#i guess? less angry than my discourse posts used to be tho

[disquiet-dream]

Every time people start arguing again about the terms tma/tme I'm always - well first of all I'm annoyed, because I'm someone who was originally against the terms and have since come around, so like I get it but I can't help but cringe a bit, but I'm also always like… How do I put this…

It's strange to me that the portion of transfem tumblr who are heavily invested in this terminology the the portion who get really really mad at people identifying as femboys is like, pretty heavily overlapping?

Because like, I see people complain about tma/tme by talking about the literal meanings of the terms, i.e. The whole "well, everyone is affected by transmisogyny" argument, and I do get where that comes from, I just don't… Care.

Because no terminology is perfect y'know? I see it basically the same way I see "PoC", it's far from perfect, but it does articulate something meaningful - there are people who are the primary targets of a form of bigotry and people who are incidental targets. Like, an italian-american might get some racism thrown at them - and that does genuinely suck! I'm not discounting that! - but they don't suffer the same structural issues that impact your entire life, so there is a difference here.

(I also like PoC as a comparison point just because like. One of the issues there is also the literal meaning being kinda off - I used an Italian as the example there because a lot of Italians do have skin as dark as a lot of PoC groups, and there are of course "PoC" groups that aren't literally "People of Color", in the sense that they don't actually have dark skin, but they're obviously included.)

(That's not the biggest issue mind - the bigger one is that the whole framework doesn't really work in much of the world (on some level literally just ''outside the US", even), and trying to apply it there immediately causes issues - but it is an issue!)

But anyway, to wrap back around to my original point: while I do think the terminology is useful, I do agree with one point I've seen that's like, "if tma just means transfem why don't you just say transfem?"

Because like… I mean honestly yeah, I don't get the point either then lol. Like, the whole reason I like the term is because it implicitly acknowledges that there are people who are affected directly by transmisogny - and who's interests are aligned with those of trans women because of that, whether they recognize it or not - but don't neatly fit into "trans woman" or even "transfem".

Like, large amounts of amab nonbinary people (i'd argue most if not all tbh), quite a few intersex people, drag queens (''drag bans'' might be intended to attack trans women, but they choose to do it through queens for a reason!), and - the reason for this post - a whole lot of self-identified femboys!

These are all categories that to me are like, yeah of course those are tma. Like, they're not the same as transfems (although there's of course an overlap) nor are they treated identically, but they're subject to the same broad societal hatred in a structural way.

(With that said, I do think the like, image I have of ''femboy'' as a concept isn't the same as people who get mad about it. Although I of course think mine is the more accurate one.

Because I tend to think of what I guess i'd call "lifestyle femboys", which is to say people who present femme as often as is safe (and sometimes even when not), consider being feminine a core part of their identity, may even be on or wish to be on HRT, etc.

Basically, people who in terms of action are clearly on the same wavelength as most transfems, even if they're using different terminology, to the point where imo it's obviously ridiculous to act like they aren't subject to the same forces, even before you get into the ones who y'know, do just identify as both transfem/trans woman and femboy.)

(I'd argue the kind of femboy I'm implicitly contrasting against, who only does it privately and like, as a hobby rather than a lifestyle, is also often affected - if nothing else there's probably a reason it's by default a private thing, eh? Probably the same reason a lot of transfems only present femme in private… - but I at least consider that more ambigious.)

So y'know, if only there were a word for that hatred. And perhaps some sort of supercategory we could use to include everyone affected by this phenomenon. Who can say…

[alwida10]

The tragedy of Loki of Asgard

Or why I think the Infinity War Loki should stay dead.

TW: suicide, depression, narcissistic behavior

To understand this essay you need some basic understanding of the family dynamic in Odins family. The dynamic is one of a narcistic parent who has a golden child he projects his own awesomeness onto and a scapegoat child . The parent ensures himself the support of the golden child and makes himself the very center of attention, which is what a narcisst tribes for. The golden child longs to remain golden child and refrains from criticism of the parent. The scapegoat child strives to finally get out of the scapegoat position by pleasing the parent. To bad the child can’t do so because it gets not the blame because it did something wrong but because there must always be someone to blame. Therefore possible explanations and things the parent presented as desirable aren’t really that. Now, a golden child sooner or later gets used to blame everything on the scapegoat. It might even learn to control the scapegoat by blaming him the same way the parent did (aka the scapegoat longs for positive attention/affirmation and therefore does everything the golden child wants him to).

Now, in Thor Ragnarok Odin says ‘I love you my sons’ before he dies, placing the two of them more or less on equal positions for the first time ever. (I know there can be good arguments made, but just let’s assume it’s possition zero they start at.)

Pretty soon both end up on Sakarr, Thor in prison, Loki in the Grandmasters favors. Loki visits Thor in prison, suggesting teaming up, even though it endangers his position (the Grandmaster could hear about it, Thor would probably claim the higher position etc.) At that moment Thor doesn’t have anything to offer. Yet, he stonewalls, blaming Loki for all bad that happened. (For a much more detailed spot -on analysis please read this post where @i-dreamed-i-had-a-son even correctly predicted Loki’s death).

The whole dynamic in the prison is Thor falling back into the old family dynamic. Only that Odin is dead now, and the position of the prime narcisst is open. Now, narcissm is often correlated with abusive behavior, as written in ‘why does he do that? - inside they mind of angry and controlling men’ by Lundy Bancroft. In another post I found many of the things she describes can be observed in Thor’s actions in Thor Ragnarok.

But let’s get finally come to the elevator scene which is the heart piece of my explanation. Remember – Loki is at this point starved for any affirmation or positive reaction by his family. After Thor rejected Loki’s plan, he accepted Loki joining his plan. Thor lures Loki by claiming they should talk right before they enter the elevator. For a starving person this is huge temptation. But Loki did live with his family for eons and is certainly aware of it being a trap.

Right from his first appearance in Thor 1 (before the coronation) we learn that Loki never lowers his guard when it comes to admitting feelings. In that scene he said he loved Thor but directly glossed it over with a joke. After all what happened in Thor 1, Avengers and TDW Loki would never let himself appear weak by outright asking if Thor does still hold any positive feelings mg a for him. So he uses reverse psychology (claiming something against your own wishes, hoping the other disagrees and thereby affirms you.)

LOKI: Here's the thing. I'm probably better off staying here on Sakaar.

The problem with reverse psychology is when the other person agrees with it, it hits you right where it hurts the most.

THOR: That's exactly what I was thinking.

LOKI: ...Did you just agree with me?

THOR: This place is perfect for you. It's savage, chaotic, lawless. Brother,you're going to do GREAT here.

Thor follows up by insulting Loki and pushing him away hard. Why? Because he knows Loki has nobody else to turn to. Even after TDW Loki returned to Asgard. For one part because he’s still loyal but certainly also for the lack of alternatives. And Asgard will always include Thor. Thor knows Loki won’t be able to leave him.

LOKI: Do you truly think so little of me?

Loki is hurt, obviously and it’s very much visible on his face. To make sure no blame can be laid open him, Thor uses gaslighting.

THOR: Loki, I thought the world of you. I thought we were gonna fight side by side forever. But, at the end of the day, you're you, I'm me… I don't know, maybe there's still good in you, but let's be honest, our paths diverged a long time ago.

Loki is wounded by Thor's willingness to discard him. But he masks his feelings.

LOKI: It's probably for the best that we never see one another again.

Thor pats Loki on the shoulder, placing the obidience disk. And this action proves that the manipulation on Thor’s part was intentional. Why else would he have done it? (Everyone claiming ‘Loki betrayed Thor endless times, please read this meta). Thor knew that by pushing Loki away hard enough he would trigger a desperate act of reactive aggression. He did so to push Loki back into his place (which is beneath him, as far Thor is concerned). As soon that has happened Thor gives his little self righteous speech.

THOR: Oh brother, you're becoming predictable. I trust you, you betray me. Round and round in circles we go. See, Loki, life is about, it's about growth. It's about change.But you seem to just wanna stay the same. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you'll always be the God of Mischief, but you could be more.

Briefly summarized:

you suck, and I don’t think you’ll ever be worth my affection. If you want to try tho, here is your option.

Of course, to prove Thor wrong Loki is forced to resume his subservant position he had at the beginning of Thor 1. He can only ‘prove his worth’ by doing Thor’s bidding and supporting his plans. And that he does. He convinces kork and his crew to join him and brings them to Asgard where he receives his reward by Thor acknowledging him in a not-aggressive way. He even fulfills Thor’s plan, knowing that henceforth he will be blamed whenever someone remembers Asgard’s destruction. In Thor’s ‘coronation scene’ Loki stands at the side, behind the Valkyrie (yet, still at the right side. That surprised me, tbh. The ‘right hand of the King’ is a prestigious title and I didn’t believe TW would have allowed Loki that. But he’s still only second on Thor’s right.)

Anyway, Loki is back in the position he had in Thor 1 with a lot of added baggage and no Frigga to rant to when everything gets to bad. And then Thanos appears. Under Thanos Loki would suffer even more than under Thor (remember the Other’s ‘no barren moon..’ speach.) So basically he’s caught between two horrible fates.

Loki’s death scene itself has been criticized a lot and everyone knows the butterknive-discourse. It can only interpreted in two ways: either him being stupid or him being suicidal. Based on all written above and the fact that he already tried to commit suicide at the end of Thor 1, I can only believe the second to be true.

It has another point: Tom said Loki’s arc was finished. I was confused and unhappy about this statement, but now I am coming to piece with it. Tom loves Shakespeare, including Hamlet and Coriolanus. Those are tragedies. Tragedies are characterized by the protagonist being ruined because of a dramatic conflict that leaves him only two choices, one being death and one being worse. So perhaps this is his very own version of the tragedy of Loki of Asgard.