#i don't think they have terms like 'gay' or 'straight''

[inchidentally]

Inchie we need your words of reason again 🙏 Newer fans have bled over from other hockey rpf and keep crossing lines 🫥

babe idk how wise I am ?? at all but I'm a firm believer in using common sense about rpf. and I haven't personally seen the stuff you're alluding to but! I've seen posts referring to it and I heard smth about another ship suffering a containment breach… so can't hurt to throw my 2c in as well ?? idk?

tl;dr that landoscar is NOT the ship for you if you 're going to try and force it to be "real" in a l*rry way*. this ship adores the real life friendship without having it compete with the guys' other many friendships - and we do NOT hate women and women partners or pretend they're beards/fakes/conveniently open relationship. and we absolutely do NOT push rpf outside of fandom. you'll get blocked/reported if you do. this is NOT the space for you to find your next "omg what if they're actually fcking" ship. Lily and Oscar are basically forever, Lando is rightfully loving his life sharing his beautiful body with people, and the fan fiction for the ship is staggeringly amazing so we're very very happy w the status quo <3

and we do NOT share rpf content with Lando, Oscar, anyone in F1, the families - basically if they're not someone you know solely in fandom, you don't share rpf with them. again, you will not find support for that here.

I "officially" joined landoscar fandom around Silverstone 2023 and these have been the hard lines taken for as long as I can remember and from all of the OG people in this fandom. esp from people who've been here since Oscar's Alpine tweet bc landoscar is unique in not having led with a PR image and we've all gotten to see every nervous, stumbling and authentic progression of their partnership and friendship along the way - at no point feeling the need to cross the boundary between fic and reality. it truly is charming and intriguing and rewarding as it exists in reality!

as far as the 'why' essay I'll drop all that where it can be ignored easily aslfgjalgf

like I said - landoscar has always been the exception of no one ever slipping over into trying to "make it real" in large part bc Lando and Oscar don't do the PR bromance/fake gay/fan service stuff which !reminder! is content in other ships I absolutely eat up and is 100% targeted to me but !! I'm also aware is connected to a lot of inappropriate fan behavior from ppl who blur the lines between amusing PR content and reality. trust me, I had to basically abandon carland0 which was my very first f1 ship bc to this day - fully out in the open - I see casual misogyny thrown around about Rebecca and ppl truly loudly thinking Lando and Carlos - who have always referred to each other as brothers and who laugh at the "gay" stuff they do precisely bc it's not real - genuinely fcked and/or dated. I will never care enough about an rpf ship to willingly encounter that shit on a regular basis. I know there's a lot of good ppl in the ship who don't engage in that stuff but I have such a hard line about wag hate that it's not worth it for me.

ironically or maybe because of, Lando and Oscar are the only drivers to NOT engage in playing gay for laughs BUT also who hit multiple progressive bullet points in things like discussing romance and dating in gender neutral terms and not making a big deal out of consuming or discussing queer media etc. they actually walk the walk in not pushing gender identity or sexual orientation on hypotheticals or on each other. they also don't do any macho/tradmasc behavior with each other or even bro-ey stuff like rough-housing or loud, aggressive humor (nothing wrong with loud bro stuff tho as long as it doesn't veer into toxic territory! I come from hockeyblr originally so it can be really sweet!)

and landoscar is also the exception in that we all ADORE Lily and have zero interest in trying to erase her let alone anyone be hostile toward her. in straight people culture they're basically already married and that's how they were when landoscar started as a ship! a lot of us have regularly made posts similar to this for newer fans to remind them that Lily (and whoever Lando ends up with as a steady partner) are NOT pawns in an rpf game. Lily is a real human woman with a real life relationship with Oscar and while no one is obliged to engage w wag content, respecting her existence is the bare minimum expected.

the last point I should make is that there's a very clear difference for instance on my blog where I see fanservice ship content about say charl0s or frand0 or n0rtrell and lose my mind over it and love it etc. but then there's Alex or Rebecca or Pietra on my blog! bc I can have fun without erasing women or losing common sense!!

whereas whenever I post stuff about a friendship that rly does make me Feel Things and write my insane essays, it's bc of what the relationships verifiably are and not what they aren't. Max F truly has a complexity and level of depth in his relationship with Lando that is unique and special to each other's lives. in the same way, Lando and Oscar truly do have a particular charm and fondness for each other that's made them approach each other unusually tentatively and slowly - while also having such intense blushing fondness as well as a uniquely intriguing maturity to their professional partnership. this stuff is fascinating and those two examples in particular swim around into all kinds of social/emotional territory.

in ways that do not require conspiracies and fan theories of them fcking or dating to make them compelling.

(and tbh the fact that Lando has some form of "crush" on a lot of handsome men and subconsciously/consciously "flirts" is absolutely fine to enjoy... as long as none of it gets outside of fandom.)

and the fan fiction for landoscar is truly TRULY staggeringly prolific and immensely talented so that's where we go for imagining them in any other type of reality <3

*do not get mad or whatever abt this - if you did or still do just want to ship l*rry privately then whatever but that's the like terrible gold standard for horrific real life repercussions of taking rpf seriously and why fandoms should never ever allow that to happen. there's no debate about that.

[fandomtrash67]

Nu!Who Doctors/Companions and my thoughts on their gender/sexuality ect. (I'm almost finished with season 10, so this will only cover up to Capaldi. I will be doing the small companions like Jack, and also the master/missy)

THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION, IF YOU DISAGREE PLZ DNI. HATE COMMENTS WILL MAKE ME CRY. Thank you.

If you have any questions on the terms used, either look it up or leave a comment and i'll respond.

9th Doctor: Demiaro/demiace. He doesn't seem super interested in romance n' stuff until later (once he knows Rose a bit better lol). I want to say he/they, but I'm not sure on that. Def pansexual (most doctor's will be lol) not giving polyamorous, not giving monogamous. he's down bad for rose and that's all he knows.

Rose Tyler: MY BISEXUAL QUEEN!! Billie Piper confirmed that Rose would've loved the doctor if they regenerated into Whittaker!Doctor instead of Tennant!Doctor. She slays so hard, I love her.

Mickey Smith: I want to say straight but we all saw him and that one guy so I'm gonna say heteroflexible, which is mostly straight but with the occasional homo interaction (that's a terrible explanation just look it up)

10th Doctor: My boy! I love 10 so very much. Demiace, slightly less demiaro but still there. (this is mostly inspired by that one clip of David Tennant saying that 'the doctor is a fairly asexual character') I want to say mostly into women, but we all saw him and Jack. I'm gonna say ominsexual, with a small/medium preference for women. giving ambiamorous, but more towards monagomous, you feel me?

Captain Jack Harkness: Most of the actors/writers/etc. say bisexual, but also admit to omnisexual, because he does get freaky with aliens. I feel like if you don´t think aliens are included in bisexual, then pansexual would be a better fit, but whatever. I'm not sure on this one, but he's def queer and also super freaky, so we stan. polyamorous if i've ever seen one

Martha Jones: I'm really unsure on this tbh. I think she doesn't really use labels, but def kisses men and women. kinda ambiguous on this, my bad.

Donna Noble: Bisexual. No evidence, gut feeling. I will not be explaining.

Simm!Master: that is a homosexual. he had a wife n shit ik, but that felt wrong. gay for the doctor. it's that simple. (i do want to clarify that he would still love fem!doctor, but like. hes gay. you feel me? timelords get that ambiguity.)

11th Doctor: hmm. hMM. he's silly. Giving pansexual. does not see gender. (danced with all the men and women equally at the Ponds wedding, was confused why the men were shy. an icon, truly) less on the demiaro, more on the demiace. (not super sexual except with River) I'd say monagomous but between River and Clara, he's most certainly not. ambiamorous.

Amy Pond: Pansexual. would kiss women, but loves Rory to death. She/they, we all know the scene i'm thinking about.

Rory Williams: bisexual. ik ik he had that whole 'im not gay' scene, but it was giving 'im not gay im bi' energy. I have no evidence for this claim, just trust me.

River Song: what a pansexual queen. canonically had at least two wives. in love with the doctor. an icon. Very much NOT asexual. Do NOT let her and Jack Harkness meet. They'd match each others freak and end up killing people.

Clara Oswald: canon bisexual, literally kissed Jane Austen. giving she/they. of all the people to fall for, fell for the doctor in his 'post-pond-depression-wet-cat-era', worst choice she ever made and i love that for her. she is babygirl, i will not explain.

12th Doctor: I'm currently on his last season right near the end, going to cry when he leaves. giving true pansexual, no preference. i have no evidence, i just think that all the doctors are pan, but some have preference, hence the omni. he/they, idfk. less on the demiaroace then all his previous regenerations, but i don't think any doctor is truly allosexual/romantic. you get the vision?

Bill Potts: !!!! My girl!! a lesbian queen!! basically the doctor's granddaughter!! queen!! her and heather are so flipping cute istg-

Nardole: literally cannot picture him with anybody. i hesitate on aroace, but also; he's def aroace.

Missy: a queen. love her so much. she/they pansexual. i feel like greyasexual/aromantic, but thats a bit hesitant. I feel like she's down for love and sex n shit, but unfortunately she fell hardcore for the doctor (and clara, to an extent), so she's just stuck. someone help her, she deserves so much better (currently on the vault era, if you couldn't tell.)

Alrighty!! that's all for now, I'll reblog and add my opinions on newer dw as I watch. lmk if I missed anyone (I don't think I did), and tell me your dw headcannons!!

Inspo:

[dolls-self-ships]

related to my last post (on Ford's sexuality/romantic orientation)

ok, this is going to sound really stupid so please, bare in mind that I am aware that this is a fictional character and he isn't real and even alex hirsch himself said that anyway a fan might resonate with a character can be true to them. With that being said, I personally don't love the headcanon that Ford is gay. I myself am aroace, and a lot of what he seems to experience in terms of romantic relationships and his feelings on them seem to align more with my own and lots of other aroace people that I know. And idk why but fandoms and esp just the lgbtq community in general seem to be really dismissive of aroace people (some don't even consider us queer but thats another post), and idk why but it just bothers me that anytime a character in canon expresses little to no intrest in romance it becomes almost automatically fanon that said character must be gay and not know it, as if being aroace just isn't an option. Because, I feel like those are two different experiences, not completely but, different enough since one can still feel romantic attraction and one feels little to none of it. I also think it's over looked/never discussed how much of Ford's struggles with romance can also come from trauma (being ostrochized, bullied, dont even get me STARTED on it post Bill, etc.) which I also relate to, as someone who for mental health related reasons hasn't dated in years. And I've met lots of people, including men, who have struggled with the same thing. I've had my best friend suggest to me multiple times that I might be a lesbian since men seem to scare me (I've tried, I am not one) and idk I just wish there was more space in fandom to discuss how trauma and being nd or even just being on the aroace spectrum (or all 3) might affect someone's dating life instead of just coming to the conclusion of "oh he struggles with women so poor guy must not know he's gay". Not saying if you headcanon Ford as gay that you're wrong, he can literally be whatever, he's not real. I just wish I had more people that shared this point of veiw on his character with me because I resonate with those parts of his character just in different ways.

I also want to preface that it gives me the personal ick that whenever a male character is more effeminate/eccentric people think that it's an automatic precursor to them not liking women. Like, idk I really hate that it's 2024 and people still base their hcs off of that. There are (very few but they exist) straight drag queens. Femininity is not inherently connected to being attracted to men.

[justanimp]

now, this might just be a suspicion; i might just be taking a complete shot in the dark, but..

..are you gay?

/j

Gay? As in happy...?

I'm pretty gay, considering I'm better than everyone else.

[cruelsister-moved2]

like we are on our nine billionth positivity post for cis men with beards and masculine trans men and feminine lesbians and bi people in m/f relationships and nb people who are comfortable passing as their agab etc.... do we need more? is straight people not being able to tell you're gay/trans really the biggest issue facing lgbt people right now?

there seems to be this undiminishable reservoir of care and sympathy for the very idea of having ur queerness slighted in any context. meanwhile people who never get the choice whether or not to hide it are routinely dehumanised, othered, and ignored. if the issues facing these groups do get discussed it's almost never with much concern for their feelings. invalidation and erasure may be one of the issues facing lgbt people and it deserves attention too but I really don't think you can claim at this point that it isn't getting its fair share already.

for what it's worth, even your hypothetical most flaming butch lesbian/fem gay man/androgynous nb person etc still meets people who assume they're cishet, who even actively refuse to acknowledge that they're not. the false equivalence between erasure and overt prejudice alleged exclusively by those who largely experience only the former is in fact erasing the reality of people who experience both

[skrunksthatwunk]

stole this chart from @asubakaa and spent wayyy too much time making my own so. yeah. also i did 6 instead of 5 bc i know no restraint

[magentagalaxies]

i really want to start making a table collecting statistics on the audience demographics i'll perform my aubrey material for (like what generation most of the audience is, whether i'm performing in a predominantly queer space, etc.) and how well the jokes land bc like. i need to collect more data points before i can properly present my findings but the results so far have been fascinating

[the-everqueen]

very weird in any given setting to be known as "the gay one," because i'd really identify as queer but in non-queer spaces that mostly gets reduced to wlw, which in turn generates a whole host of assumptions around my (personal) preferences and politics and (un)desirability, which inevitably has overlaps with my ethnic identity, which may or may not go articulated, and all of these things snowball into "we're about to see if people are real cool about a lot of things real quick"

[link-lonk]

I think Taylor Swift should come out as straight actually

[jabeur]

whenever i'm with large groups of people i have at least one moment of Oh God. People Think I'm Either A Man Or A Woman. it's like getting shocked every time lmao party meme but it's they don't know i'm nonbinary

[aplpaca]

thinking about how I've seen OCD get talked about now, but haven't really seen many posts that actually explain what it is. And like, obviously people shouldn't get all their info about mental conditions from posts, but u can't deny that internet communities and stuff play a major role in people recognizing and putting names to their own experiences.

But like since the general public has like absolutely no idea of what OCD actually is (no thanks to popular media), and a lot of things I see talking about intrusive thoughts don't mention OCD (either bc they originated in OCD circles or bc intrusive thoughts aren't Exclusive to OCD or for some other reason), there should prob be more explanation put out on what OCD actually consists of.

Which is kinda hard in some ways, bc there are so many ways OCD can present in terms of what "themes" a person experiences, so someone talking about what their themes are might not ring a bell with someone who experiences different ones. But like, the core thing with OCD isn't the presence of certain themes, it's a specific pattern of spiraling thoughts and reactions.

Like. OCD is a mental condition/illness where people experience stressful, unwanted, repetitive thoughts. These are intrusive thoughts are what make up the "obsessions" part of the disorder. In response to these intrusive thoughts, a lot of people will perform certain actions or think certain things in an attempt to neutralize or disprove the threat they represent. These are the "compulsions" part of the condition.

For a more "traditional" example, someone experiencing intrusive thoughts that they might catch a communicable disease may obsessively wash their hands or google their symptoms to try to lessen the anxiety. While someone who is worried they might hurt someone (even though they very much do not want to hurt someone) may avoid being near sharp objects or may avoid the people they're afraid of hurting.

One of the issues with OCD is that performing the compulsions provides short term relief, but in the long term it only strengthens the stress caused by the intrusive thoughts, thus furthering the thought spiral and actively making it worse, to the point where, depending on your themes, you may be (almost) convinced that your intrusive thoughts represent the truth or the inevitable or something permanent.

Intrusive thought themes cam be literally anything, but some of the common ones are stuff like

Questioning your sexuality, gender, etc (what if I'm actually straight/gay/bi/trans/cis/etc?)

Being worried about losing control and hurting yourself or others physically, sexually, emotionally, basically any way (what if I want to kill someone? What if I'm a pedophile? What if I'm an abuser? What if I want to stab myself? Etc)

Fear of becoming or being sick

Worrying something bad will happen to you or people you care about

Worrying about your spiritual beliefs or lack thereof (what if I'm actually Christian? What if I'm actually atheist? What if i don't believe in the faith i ascribe to? Etc)

Worrying about relationship status (what if I don't actually love them? What if they're not "the one"? What if they're cheating? What if *I'm* cheating? Etc)

What if I'm a bad person?

Fear of losing things

Fear of things not feeling right (this is often be related to other themes via magical thinking. ex: if I don't have my things organized Just Right then something bad will happen)

Fear of unreality

Compulsions vary by theme a lot obviously, but some common ones include

Hand washing

Organizing things until they Feel Right

Checking and double checking and triple checking to make sure you did something correctly

Obsessively reviewing your memories to disprove a thoughtor make sure you don't believe something

Arguing against the thoughts in an attempt to disprove them

Testing your mental reactions to a thought or to certain kinds of content, to show yourself you don't actually believe or feel something

Obsessively googling symptoms, testimonies, things related to your thoughts

Obsessive prayer

Repeating phrases, mantras, affirmations, etc in an attempt to make thoughts go away

Avoiding things and situations that set off your intrusive thoughts

Repeatedly asking for reassurance from others ("I'm not being xyz, right?")

But yeah this obviously isn't exhaustive but, just, if this kind of thing sounds familiar, you should probably do some research on OCD, bc while intrusive thoughts can occur with other conditions, the intrusive thought-compulsion spiral is the core of OCD and isn't really a subaspect of depression/anxiety/ptsd/etc. and the treatment and management of OCD can look different from other stuff, so its a good thing to look into.

(Also it's important to keep in mind, esp if you're someone that doesn't have it, that someone's intrusive thoughts Are Not "secret desires" or "repressed urges" or anything the person even remotely wants to act on. Someone having harm-related intrusive thoughts is not at risk of actually acting on them, no matter how worried they are of doing so.)

Anyway this was a long post and I don't have a neat way to wrap it up and also I accidentally added a poll and now can't get rid of it so here's free poll. I'm running on nyquil and a small amount of straight gin (which works very well at numbing a sore throat) rn gnite

[giritina]

Lately I've been dipping my toe into the mess that is transandrophobia discourse, and in the process I've been presented with one question in many forms:

"Do trans men experience misogyny?"

My initial answer was "these terms are all theoretical frameworks for a vast range of human experiences, why would you choose to frame your pre-transition experiences as that of a woman?" This makes sense to me, but clearly isn't satisfactory to many of the people sending me anons. As much as I might want to use my own life as a case study, I can't very well tell these people in my asks box "no, you've never experienced something that could be categorized as misogyny." Still, the question bothers me.

I think that's because the question obfuscates the actual debate. It's clear to me the question we are debating is not one of "experience" but "authority." That is:

"Do (binary) trans men understand what it's like to be a woman?"

My answer? No.

How can I justify that when we have, since birth, been raised as women? Well, because we also have, since birth, been trans men. If we cast aside the idea of transness as a modern social construct or anything other than an innate and biological reality, this has to be true. Even before you ever came out to yourself, you were transgender. Transphobia has dictated every moment of your life. Your idea of what "womanhood" is is not at all the same as a woman's, be it cis or trans. Why? Because a woman does not react to "being a woman" with the dysphoria, dissociation, and profound sense of wrongness that you do. [If you do not experience these things, a cis or trans woman, at the very least, does not identify as a binary trans man.] A woman sincerely identifies as a woman, and identity plays a pivotal role in how we absorb societal messaging.

Let's take homophobia as an example. While any queer person has probably experienced targeted episodes of bigotry, the majority of bigotry we experience must necessarily be broad and social. Boys learn to fear becoming a faggot as a group, but the boy who is a faggot will internalize those messages in a completely different way to the boys who only need learn to assert the heterosexual identity already inherent in them through violence. All of them are suffering to some extent, but their experiences are not at all equivalent. This is despite the fact that they've all absorbed the same message, maybe even at the same moment, through the same events. Still, we don't say that a straight boy knows what it is like to be a gay boy. Similarly, cis women do not know what it is like to be a trans man despite being fed the same transphobic messaging in a superficially identical context. It isn't a stretch to say the same can apply to misogyny.

Because I can't speak for you, I'll use myself as an example for a moment. I'll give my bonafides: I am a gender-nonconforming, T4T queer, white, binary trans man. I am on T, and I have recently come out to my family. I do not pass. My career as a comic writer is tied to my identity as a trans man. I can confidently say I have never been impacted by misogyny the same way as my friends who actually identify as women. This manifested early on as finding it easy to shrug off the messaging that I needed to be X or Y way to be a woman. In fact, most gender roles slid off my back expressly because breaking them gave me euphoria. I was punished in many ways for this, but being this sort of cis woman did help me somewhat. It's easy to be "one of the guys" in a social climbing sense if you really do feel more comfortable as a man. It also helped me disregard misogyny aimed at me or others because it seemed like an shallow form of bigotry. It was something you could shrug off, but it was important for building "unity" among women. I thought this must be the case for all women, that we all viewed misogyny as a sort of "surface level" bigotry. However, for whatever conditional status I gained in this role, there was a clear message that if I did "become" a man, every non-conformist trait about me would just become a grotesque and parodic masculinity.

That was the threat that was crushing me, destroying my identity and self esteem. That was what I knew intimately through systemic, verbal, physical, and sexual abuse. I could express my nonconformity as a cis woman, but if I took it so far as to transition to male? I would be a pathetic traitor, a social outcast. I truly believe that throughout my life people were able to see that I was not just a failed woman, but an emasculated man.

I do partly feel that the sticking point for many is the idea that the sexual abuse suffered by trans men is inherent to womanhood, and therefore inexplicable if trans men are men from birth. While this disregards the long history of sexual abuse of young boys, especially minority boys, I do see the emotional core. I'll offer that the sexual abuse I suffered was intrinsically linked to my emmasculation, my boyishness, despite the fact that I was not out to myself or anyone else. I believe many trans men have suffered being the proxy for cis women's desire for retribution against cis men, or for cis men and women's desire for an eternally nubile young boy. I also believe they have suffered corrective assault that attempts to push them back into womanhood, which in itself is an experience unique to transness rather than actual womanhood.

I'll note quickly that many, many trans men cannot relate to the idea of feeling confident and above it all when it comes to womanhood. Many of you probably tried desperately to conform, working every moment to convince yourself you were a woman and to perfectly inhabit that identity. I definitely experienced this as well (though for me it was specifically attempting to conform to butchness) but I can concede many of you experienced it more than I did. I still believe that this desperate play-acting is also not equivalent to true womanhood. It is a uniquely transgender experience, one that shares much more in common with trans women desperately attempting to conform to manhood than with true womanhood.

One key theme running through the above paragraphs is the idea that "womanhood" is synonymous with "suffering." A trans man must know what it is like to be a woman because he suffers like one. It should be noted that actual womanhood is not a long stretch of suffering. It often involves joy, euphoria, sisterhood, a general love and happiness at being a woman. It wasn't until I admitted to myself I had never been a woman that I was able to see how the women in my life were not women out of obligation, but because they simply were. The idea that you are a woman because you suffer is more alligned with radfem theory than any reality of womanhood.

When I admitted my identity to myself I was truly faced with the ways that my ability to stand up to misogyny did not equate to being anti-misogynist. I was giddy to finally be able to admit to being a man, and suddenly all that messaging that "slid off my back" was a useful tool in my arsenal. Much like cis gay men feel compelled to assert their disgust for vaginas and women after a life of being compelled towards heterosexuality, I felt disgust and aversion to discussions of womanhood as an identity. I didn't even want to engage with female fictional characters. I viewed other people's sincere expressions of their own womanhood as a coded dismissal of my identity. Like many people before and after, I made women into the rhetorical device that had oppressed me. Not patriarchy, not transphobia, but womanhood and women broadly. It wasn't explicit bigotry, but the effects were the same. I had to unlearn this with the help of my bigender partner, who felt unsettled and hurt by the way I could so easily turn "woman" into nothing but a theoretical category which represented my personal suffering.

This brings me to another point: I sometimes receive messages from nonbinary trans mascs telling me that it's absurd to think they don't understand womanhood and identify with misogyny in a deeper way. I would agree that, if you sincerely identify in some capacity as a woman, you are surely impacted by misogyny in a way I am not. However, why are you coming to the defense of binary trans men like me? Less charitably, why are you projecting a female identity on us? Perhaps my experience frustrates you so deeply because we simply do not have the same experience at all. Perhaps we are not all that united by our agab, by our supposed female socialization.

So, no. I do not believe that binary trans men know what it's like to be women. I don't believe we are authorities on womanhood. I do not believe that when a trans woman endeavors to talk about transmisogyny, your counterargument about your own experiences of misogyny is useful. I ESPECIALLY do not believe that it is in any way valid to say that you are less misogynist, less prone to being misogynist, or-- god forbid-- INCAPABLE of misogyny because you were raised as a girl. I also don't believe your misogyny is equivalent to that of a woman's internalized misogyny in form or impact.

For as much as many in this movement downplay privilege as merely "conditional," those conditions do exist. They do place you firmly in the context of the rest of the world. Zoom out and look at the history of oppressed men, and you'll find the same reactionary movement repeated over and over. Attacking the women in your community for not being soft enough, nice enough, patient enough, rather than fighting the powers that be. Why do I believe your identity is more alligned with cis manhood than any form of womanhood? Because this song and dance has been done a hundred times before by men of every stripe. Transphobia is real, and your life experience has been uniquely defined by it since birth. This is a thing to rally around, to fight against, but you all have fallen for a (trans)misogynistic phantasm in your efforts at self-actualization. You are not the first, and you will not be the last. Get out of this pipeline before it's too late.

[euniexenoblade]

ignore this ask if you've addressed it somewhere or plain dont feel like responding, but i would really like to hear your thoughts on tma/tme as labels. specifically, i've been hearings lots of intersex transfem voices on the issue and their critiques of its usage in intersexist contexts on this site and how it actually weakens certain aspects of transfeminist theory

Calling them intersexist is silly because tma/tme include intersex people. It's a combo people are assuming what each term means (the anti-tma/tme are always assuming identities and genitals when the terms don't work that way) and it's people who tend to be out of touch with current politics, under read in transphobia/transmisogyny and have incredibly wrong ideas about oppression and privilege.

Tma/tme are useful terms for discussing transmisogyny. Outside of convos about transmisogyny they have no use. They do not assume genitals, they don't dictate gender or "assigned sex," they don't dictate intersex status or any of that. One is just "is a primary target of transmisogyny" and the other is "isnt a primary target of transmisogyny," because oppressions have people they target, ie. Straight people get splash damage of homophobia but they are not gay so they are not the targets of homophobia.

And that's it. It's a useful term. I genuinely think 75% of the hate for them is outright transmisogyny (everyone acted exactly like this when trans women founded cafab/camab to talk about transmisogyny, but now they seem to love them since we developed better terms, curious), and the other 25% are just ignorant and just parrot what their favorite blogger says.

A handful of people who push the anti tma/tme stuff are straight up crypto terfs and transphobes though. So like, just watch who you get the info from.

[lesbianwithchainsaws]

I'm sure this has been said a dozen times already, but it always baffles me when people say "Hannigram isn't canon" , "Hannibal is queerbaiting", "the show should've made them canon" or anything similar to that. I see it less on tumblr, but have seen it elsewhere and it's like, did we watch the same show? Just because they're not making out sloppy style or having intense gay sex on screen doesn't mean they're not into each other?

Like there's a scene where Will straight up asks "is Hannibal in love with me?" and gets a confirming answer. Theres a scene where Hannibal compares them to Achilles and Patroclus. Hannibal turns himself in to the FBI despite being able to escape and he does it for Will! Hannibal is so completely, deeply obsessed with Will because he loves Will. The show makes it explicit time and time again that Hannibal is in love with Will.

And Will is very much into Hannibal as well. I think for Will it might seem less obvious at times, after all, he had a wife and a kid while Hannibal was imprisoned. But ultimately there's a reason why Will chooses to free Hannibal and go with him. They kill the dragon together and Will is the one who says how beautiful it is. Will outright admitted that he wanted to run away with Hannibal, and that want never actually left him.

The show itself coined the term "murder husbands". A character in canon calls Hannibal and Will that. Hannibal refers to himself and Will as Abigail's fathers. They wanted to run away together and be a family. The finale of those two on the cliff embracing and covered in blood is like the most romantic scene ever shown on tv.

Characters do not need to kiss on screen to be canonically in love!

And I think with this show that statement is especially true because of how many times characters *do* kiss and have sex, and it means nothing. Hannibal had sex with Alana as a way to manipulate her and have her blind to what he was doing. He didn't do it out of love. Margot didn't have sex with Will because she was attracted to him. The show displays very obviously that those things don't necessarily equal attraction, and I think it's completely fine that Will and Hannibal never do something like that. Their attraction to each other is still there!

[just-your-average-tangerine]

So, a lot of people are talking on my 'people assume gay trans men aren't shamed for our sexualities' post about things like the transphobic use of fujoshi, and being called a straight girl, things of that nature.

Which is all very important, and so I'm not going to edit or add to that post. That post can be about that now. But that's not entirely what I meant, and I think this needs to be addressed as well so:

Cis gay men are shamed for their sexuality because men are "supposed" to be attracted to women, so being attracted to men deviates from that. Often, this shame and mistreatment starts young. Gay men grow up being taught that the attraction they experience is wrong, even before they're old enough to understand it.

And so people assume that gay trans men, raised as girls, aren't shamed in that way. We're attracted to the "correct" gender therfore there is no "deviance," and we're not treated as such. When that is, very often, not the case.

I've talked before about my joke that I knew I was a gay man before I knew I was a man. But I remember being 10 or 11 years old amd hearing my mothers very southern baptist friend who worked a museum in the park where pride was held, talking about "those men" and "how disgusting" it is and that she "wouldn't wish seeing that on anybody". And I remember sinking down in my chair, hoping no one saw me, because I knew she was talking about me. I didn't know what being gay was, I didn't know what pride was, but I knew that this thing she hated was me.

When I was taught that snapping a rubber band on your wrist is a good way to break a bad habit, I decided that I could "fix myself" by snapping the rubber band every time I felt even the most basic passing interest in the "wrong gender". Except, the interest I felt wrong about was my attraction to men. That's what I felt ashamed of, that's when I felt like I was doing something wrong. I would go through cycles of checking out a guy at the mall, feeling ashamed, snapping that rubber band, then realizing that was supposed to be right, forcing myself to check out girls, just to punish myself for it. By the time I started to accept my queerness, I convinced myself I was bisexual solely because I didn't feel like I was doing something wrong by being with a girl. It didn't appeal to me, I had no interest in being a relationship with a girl, especially not long term. But I wasn't ashamed of it, so it must be right.

I know so many other gay trans men who experienced things like this. And yet the assumption that we couldn't have this experience is used to deny us community with cis gay men on the grounds that we "just don't understand what its like to grow up gay."

[miwiheroes]

An Underrated Byler Proof

A lot of people say that the biggest byler proof is the painting, maybe the last shot of season 4 or something like that, but for me, one of the biggest is literally THIS ^^^

This scene is straight after Will calls Jancy 'gross'

Jancy is a canonical couple

Joyce then describes Jancy's relationship as 'in love'

Will denies that he will 'fall in love', meaning he does not think he will have a relationship like Jancy

He is in love with Mike and does not believe that he loves him back.

It would not be satisfying for Will's hopelessness to come true. (Mike rejecting him)

ERGO.....

This doesn't just foreshadow that Will's going to fall in love with Mike, it foreshadows that he'll be in a relationship.

I don't think that Joyce or Will here is referring to the simple action of falling in love with someone or having feelings for them, I think that they are both referring to falling in love together and acting like a couple, like Jancy does.

Will has these two core beliefs:

That Mike won't love him back.

That he isn't allowed to have a relationship because he's gay.

In this scene:

I think it not only makes sense for him to be sad about being left behind and being in love with Mike while El's with him, I think he's also sad about: A) the fact that he wants to do these relationship-y things with Mike and can't and B) the fact that because he's gay, he likely won't even be able to have a public relationship at all.

So when Will says he isn’t going to fall in love in the previous scene, he is saying this because he believes that his feelings are not going to be reciprocated, rather than feeling like he won't have feelings for anyone. He’s saying that it’s impossible for those feelings to be mutual.

In this season as well, (s3) we see that Will is coming to terms with being gay, as in season 4 he has kind of accepted it, seeing that he made the painting for Mike, which is a stand-in for his feelings.

He's struggling with his childhood rather than the mindflayer this time, his friends are getting girlfriends while he just wants to play games with them instead. The real reason for him wanting to play games is so he doesn't have to feel left out from the fact he can never have a relationship like them.

Also: he's falling in love with mike and uhhh very much struggling with that-

In season 4, he's accepted that he's not going to 'fall in love with' Mike, as in he won't have his relationship with him, and so instead of using his painting to tell him his true feelings, he uses it instead to make him feel better and try and make him happy in an act of self-sabotage.

Now, going back to the original scene.

It would make no sense for the writers on a show about outsiders and overcoming obstacles in a marginalising society to have will, a boy who has always believed he'd never be able to have a normal relationship, let alone with the person he loves, to end up dead or have those beliefs be true.

They set up the fact that he's so hopeless about never being in a relationship so that it's even more satisfying when he does.