-held perceptions about gender roles in foraging societies. The authors note that these stereotypes have influenced previous archaeological studies, with, for instance, some researchers reluctant to interpret objects buried with women as hunting tools. They call for reevaluation of such evidence and caution against misapplying the idea of men as hunters and women as gatherers in future research. The authors add, "Evidence from around the world shows that women participate in subsistence hunting in the majority of cultures."

[ohnoitstbskyen]

asking sincerely. do you see a romance between jayce and viktor? do you think they ended up being something romantic at the end?

With apologies I am going to only half talk about the thing you are asking me, since I have something else on my mind and you happened to hit the button that makes me vomit it into words.

Coming at this from an aromantic perspective, I obviously don't experience the state of absurd obsessive delusion that you bizarre romantic freaks fetishize so feverishly*, but I am often annoyed by the idea that friendship and romance are either opposites or mutually exclusive. From my perspective, the boundary between the two is at best thin, and more realistically not actually a boundary at all except by cultural construction.

*i am taking an excessively hostile, crass tone for my own amusement i do not mean this seriously please be normal at me, weird allo freaks

I won't get into my full feelings about the end of Arcane, but it seems perfectly plain to me that the script, the imagery and the animation presents Jayce and Viktor as two halves of a whole, not opposing forces but alike to yin and yang: opposites which each contain the other. And at the climax of the show, the greatest peril to life and peace in the narrative is resolved by these two men literally joining their bodies and souls together, and going into eternity holding one another for comfort and strength. They are quite literally soulmates, quite literally the most important people in one another's lives.

I don't think that that kind of intimate emotional connection between men must necessarily be either romantic or sexual - I am aromantic, and plenty of ace people exist, and there is nothing in our natures excluding us from intense connections of love with other people of any gender.

I also think it is willfully ignorant (and genuinely homophobic) to act as though these deep connections are mutually exclusive with sex and romance. As though if Viktor and Jayce fucked nasty and made out sloppy style, suddenly their intimacy is less pure or valid, or tainted somehow.

"If these two men who are emotionally close to one another also fuck or get romantically involved, then friendship is dead, murdered on the floor by a dick-shaped knife; vile sexuality corrupts and debases the true, pure and virtuous love of ✨friendship✨" <- This shit is homophobic at a baseline, queerphobic in general, and frankly as an aromantic man I find it pretty fucking insulting as well.

What, are my friendships with other men just inherently more pure and divine, more meaningful and true than a gay man's can ever be, because I will never suffer the vile temptation of adding romance to my affection? Is that how I should think of myself? And is an aroace man more pure than me still, the only source of TRUE male friendship that a man can ever experience, free from the pustulant corruption of sexuality and romantic desire?

You get this pathetic defensiveness (especially from men, but other genders aren't immune) wherein sex and sexuality and romance between men is perceived as a threat to men's right and ability to experience deep connection to each other. But the emotional castration of men comes not from people imagining sex and romance as a component of our relationships - it comes from people who insist that our emotional lives must be ruled by strict binaries. Sex and romance, OR ELSE friendship. Deep romantic connection OR ELSE deep platonic connection. Pick one and do not dare to imagine both, nor act as though the boundary between them is something that we built by cultural fiat, and which can be dismantled just the same.

And yes, yes, yes, I know there are cultural forces literally illuminati-style conspiring to systemically erase the entire existence of explicitly romantic, sexual male love from media, and I know that homophobic puritanism is on the rise and there are material concerns and a real necessity for explicit representation in fiction, yes I know. Everything is more complicated than a tumblr post can cover, I am not trying to Solve Rainbow Capitalism™ over here, I am trying to express frustration as an aromantic man that this stupid fucking binary keeps getting culturally reinforced by both my enemies and my well-meaning allies, when I think the binary is what's fucking killing us in the first place.

So anyway. My position is that Viktor and Jayce can be entirely aromantic no-homo friends, and they can fuck nasty in the throes of mutual need and obsession, and I refuse to entertain the idea that there is an irresolvable contradiction between those things. Each of those can contain the other, or become the other given time and circumstance.

What the imagery, storytelling and script of Arcane makes clear is that Viktor and Jayce love each other more than life itself. To say that that love must be shoved into the box of either "platonic" or "romantic" is to miss out on almost everything that is beautiful about love. It can be both and neither! It can be a secret third, ninth or fifteenth thing that they haven't invented a tag for on Ao3 yet.

They are giving each other whatever the spiritual mind-ghost equivalent of sloppy backshots are on the ethereal plain forever, they are the most romantic lovers in the cosmos, and they are also the most chaste and platonic life-partner friends you have ever seen, effortlessly intimate and unashamedly tender. They are men who love one another, in every way that love matters.

You can pick whichever interpretation brings you joy, and resonates with what your heart needs, the text of the show is eminently and explicity open to it, and anyone who says otherwise either failed to pay attention, or refused to pay attention on purpose.