#gender does not exist and gendering things is arbitrary

[gatekeeper-of-witchcraft]

much of what is considered “masculine” in women is in fact neutral but masculine women do exist and there’s nothing wrong with that.

[thedreadvampy]

last night in the pub after the anti terf protests I was talking to this guy whose PhD was in I think linguistic constructions around gender? the phenomenology of gender? idk I was quite drunk and it was very loud. anyway we were talking about defining gender identity and he was increasingly enthusiastically going STOP. SHUT UP. I HEARD PEOPLE SAYING THE EXACT SAME STUFF AT A GENDER CONFERENCE LAST WEEK. YOU'RE ON THE CUTTING EDGE OF CONTEMPORARY FEMINIST THOUGHT WHY ARE YOU NOT DOING A PHD????

and I was like first of all ayyyyy ✌️😘 second of all pal you expect me to like. Justify my thoughts academically? I've met doctoral candidates you bitches are all miserable. and third literally all I was actually saying was stuff like 'there are different definitions of womanhood that are useful in different contexts' and 'there are different meanings to gender in a social and in an individual context' and 'in a lot of liberationist contexts "person who experiences misogyny" is the most useful definition, but aside from finetuning what that actually means and how it relates to people who are subject to misogyny but don't consider themselves women etc, where does that leave us in imagining a post-oppressive womanhood if we don't fill in subscribe to a gender abolitionist standpoint, which I don't, because I like being a woman and find joy in it' and like. all of those are not Deeply Considered Academic Theories as much as they're Having Thought About My Experiences In The World

so I mean fair play bc I do think it's a good sign if your academic theory is something that a layman can come to on their own terms. imo the job of academics is not to invent theory but to codify it and make it explicit and specific. so like if your theory is reflected in where people outside academic philosophy end up that's probably a positive. same as Marx right, like Marx didn't invent the idea of capitalist alienation or collective action but he did codify it and make it easier to build off.

Like I appreciate this. I appreciate when we can recognise that a theory that people NEVER come to outside academia is probably. not a very useful theory.

[fusulyesheep]

sometimes I remember there are gay people that do not dress like clowns and get so confused

[vexingwoman]

genuine question regarding the "women are female people" post. trying to understand the radfem mindset because I don't agree with y'all on most things, but I understand your need to find safety and acceptance within the patriarchy's oppression/danger. I am female but not a woman. I was never socialized as one either. I feel like biological socialization piece goes out the window in my case. Biologically yes, I am female, but socially no one, including myself, would ever view me as a woman or place me through the same social oppression that women face, nor will I experience or have experienced any of the good parts of womanhood. I feel no desire to, because despite sharing the same biology, we are not socially the same. I feel like, in this experience, theres a stark divide between the social category of "women" and biological category of "female." What is your take on this, I'm curious?

The crucial issue here is that you’re conflating women and femininity. You say there’s a difference between women and females, when you instead mean there’s a difference between feminine women and non-feminine women. You believe women are socially constructed, when you instead mean femininity is socially constructed.

The only way you could think that your non-conformance to femininity indicated that you were not a woman, is if you believed femininity was innate and inseparable from women. This is not only an unabashed display of bioessentialism, but a reinforcement of the same sex-based roles and sexist stereotypes that gender ideologues purport to be defying. 

In case you don’t know, the concepts of femininity and masculinity were created solely to enforce female subjugation and male domination (elaboration here). Therefore, nothing is more misogynistic or in direct contradiction to the radical feminist goal of gender abolition than claiming women are defined by the very social construct created to subjugate them, rather than by their biological sex.  

I’ll be honest, I feel increasingly irritated and hopeless every time I receive these messages of “I’m not a woman because I don’t conform to society’s sexist, outdated idea of what women are.” How can you not see how backwards it is to believe your conformity to a demographic’s harmful stereotypes is what determines whether you belong to that demographic? In what other circumstances is this ever the case?

This is a genuine question: why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that you’re a gender-non-conforming woman? Why must you go through all these mental cartwheels and act as though being a woman is contingent on how others view you, or how you socially conduct yourself, or what degree of oppression you face? What benefit do you see in defining women by the social construct of femininity (hierarchical, prescriptive, arbitrary) rather than defining them as female (non-hierarchical, descriptive, concrete)? 

Much of my frustration stems from the knowledge that radical feminists and gender ideologues actually hold similar views on the concepts of women and men, until they diverge at one crucial, irreconcilable point: 

Both radical feminists and gender ideologues acknowledge the existence of regressive stereotypes attributed to the sexes. But where radical feminists seek to remove the stereotypes from the sex, gender ideologues instead, quite stupidly, seek to remove the sex from the stereotypes.

In short, I still consider you a woman completely deserving of access to women’s spaces, because being a woman does not, and should not, have any other prerequisites other than being an adult, a human, and a female. There are not, and should not be, any behaviors, aesthetics, feelings, or non-biological characteristics that determine whether you’re a woman. There are no gendered brains; there are no gendered souls. Being a woman is an innate, neutral, and non-prescriptive reality, no different than having freckles or brown eyes or hooked noses.

[apas-95]

again, no, the goal of the lgbt movement is not to 'let people identify however they want' it is 'stop us from getting beaten and killed in the street'.

having consistent terminology to rally around and explain our collective interests is a tactic towards that end, and it is the reason these 'identities' were constructed in the first place! if the word 'trans', for example, does not exist as a consistent descriptor for 'people who are not the gender assigned to them at birth', then trans liberation struggle suffers a major blow - and, beyond that being the purpose of adopting these terms in the first place, that, in and of itself, is more important than individual freedom of expression!

the lgbt movement is a political movement within society, these are not simply arbitrary terms that exist above society! the issue with terminology is from the same basis as to why it makes absolutely no sense to call an ancient greek person 'bisexual', or a neolithic person 'transgender' - these terms refer to a specific social relationship; an objective, not subjective, position, relative to the society one exists in. these terms are not metaphysical categories, they are ways of describing social relationships towards social systems, like gender, and they are formed into identities only by political movements by which they are used to establish consciousness of one's common social position among those with a similar relationship to a given social system. they are not individual identities, they are social identities.

fundamentally, lgbt identities are not individual descriptors of feeling, but social descriptors of political, economic position. your private feelings are your own, but yes, lgbt identities mean something, and describe a real thing, and can be misused

[themaveriqueagenda]

I don't get what you mean by this (https://www.tumblr.com/themaveriqueagenda/752851132509978624/if-i-see-maverique-described-as-being-outside-of), would you want to elaborate? /gen

I think of the gender trinary as like how it's described for outherine, so masc fem androgynous neutral, and everything between those. So isn't it outside the trinary? (as well as not being genderless)

firstly, "outherine" has nothing to do with the concept of a "gender trinary", you've already said in the definition it explicitly lists 4 things that it is not, rather than 3. if anything, it would be non-[whatever the 4 version of this is]-nary.

the thing is that there is no such thing as a gender trinary. a gender trinary implies that there is a third gender that is legitimated the same way (binary) male and (binary) female. this gender however does not exist, because nonbinary gender identities simply are not recognised that way. the "gender trinary" is a deeply exorsexist concept as it implies that there is a single nonbinary gender out there that is more legitimised than all the others, often said to be a neutral gender.

but society does not recognise neutrality as a gender at all. it looks at neutral genders with the same ridicule as any other nonbinary gender identity.

what people say the third gender in the gender trinary is is also very arbitrary - i've seen people say neutral, i've seen people say "'none", i've seen people say androgynous. they can't make up their mind because the gender trinary does not exist.

just because some exorsexists say that all nonbinary people must be neutral, the only way to be nonbinary is to be genderless or that nonbinary people have to be androgynous doesn't mean that any of these identities are recognised, accepted and legitimised like binary genders are. at the end of the day, they see all of us as the same neither-binary-gender invalid soup.

outherine, abinary and nonbinary are all perfectly fine umbrella terms to define maverique under, as none of them reference a "gender trinary".

i don't want maverique to be associated with the "gender trinary" because i don't want maverique to be associated with a deeply exorsexist concept.

[insaniquariumfish]

A significant portion of people nowadays do not have even a basic understanding of what gender is or what the phrase “gender is a social construct” actually means, and this lack of understanding is poisoning all discourse on the subject of sex and gender as well as semantically mangling the language that we use to discuss these things.

“Man,” “woman,” “male,” and “female” are not genders. “Masculinity” and “femininity” are genders. People are not assigned male or female at birth. People are assigned masculinity or femininity at birth. The state of existing as a man or woman is not determined by gender and has nothing to do with gender. Gender is everything that is culturally associated with men and women besides the state of being a man or woman itself. Gender is “boys don’t cry” and “girls wear dresses.” Gender is not “boys are male and girls are female.” That is sex, which is a biological category, and not a social category, like gender is. A gender is not something you can identify your way into being, because gender is a social phenomenon that is socially constructed and socially imposed, and therefore has nothing to do with your personal internal thoughts, feelings, or desires. Gender is an act you perform, not an identity you feel. How gender applies to you is something that the people around you determine for you, because that is how social constructs work. You are only a feminine/masculine person if the people around you perceive you to be feminine/masculine. Whether you are male or female, on the other hand, has absolutely nothing to do with how you are perceived by others, or even by yourself. You are the sex that you are even if people mistake you for being the other sex, just like an amputee is still an amputee even if people can’t tell that their leg is prosthetic.

Gender is not objectively real, because it is based in subjective and arbitrary social norms that differ depending on culture and time period. No one is innately a gender by virtue of some psychological or neurological property present at birth, any more than they are innately a criminal or a geek or a celebrity or any other social category by virtue of some psychological or neurological property present at birth. Sex is objectively real. You would still be the sex that you are even if no one alive, including you, understood the concept of sex or had the means to determine it, just like you would still be the height that you are even if no one understood the concept of height or had the means to measure it. Meanwhile, you would not have a gender if there was no one who understood the concept of gender, because gender exists only as a concept, and a highly subjective one that is constantly in a state of being redefined, at that, and gender does not describe or indicate any property of objective reality.

[edonee]

You asked yesterday for someone to explain what trans people mean when we say we do or don't feel like a gender or sex. My comment is too long to put in the replies to I'm answering here instead. I don't really think this will change your mind at all, but this is the best way I can explain what it feels like to be trans masculine.

Seeing myself and having others see me as a girl was painful. I felt a deep sense of wrongness when people called me "she" and when people described me as a girl. It sometimes made me throw up, it made me cry, it made me dissociate. When I transitioned and people called me "he" or "they", I felt an overwhelming amount of joy. I felt like they were seeing who I was, I felt right. I felt this deep sense of wrongness in relation to my body as well - I couldn't stand seeing my breasts, I couldn't stand having a period, I hated the way my face was shaped. I also often felt uncomfortable when doing things or wearing things considered traditionally feminine, but I think that was because I hated that people used those to associate me with being a girl. Now, I often enjoy wearing clothing or activities that fit feminine gender roles. My point is, my dysphoria and my experience of gender is almost entirely based on how I feel most aligned with the gender designation of man, and not at all aligned with the gender designation of woman - rather than what aspects of those gender roles I wanted to participate in.

I don't think there's one simple explanation as to what it means to feel like a woman or a man or any form of gender that does not fit within the binary. I personally believe that we all have unique experiences of gender, and most people's match up with how they are perceived by society, but others make them feel dysphoric. I honestly agree with the idea of gender abolition - as long as we don't divide people by sex either. It would be great if we could all just exist as people without these arbitrary categories acting as defining characteristics of who we are.

I can't answer if, in that hypothetical society where we don't have genders, I would still experience the dysphoria I've felt about my body. I don't know - I'm sorry. I get that there are a lot of confusing things in play when it comes to gender and trans people, and I think it's great that people like you want to understand, and I get that it can seem suspicious when there are some things that we can't answer.

But I don't think that those areas where there's a lack of clarity need to push you away from supporting trans people. We are not claiming to be trans for some manipulative agenda, or just very swept up in internalized misogyny. Most of us are people who suffered a lot trying to exist as the gender that society ascribed to our sex, and now that we've found another way to exist, we feel freer. I feel like a man because I don't feel wrong when I exist as a man. I don't feel like a woman because I felt wrong when I existed as a woman. I don't see what in that is a threat.

Thank you if you bothered to read all of this! Have a lovely evening.

Hi ^^ good morning, I just read this and I'm going to try to make my point as linear as possible. I want to start off by giving you a definition of sex and gender (just so that there's no confusion over what I'm talking about) I've simply taken the definitions from The World Health Organisation as I find those exhausting and agreeable enough:

Sex is defined as the different biological and physiological characteristics of males and females, such as reproductive organs, chromosomes, hormones, etc

Gender is defined as the (of course variable based on place, culture, and historical period) socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men.

I want to start by addressing what you said at the very beginning of your argument: you said that people perceiving you as a girl distressed you even to the point of physical sickness, whereas getting gendered as a man made you feel seen as your true self. First, I want to say that your "true self" can't be the social classification of characteristics attributed to either sex. Gender is, by definition, purely constructed, therefore any identification with either gender comes from a personal sympathization with its elements and not from an innate connection to a system that is man-made and cannot therefore borne any biological bond. Secondly, I don't want to make a diagnosis out of your experience, but that simply sounds like an extreme result of growing up as a female. With the way girls are treated in every society it's no wonder that the passage from childhood to girlhood is burdensome. When a male child grows up he becomes a person, whereas a female grows to be a woman. Very trivially, the reason why I used to identify as non-binary when I was around 13-14 was that I felt too complex to fit into something as shallow and one-dimensional as womanhood. Of course I'm not saying that's why you specifically feel this way, as there could very well be another reason personal to you that has shaped your mind and put you in a psychological condition where you feel alienated from your body. But even in that case, the argument of transgenderism still doesn't hold up. Gender is not biological, so of course anyone can identify themselves in and out of it as they please, but that doesn't change two things:

1) the structure of it remains the same

2) a female who identifies as a man is still female and vice versa

You also go on and say that your experience with gender comes from feeling aligned to the “gender designation of men – rather than what aspects of those gender roles (you) want to participate in„

I find this definition quite feeble, as the "gender designation of men" is exactly equivalent to the gender roles linked to it, and nothing more. Again, I can't help but get the idea that the motive of your discomfort with femaleness stems from an underlying uneasiness with the poor way women are treated in a misogynistic society rather than an abstract and impractical affinity with the male sex.

Now, toward the end of your argument you hypothesized a world where gender has been erased, leaving sex as the only undeniable distinction between people, and you said:

"I can't answer if, in that hypothetical

society where we don't have

genders, I would still experience the

dysphoria l've felt about my body"

And, although I don't know you personally, I'm quite confident that the answer would be no. Feeling discontent over your body is not innate, it's learned (subconsciously or otherwise) through socialization. If you feel envy towards the male body and hatred towards your female body it is not because there's something inherently wrong with it, but rather because you aspire to the male gender class. Without sex discrimination & gender existing in the first place, there would be nothing that would make you resent your female body.

However, we clearly don't live in a word free of gender, so does that mean that we should endorse transgenderism for the sake of those people who suffer from dysphoria? The answer is no. Dysphoria is a direct result of gender, therefore the solution is to question the very construct of gender, and not to go through medical procedures to change one's sexual characteristics in order to "be your true self". Just like anorexia can't be cured by starving, but only by deconstructing the underlying fixation with thinness and body image. Not to mention the idea that gender is actually real is harmful to feminism. It does not only solidify gender stereotypes, and promote the definition of certain behaviors as either masculine or feminine, it also strips words away of their meaning, making the fight for female liberation a nebulous movement that stands up for the rights of – who exactly? Females? Anyone who identifies as female? Men who say they are women?

I'm genuinely sorry that there are people who suffer to the point that they want to be the opposite sex, but I refuse to advocate for the idea that you can be born into the wrong body. Believing that your body is wrong is a fucking miserable way to live, and it's also simply not true.

Let me know if you want to ask me anything else, have a good day

[icyrambles]

of all my transformers takes, i feel like the one that'll get me sent directly to fandom hell is my feral hatred of the term "femme"

like genuinely it's such a stupid term. not because i don't think the robots can't have gender. because i do think they have some concept of gender. but because it's just woman 2.0

like you've got this super interesting alien species. they've got their own culture, their own language, their own ideas of sexuality and right and wrong, and their own religion. and to see most of the fandom look at that and go "but what if i just made man and woman but for robots" pisses me off

it makes me mad because it's fucking boring as shit. you've got all this cool worldbuilding and lore and you decide that the best thing to do when discussing robot gender is just to give them human gender but slightly to the left

"but icy, how to you distinguish the women transformers from the male ones?"

just fucking use mech for all of them. i use mech/mecha as a catch all term. it's my replacement for person or man or guy. like when someone says "you guys" they could obviously be referring to a group of all men, but let's be real here, "you guys" as it is used in colloquial english, is a gender neutral term despite having a more gendered term within it.

and it's specifically the term femme that grinds my gears. i don't have any issues with people headcanoning characters using she/her pronouns. i think that's cool as hell because pronouns do not equate to gender and in a fandom where like, 90% of the characters use he/him it's nice to see some switchups for pronouns because it gets a little repetitive after a while. but the term femme just tells me that you subscribe to the idea that the alien robot species who do not have the same concepts and ideas of gender as humans do, somehow managed to craft together the exact same gender concepts as an organic species halfway across the galaxy.

and i'm sure someone might be like "well it's not a gender thing" but i only ever see the term femme used to describe a canon character who uses she/her pronouns (like arcee or elita-1) or to describe a fandom headcanon that revolves around a character using she/her pronouns (like starscream or ravage) it has everything to do with how the fandom seems to cling to the idea that cybertronians have to have the same concepts of gender for humans

i've been in this fandom for a little over a year and despite going through forums and tumblr posts and even looking at twitter for a tiny bit, i've yet to see an actual attempt at exploring the concepts of cybertronian gender.

so here's mine; taken from my worldbuilding ideas that i'm sorting out for my in the works fan continuity

cybertronian gender, like a lot of their societal norms, is tied to one's altmode.

as taken from the marriam-webster dictionary: gender is - a subclass within a grammatical class (such as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (such as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms

now applying that to a species that has the specific characteristic of being able to literally change shape with the assistance of an internal organ (ie the t-cog) leads me to the idea that instead of gender being based on the biological sex like it is for humans, gender is instead rooted in the altmode.

the terms of seeker and speedster are adjectives to describe the altmode of a cybertronian, but also can describe the gender. this isn't meant to be a direct 1-1 copy of human ideas of sex and gender but instead a theoretical worldbuilding exercise in how a species that does not reproduce in a sexual manner would develop similar concepts of personal expressions through their established canon biology.

within my worldbuilding. the common language packs of cybertron come with three sets of standard, altmode neutral pronouns. these roughly translated into english, are he, she, and they. notice how i said altmode neutral pronouns. that's because most altmodes have their own sets of established pronouns that crop up within the groups.

this particular idea ties in with how my versions of cybertronians communicate. basically cybertronians communicate both via verbal speech, such as talking using a vocaliser, but also via manipulating their EM fields, and attaching non-verbal alterations to their spoken words via radio waves and the EM field.

so the pronoun [He] when used in a sentence, might have extra attachments added onto it.

EX: [He (positive/neutral) went to my house the other day.]

So in this case the speaker is referring to someone in a positive or neutral manner.

Here's another one using pronouns on a personal level when referring to one's self.

EX: [Hello. (courteous) My name is Starscream (Vosian - Seeker). I use He/Him (Neutral) pronouns.]

This is a typical cybertronian style of greeting. It includes a hello to the other party/s, the title of the individual along with their region of origin/residence and altmode, and finally their preferred set or sets of altmode neutral pronouns. In this case, Starscream would tag his "Hello" with a neutral emotion, being courteous but not excited because the mech he's talking to is someone he doesn't know but isn't enemies with. He then attaches his region of origin "Vos" and his altmode group "Seeker" and finally caps it off with his preferred set of pronouns "He/Him" which has a neutral emotion modifier tagged onto it because while it's his preferred set of pronouns in the neutral sense, it's not what he'd like to be using all the time.

he/him, she/her, and they/them are all equally neutral and for all cybertronians they exist in a state of purely personal preference. there's nothing about arcee using she/her pronouns that makes her more woman gendered anymore than starscream using he/him pronouns makes him male gendered. that's just human bias. they're robots, so they don't view themselves in the same way. those sets of pronouns, again, are merely translated into english for the reader's convenience.

Now I've thrown around the term "altmode neutral" quite a bit so here's an explanation for that.

Cybertronians with the same or similar altmodes will often develop languages and cultures surrounding those altmodes, similar to how many cultures and identities are developed through similarities with each other. This varies from region to region, with many languages and cultures not meshing together even if those mecha have the same altmode.

A jet like Pharma who was raised in Iacon around primarily ground based altmodes tends to use pronouns specific to grounder based language families while someone like Starscream or Thundercracker, who are from Vos, use altmode specific pronouns indicative of language families developed by mostly flight frames.

The common language data pack exists as an easy way for mecha to communicate with each other without potentially butchering another individual's native language. While one could theoretically download a whole language into their brain module, their actual speech would likely sound distorted or unnatural due to the fact that the brain module only retains the information that was on the download and is unable to account for things like accents, region dialects, and other such nuances in languages

Altmode specific pronouns are often tagged with extra modifiers and would function similarly to the concept of neo pronouns in english.

Megatron as an example has a tank altmode and his specific altmode pronouns are chk/chiks and using them in spoken dialogue would require one to either create a noice similar to a tank canon loading with their vocaliser, or in another tank's case, would simply have them use their own tank barrel to produce the noise.

flight frames often clank their wings together or whistle as their altmode specific pronouns. speedsters will revv their engines. smaller cars like bumblebee or cliffjumper will beep their horns, and ambulances like ratchet will whoop their sirens.

going back to my "pharma raised in iacon" example. he's a jet, but rather than clanking his wings together, he'll utilize his inbuilt siren (installed while he was in medical school) as his altmode specific pronouns. it, roughly translated to written form is wheep/whoop

this also extends to preferences for partners. i've seen people joke about how ratchet has a thing for speedsters because of his thing with drift and rodimus, but genuinely i do think that within the idea of altmodes being tied to gender, mecha would develop preferences for certain altmodes.

and when i say preference, i do mean just a preference. altmodes are fluid things within cybertronian society. megatron, as an example, is a gun, a tank, and a heavy bomber plane across varying continuities, yet at the end of the day, he's still megatron. his altmode is not what defines him as a character.

therefore i think changing altmodes is purely a thing that's tied to economic status. it's very expensive to have the whole exoframe completely reformatted so those who regularly change their altmodes either have shanix to spare, or have saved up enough money to have the procedures done.

this is even touched upon within idw's version of cybertron, what with the existence of relinquishment clinics, where mecha will go and donate their frames for money, and then those shells can be bought so another individual can have a new altmode.

when a mech decides to have their altmode changed they'll often shift up their altmode specific pronouns too. a smaller car changing altmodes into a bigger vehicle will instead honk their horn instead of beeping or maybe they'll revv their engines louder just to signify that they've changed altmodes.

going back to my sentence examples. here's one with ratchet and pharma introducing themselves to a patient

EX:

Ratchet: Hello (positive/friendly/welcoming) My name is Ratchet (Vaporex - Ambulance - Medic) I use He/Him (Positive) and siren whoops pronouns.

Pharma: Hello (kind). My name is Pharma (Iacon - Jet - Medic). I use He/Him and clanks wings/whoops sirens pronouns.

like i said, this isn't meant to be a direct 1-1 with human genders. cybertronian altmodes within my fan continuity defy more than just how another individual views them. they can signify occupation, social standing, and economic class. and some mecha even choose to disregard their altmodes entirely when it comes to their personal expression, sticking exclusively to the gender neutral pronouns.

anyways this post is half rant half worldbuilding so if ya made it to the end i'd be happy to hear your thoughts. and as always, if you liked this post please feel free to reblog :]

[lillified]

What’s your thoughts about gender in Transformers specifically because I really love your take on the characters

that’s a good question! I’ve given a few different answers about this in the past, and I guess the simple answer would be I want people to interpret it in whatever way is most meaningful to them. The long answer is it’s complicated!

personally I believe that human gender dichotomy is entirely arbitrary. gender doesn’t preclude a set of behaviors or characteristics, but it affects how people treat you, and, in many cases, how you’re taught to view yourself.

One of my biggest pet peeves with how gender is handled in stuff like Transformers, where you’re dealing with things like sci fi or fantasy non-humans, is how literal and inherent it often is. Because we as people are writing from the perspective of a society where gender is taught as an immutable social framework, a lot of our art reflects this. However, when the issue of gender being arbitrary is brought up, instead of acknowledging its presence as an oversight, or an intentional thematic parallel, the go-to response is usually to codify it into canonical rule.

An example in Transformers would be how “female” Transformers were made into a subclass or subspecies to justify why they existed and why there were so few of them. Though you can argue from that as a technically sound retcon, this obviously does not solve the real life issue of why those creative decisions actually happened. It’s a fantasy excuse to justify a disinterest in engaging with “women” characters (while obviously the transformers are not human women, if it quacks like a duck, yknow?)

there have been other explanations of robot gender in the past, but I’ve never really been a fan of any of them, personally. The one I can think of that is most recent is the explanation that the gender dichotomy came about from the transformers learning about gender binary from other alien species (which they effectively colonized). While I personally think this is a step up, both as a writing decision and from a thematic perspective, my main issue with this is that this explanation says the “male” transformers are the essential “default.” The girls have all opted in/transitioned into their gender (which I think is cool, and should be something that happens more in transformers!). that being said, though, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that masculine and genderless should be inherently synonymous.

Femininity or girlhood (which are not inherently the same either, but I digress) being seen and portrayed as secondary is, surprisingly enough, not a very feminist or gender-abolitionist friendly idea! Of course this isn’t the biggest issue facing the women of the world, but I think it is essentialist in its own way, and is a fine example of the tricky nature of deconstructing gender in something that is fundamentally tied to it. On a side tangent, it also pretty much completely eliminates transmasculine representation, which I feel is unfortunate when having a gender binary in the first place only really serves to symbolize the range of human expression. Point being it’s imperfect and while I’m not claiming to have the perfect solution to this problem, I want to at least open the doors a little more for other people, potentially.

In my work I choose to make the genders as close to human as possible because ultimately they are humanoid robots, and I think if you are going to account for anthropocentric bias at all it wouldn’t hurt for there to be more representation overall. The robots are inherently sexless and their gender is inherently arbitrary, like humans (it is also partially the result of cultural imposition, also like humans), and though they lack many of the issues of a gendered society, it affects them and their social lives in a way people can probably relate to. “Man” and “woman” aren’t the only genders that exist, either, and, like humans, there are a range of different identities they can freely transition between.

I’d honestly rather not care too much about the specifics of why. There are reasons, purely social/societal ones, but I think that’s less important than the fact that they experience the consequences. I want people to be able to see themselves a little where they have not been allowed to previously where “humanoid” aliens and creatures have been concerned. If you exist, a robot can have your gender, I promise :)

Anyway, that was a very long winded response! I hope this answered your question, at least somewhat. Thanks again for submitting!

[smol-and-scared]

G/t Analysis: Gods Among Mice

Before I begin, I want to say two things:

This post is not meant to disparage anyone or question their value as people, all of this is exploration of linguistics, its cultural implications and potential narratives that could arise from them.

It is not a statement of fact or a claim I’m making.

Also… Let’s put aside the “Step on me Goddess” bullshit that has unfortunately plagued much of the g/t community’s DMs (It deserves to be called out, but not what this is about)

I will be using ‘God’ as a gender-neutral term here.

The God-like power of Size💪

Throughout history, Gods have often been depicted as being physically massive. This makes sense, as physical power is the most easily understood form of power. Likewise, a creature's size is one of the most universally recognized sign of one's physical power. So it's a good way to instantly depict the strength of a God. And these depictions have had a weird memetic side effect: The idea that 'massive size' makes a creature 'God-like'.

This does have a bit of psychological merit. If mountain-sized Giants actually existed, (without our arch-nemesis: 🔥the fucking square-cube law🔥) their full size and strength would be so hard for humans to understand that their power is basically arbitrary. At which point it becomes indistinguishable from Godhood. Also, our primitive lizard-brains evolved to fear much larger creatures. And fearing your gods is a major part of many religions.

Because of this there are dozens upon dozens of G/t fics, comics, etc; where the larger party is compared to or (metaphorically) referred to as, a God. In the case of actual giants and characters growing larger, this makes complete sense and is usually well-suited to the narrative.

But in my eternal quest for more angst™ I’ve recently started to question it’s use in Human/tiny stories. It feels kinda… lazy? I mean, not in the context of the story, many fantastic fics do it. But it just feels like it was copied over from the giant fics and never fully questioned or explored.

Okay, but what if: 🤏 smol.

Now obviously, all of this depends on the exact size difference, scenario and world-building of the story. But I still think it applies to a huge amount of fics who play up the Human/tiny size difference as ‘God-like’.

I personally think If a tiny views their resident human as a God-like figure (with all of the fear and awe that entails) …then they are optimistically delusional.

Because Gods are, in most cultures, special.

I have yet to see a fic where the Tiny is struck by the simple and harrowing realization that the humans they view as unstoppable, God-like entities are... in fact, painfully average.

It’s one thing to live in terror of the massive entity that could kill you in an instant. It’s an entirely further step to realize that there are dozens, if not hundreds of them between you and the nearest human-free environment.

And what if the Tiny realizes that their human isn’t even average? Imagine their horror when they realize that the person who is so big and powerful that they can barely even grasp it… is some 4’ 3” (~130cm) little stick? And the average human could snap ‘their human’ in half like a stale fuckin’ Cheeto.

Objectively, the Tiny knew this. They knew that the human they live with was small and weak compared to the others. But they never had an opportunity to actually understand it. And nothing gets that message across like seeing the 'God' of their tiny little world casually picked up and playfully carried on someone’s shoulder.

And It still gets worse...

Depending on the setting, the Tiny may not know or feel connected to any kind of civilization (A borrower colony, a scavenger camp, etc). This is especially true if Tinies are rare and/or oppressed.

And if that Tiny were to realize how average their 'God-like' human was? It would break them in the most pitiful way.

Because that ‘God’ isn’t a god. They’re average. They have a job. They have hobbies and friends. Things that this Tiny could never even dream of having. And that’s normal. That’s expected. They get to live, instead of just survive. Because they’re a person and that’s what people do.

And if their ‘God’ is just a person-

“Then…what does that make me?”

In conclusion:

I believe a character referring to someone as a God/Goddess implies that the speaker is a ‘person’ and they are looking at something greater. It’s ‘Normal’ looking up at ‘Godhood'.

But given the right story, plus a healthy amount of fear and awe. I think many Tinies would start to understand how small they are. And that they’ve been looking up at ‘Normal’ the whole time.

[why-am-i-not-fictional]

Things to script - nature or status of realities

This is something I recently started inputting into my DRs to make them better and safe. I got much help from ChatGPT too to categorize all these things. I wanted to share it with you guys too :) feel free to use anything for your scripts. Happy Shifting!!!

All of the below discriminations does not exist in any of my DRs

Misogyny

Racism

Homophobia

Transphobia

Classism

Ableism

Ageism

Xenophobia

Islamophobia

Anti-Semitism

Colorism

Nationalism

Casteism

Environmental injustice

Sexism

Sizeism

Religious discrimination

Ethnic discrimination

Discrimination based on immigration status

Discrimination based on language

Discrimination based on nationality

Discrimination based on indigenous status

Discrimination based on political beliefs

Discrimination based on marital status

Discrimination based on parental status

Discrimination based on veteran status

Discrimination based on HIV/AIDS status

Discrimination based on neurodiversity

Discrimination based on mental health status

Discrimination based on physical appearance

Discrimination based on cultural practices

Discrimination based on regional or geographical origin

Discrimination based on caste or social status

Discrimination based on educational background

Discrimination based on housing status

Discrimination based on criminal record

Discrimination based on economic status

Discrimination based on access to healthcare

Discrimination based on access to education

Discrimination based on access to employment opportunities

All of the below issues have been solved many years ago and they do not exist in the times of any of my DRs

Poverty

Economic inequality

Environmental degradation

Climate change

Pollution

Deforestation

Political instability

Armed conflicts

Civil wars

Humanitarian crises

Global health challenges

Infectious diseases

Pandemics

Inadequate healthcare systems

Lack of access to essential medicines

Educational disparities

Limited access to quality education

Illiteracy

Child labor

Child marriage

Gender inequality

Women's rights violations

Child labor

Human trafficking

Forced labor

Modern slavery

Corruption

Lack of transparency

Ineffective governance

Authoritarian regimes

Suppression of free speech

Violations of human rights

Arbitrary detention

Torture

Persecution

Indigenous rights violations

Land grabs

Cultural appropriation

Technological and digital divides

Ethical dilemmas in technology

Privacy concerns

Data breaches

Cybersecurity threats

Food insecurity

Malnutrition

Water scarcity

Access to clean water

Sanitation issues

Homelessness

Housing affordability

Urbanization challenges

Aging population

Elder abuse

Mental health stigma

Lack of access to mental health services

Substance abuse

Addiction

Disability rights violations

Accessibility barriers

Stigmatization of disabilities

LGBTQ+ rights violations

Discrimination based on sexual orientation

Discrimination based on gender identity

Family rejection

Reproductive rights violations

Access to reproductive healthcare

Maternal mortality

Child mortality

Access to clean energy

Energy poverty

Fossil fuel dependence

Renewable energy transition challenges

Wildlife conservation

Endangered species protection

Animal rights violations

All the DRs I shift to are abundant of the following things 

Compassion

Empathy

Cooperation

Collaboration

Sustainability

Environmental stewardship

Peacebuilding

Conflict resolution

Dialogue

Reconciliation

Education

Knowledge-sharing

Critical thinking

Cultural diversity

Cultural respect

Inclusivity

Equality

Justice

Ethical leadership

Integrity

Accountability

Service to others

Health promotion

Well-being

Healthcare access

Mental health support

Social support systems

Innovation

Creativity

Social justice

Fairness

Equity

Human rights

Freedom of expression

Freedom of assembly

Democratic governance

Rule of law

Transparency

Accountability mechanisms

Community empowerment

Grassroots activism

Civic engagement

Volunteerism

Philanthropy

Sustainable development

Responsible consumption

Renewable energy adoption

Conservation

Biodiversity protection

Animal welfare

Gender equality

Women's empowerment

LGBTQ+ rights

Disability rights

Indigenous rights

Racial equity

Anti-discrimination policies

Social welfare programs

Poverty alleviation

Economic empowerment

Access to education

Access to clean water

Sanitation infrastructure

Housing rights

Food security

Global cooperation

International aid and development

Humanitarian assistance

Conflict prevention

Diplomacy

Multilateralism

Solidarity

Tolerance

Forgiveness

Resilience

All of the DRs I shift into are currently successfully overcoming the following challenges as they rise

Sustaining Progress: Maintaining the momentum of positive change and preventing regression into previous discriminatory attitudes and practices.

Ensuring Equity: Addressing lingering disparities and ensuring that the benefits of progress are equitably distributed across all communities.

Adapting to Changing Circumstances: Remaining flexible and responsive to evolving societal needs, dynamics, and challenges over time.

Balancing Interests: Navigating competing interests, values, and priorities among diverse stakeholders in society.

Preventing Backlash: Mitigating potential backlash from individuals or groups who may resist or oppose efforts to eliminate discrimination and promote positive change.

Addressing Unforeseen Consequences: Anticipating and addressing unintended consequences or side effects of interventions aimed at addressing societal issues.

Managing Complexity: Dealing with the complexity of interconnected social, economic, political, and environmental systems, which may require interdisciplinary approaches and collaboration.

Maintaining Engagement: Sustaining public engagement, participation, and support for ongoing efforts to promote equality, justice, and well-being.

Ensuring Accountability: Holding individuals, institutions, and governments accountable for upholding principles of fairness, transparency, and ethical conduct.

Resisting Entrenched Power Structures: Challenging and dismantling entrenched power structures, systems of privilege, and institutionalized forms of discrimination.

Addressing Global Challenges: Collaborating internationally to address global challenges such as climate change, inequality, and conflict, which require coordinated action across borders.

Cultural Sensitivity: Respecting and accommodating diverse cultural norms, values, and perspectives while promoting universal principles of human rights and equality.

Managing Resources: Efficiently allocating resources and managing competing demands to sustain progress and address ongoing needs in society.

Promoting Inclusivity: Ensuring that marginalized or vulnerable groups are included in decision-making processes and benefit from positive changes in society.

Building Trust: Fostering trust, cooperation, and solidarity among individuals, communities, and institutions to sustain positive social transformation.

Addressing New Challenges: Remaining vigilant and adaptive to emerging challenges and threats to equality, justice, and well-being in an ever-changing world.

[ataleofcrowns]

I've been wanting to ask and I hope it doesn't sound rude, I know that in aToC, you're allowed to express your sexuality and stuff there. But I want to ask if Homophobia still exist or everyone just think lgbt is a common and normal thing there? I'm just curious ngl (you can ignore this if it sound rude)

I think it would be difficult to say that every single country and culture in the world's setting is completely free of homophobia, or misogyny, or xenophobia. No single culture is the same, after all.

There may be certain social groups and cultures where it does exist, just like discrimination based on other completely arbitrary characteristics that have existed in history. Think of how left-handedness was stigmatized in various cultures in our history just a relatively short while ago, for example.

Social hierarchies still exist, so there will always be divisions between in-groups and out-groups, majority and minority groups. But I've built the world in such a way where magic and economic class have often been used to sow divisions between groups, rather than sexuality or gender. The use of magic is a huge class marker, often indicating education, social capital, and (generational) wealth.

So in a majority of cultures and countries, I'd say inequalities or prejudices based on gender and sexuality don't exist, such as in Arsur's part of the world. And if they do, it's in small pockets of specific sub-cultures rather than at a societal or institutional level.

[teen-heart-throb-mr-hyde]

evil is arbitrary, or, i’m begging you all to be normal about hyde (and queerness)

so like. does anyone else think it’s weird when people conflate hyde’s actual evil with hypotheticals about his gender identity/presentation? here’s a post about that.

cw for discussion of general queerophobia and specifically transmisogny

to contextualize this post going forward, i'm going to lay down this principle: that what we consider evil is totally arbitrary.

"evil" is a concept, and like all concepts, we made it up, both as a society and as individuals. there are some things that basically everyone (individuals and society) can agree and have agreed, across time and culture, are objectively evil, like straight up murder. there are other things, however, that are morally neutral, or even good that have been deemed as "evil/morally wrong" within certain societies (which shape individuals), like queerness.

following so far? excellent.

there are two aspects to what i am reluctant to call hyde's "evil" considering the above, but keep in mind this idea of evil is filtered through two lenses: the individual (jekyll) and the society (victorian england). the two aspects are the canon/textual and the subtextual.

the canon is what we directly see on the page, and what we see on the page amounts mostly to two things: hyde's violence and cruelty towards others. when it comes down to explicit, textual evidence of hyde's evil, those are the examples we can pull from. these are also things that can, pretty objectively by many individuals and society, be considered evil. murder is bad. not really inventing the wheel here.

the subtextual is, obviously, very different. technically, it doesn't exist. the subtextual nature of hyde's "evil" is going to be different for everyone because it's what we think exists underneath the actual canon. based on textual evidence, we build a subtext that explains or expands on themes, characterization, messaging, etc. based on canon evidence in the novella, many people read in a degree of queer subtext, regarding both jekyll/hyde's gender and sexuality. jekyll is some kind of queer and has repressed that due to the heavy stigma and bigotry present during the time, and this emerges in hyde along with his other "base urges." but that doesn't actually exist in the text, it's just one reading that you can have.

hyde does some things in canon that are objectively evil (violence and cruelty) and could have done some things if you read the subtext a certain way that were arbitrarily evil, based on jekyll and the society that molded him (queerness).

so why do modern readers, modern queer readers treat these things as equally evil?

honestly? fucked if i know. but i have some theories.

this problem may be the opposite of the "sir danvers problem," which i've talked about before. while that comes from people woobifying hyde and wanting to remove any ill intent from his canon, objective evil, i think this problem comes from people wanting to put ill intent into his subtextual, arbitrary evil. with this, people lump in hyde's subtextual, arbitrary evil, specifically this reading of queerness, with his canon, objective evil and judge them as equally bad. which is just fucking not true!!!! i don't care how tired you are of people calling hyde a poor little little meow, it's a weird, poorly analyzed take.

if we take that reading of queer subtext, we can understand why jekyll and victorian society would conflate these things as equally evil, but as modern readers we don't have to. and we shouldn't! we should understand the nuance between which of jekyll/hyde's behaviours are actually evil, and which are only treated as evil. to imply that these, (again, because they're based on subtext) hypotheticals of hyde getting it on with other guys, or not adhering to binary standards of masculinity is just as bad as him killing a man in cold blood is gross, plain and simple.

it's especially sinister since i see this most often paired with the idea that hyde is in some way gnc. he's a drag queen, or a cross-dresser, or just more effeminate than jekyll, and that is supposed to make him more evil or just generally more "unpleasant." that's some straight up alfred hitchcock's psycho level transmisogny. if you want to make hyde any of those things, it should to be to question what "evil" means, who or what decides what evil is, and whether or not that is a correct judgement to make. (hint: it's not. gnc men/transfem ppl are not inherently evil. jesus.)

tldr; there's a lot going on. evil is arbitrary. some things are pretty objectively evil and hyde does those in canon, and some things are not and hyde could have done those in subtext. treating them as equally bad is weird. have all the queer readings of the text you want, just maybe interrogate why you're making those readings and how you pair them with the actual text.

[the-starlight-writer]

Culture in TKoM's Faerie I: General Foundations of the Land

Hello! Welcome again! Today, we're going to be talking culture. "Culture" is a very broad topic so for this post, we're mainly going to be talking about the world itself and how it's set up. These are questions I got asked a long time ago in my discord server so this post is mostly going to be in the form of a Q&A. Most of these questions came from a list collated by @wondrousworldbuilding. The list can be found here.

How content is the average person?

6, 7/10. Life is okay, people are content. Things could definitely be a lot better especially considering the fact that void fae are being actively targeted and persecuted and that there's an unrest among the people since the last royal family was deposed.

How do people make their living and how big a part of their life is their career?

Some fae have arbitrary but fundamental jobs in roles and sectors like agriculture, food production, pharmacy and teaching. Careers on a whole are not required. A large percentage of the population do have jobs as healers, as bakers, artisans etc, but those who don't get by just fine either because they're being supported by relatives or because they're "civil servants", meaning they work for and are subsidised by the government. Civil servitude doesn't necessarily mean that they do clerical work but it does include that. Civil servants can also be commissioned artists, archivists, artisans, tapestry artists, collectors, weavers, elders, skilled magic practitioners, winery owners, authors etc. These positions are considered government jobs because Faerie highly values luxury and a high standard of living.

How do they treat their close friends?

That's more dependent on the fae themselves but earth fae and void fae tend to be very close knit and treat friends like family.

What virtues do they value in individuals? What virtues do they say they value? If those are different, why?

Generally the virtues most valued in individuals are secrecy and loyalty. The traits stated as most highly valued are trust and empathy but really, everyone wants to keep their best interests in mind and secrets protected from prying eyes.

How do they dress? Does it vary greatly by gender, or not? Is their focus on clothing very practical, religious, sentimental, or simply driven by the latest arbitrary fashion? How do the above answers reflect on the culture on a deeper level?

Styles of dress are cultural and are adapted to fae types and their magic. For example, fire fae don't wear lots of excess layers and tend to wear heat-resistant fabrics. Air fae wear a lot light clothes that flutter in the wind. They also wear aerodynamic clothes as well in case they need to fly. The concepts of masculinity and femininity do exist in Faerie but people are liberty to play around with expression as they see fit. The definitions of gendered fashion have changed slightly over time and more traditional fae whose clothing is deeply cultural do prefer to keep the gender divide somewhat prominent. Undoubtedly religious attire exists but seeing regular fae in that kind of garb is highly unlikely on a day-to-day basis.

At what age does a baby become a child, a child a young adult, a young adult an adult, an adult an elder?

Faerie ages are a little odd. Babies become children when they first start demonstrating outward magical proficiency and a way of deft communication. Children become young adults when their markings fully emerge, their magic proficiency (or lack thereof) is evident and they experience biological development. Adulthood is the completion of biological development and magic proficiency is well demonstrated. Being an elder is once you've existed as long as one complete generation, usually around 100, 150 years.

What is Faerie's understanding of and relationship with art?

Faerie started considering art important after a faerie's human companion pointed it out to them. visual art didn't mean much but that didn't mean they didn't have it. Some of the most famous pieces are landscape works because the world was so intricately designed that there's imagery in the hills and in the waters, especially from above. Each fae type has a kind of art that comes naturally to them e.g earth fae tend to lean toward pottery and ceramics while fire fae do a lot of metalwork.

How do the fae think of pronouns and gender?

Most people are willing to go by they/them pronouns because gender doesn't mean a lot to them but there are some people who are close to their AGAB. It's very up in the air how people identify. Some people never attach to their AGAB at all and go exclusively by they/them. Some people feel a connection to their AGAB but are okay with they/them because of the cultural backing. Other people feel very close to their AGAB and reject the idea of being nonbinary entirely but that doesn't change how it works in Faerie. This has no real effect on presentation though

Once again we have come to the end of a worldbuilding post. See you again soon for the next entry in the series!

[khreborns]

𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐆𝐈𝐑𝐋𝐅𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐍𝐃 𝑴𝑰𝑼𝑹𝑨, 𝑯𝑨𝑹𝑼 .ᐟ.ᐟ

.𖥔 ˖ PAIRING : y / n × Miura Haru , gender neutral & TYL setting. .𖥔 ˖ WARNING : mentions of sexual themes and general obsessive girlfriend behavior. ( haru ) - under readmore. No beta read might have clerical errors.

Likely fell in love with you because of some arbitrary act of kindness that means more to her than you'd ever know or understand. It hits her like a truck with broken breaks, a whirlwind of intense emotions and she will make it known! Old habits die hard, she'd PROCLAIM her love loud and clear.

She tries to settle down, keep her heart on a leash ! She's more self-aware now after all, Didn't want to bother you like she did Tsunayoshi, didn't want to expect anything of you and misunderstand common curtesy! But gosh you make her heart beat SKIP hard and when you say nice things to her, she can't help but day dream. Carry that HOPE in her heart that this time it'll turn out well.

Haru is overly attentive, knows your favorite color, how you like your drinks, knows exactly what to give you on your birthday, she cooks your favorite food unprompted and have a million and one excuses to spend time with you. You're busy? well, she's a patient girl that can wait! You're sleepy? Her lap is there for a reason!

You are perfect, the most attractive, the smartest, the coolest and hottest person she'd ever laid her eyes on. Even when she knows your shortcomings, it hardly matters, those makes you charming too, makes you cute, makes you humble and wonderful. Haru hangs on your every word, trust you entirely with her whole heart.

When you are finally together, finally a couple. Haru CRIED in your arms. ( she's hugging you so tight, hiccupping her happy sobs. ) She loves you, she loves you, she loves you, so so much and you love her back. She's finally loved back, YOU CHOSE HER.

She had already been acutely absorbed with your existence to begin with, to a worrying degree it's even more intense somehow. If you'd asked, she'd stop everything she's doing for you. If you ask, she'd do it. She wants to revolve her whole life for you, she wants to make you happy. If you're happy! She's happy!

The first kiss is like fireworks bursting in her stomach, face red with shyness but she feels your lips still on hers and it makes her dizzy with anticipation for the next and the next . . . so, she's a little bit obsessed with kissing you again, so she thinks about if often now. One kiss guides her thoughts elsewhere, she's easy to read when her lips purse and she turns ever so dusty pink again. She wants to do what couples do, hold hands...kiss.. and... well.

She's timid suddenly, dishonest even. It's hard to confess this time around ! " Haru wants to make love with you!" Didn't sound very romantic at all, in fact she wonders if you'd think she's dirty, a perverted little girl! Which, she's not! She's good . . . but, it's just that she loves you so much!

One thing lead to another, a dinner date, she called it appreciation day and a sleepover, she means it too . . . she's never been good at scheming anyway, but you kissed her just right and she kissed you right back.

Haru is a GENEROUS lover, a giver. You'd find that she doesn't mind being on her knees, that it does something to her when you say she's doing good. She's nervous and clumsy - first times are often like that, but she's enthusiastic and she's doing her best, she's so earnest.

As awkwardness ease, replaced by pure impulse guided by desire, Haru becomes over zealous, passionate and loud, she squirms and shakes and moans, teary eyed but not one to slow down. INTENSE and quick to beg and plead for more. Ones will never be enough, you'll have to match that energy.

Sleeping with you becomes her shiny new fixation, this too will be very, very obvious . . . Haru loves you so much!