#i love women in a lesbian way sure

[relatablephotosofmurdoc]

Maybe I’m a gay trans guy

[onesidedradiostatic]

Maybe you should have made a poll with Vaggie's Lesbian status as well, consider that that fact wasn't even in the wiki? (Also, extra fact, in the super early renditions of her character she was with Angel, not canon now, but interesting considering we all find her to be lesbian and not bi)

(prev) (poll 1) (poll 2)

the thing with that is like. vaggie is not at the same sort of "unknown" (I guess) status as husk and alastor when it comes to her sexuality like. we KNOW for a fact she is sapphic, she is dating and in love with charlie. so it's narrowed down to she's either lesbian or bi. like. most people who watch the show itself alone would probably assume she's lesbian anyways cause we've only seen her into a girl and no guys

although arguably I'd say you'd be able to guess for alastor too with the rosie dialogue but clearly that is not the case for a lot of people LMAO

but like ultimately no attraction in canon usually = unknown because of devil's proof logic, vaggie has SOMETHING to go off of in the show: her attraction to women, husk and alastor (obviously) don't have any canonical attraction (yes, everyone and their mums love huskerdust but loser baby is not inherently romantic)

I guess there IS something to be said about this kind of logic but idk if it's worth polling cause I can basically guarantee you vaggie being a canon lesbian would be near 100%, like who's going to say it's not canon?

[unhingedlesbear]

Desperately need people to stop seeing marginalized people complain about something seemingly small and be all "Oh my god who cares" "This is such a non issue" like yeah maybe it is a small thing to you (the people saying this are not usually part of said marginalized group complaining) but if a lot of people are annoyed about it it probably is something to be annoyed about idk

[dykefever]

in no particular order my top 9 films I watched for the first time this year <3

ty for the tag @steelycunt + @boydykepdf

tagging @gaewaren @serethereal @pancakehouse @suspendedinbush

[feralandnormal]

yknow i swear if a guy said he was a gay bisexual there'd be zero fuckin discourse about it. but you put lesbian next to literally anything and suddenly its clearly transphobic and Must be picked apart and justified tooth and nail instead of just, going on with your day.

[unnonexistence]

just started reading book 3 in this series and page 1 is taking no prisoners hgdshdslk

[gothducky]

why does butch = top surgery? genuine question

Short answer: It doesn't! Hope this helps <3

Long answer: I'm gonna ignore the fact that this is probably an inflammatory bait question of someone who did not even bother to check my blog and see the diversity in butch bodies that I draw. So far only 2 of the butches I've drawn have top surgery, while the rest don't <3

So! First of all I have never said anything of the sort n_n it's a term of how one identifies, you know? What a butch woman does with their body is no one's business, some butch women take T, some even get top surgery. Butches explore masculinity in their own way and that's just how THEY embody butchness.

I'm a butch woman and I don't take T nor plan on getting top surgery, yet that is how EEEEEYE embody my butch identity and it doesn't invalidate neither mine or another woman's butchness. The way I identify as a butch doesn't mean I won't draw other ways of butchhood, I aim to draw every type of butch woman I can think of! I love butch women! I want them to be loved in every way they choose to present! I want other butches to feel handsome with my art and for femmes to see a dashing handsome woman <333

I want to draw fat butches, thin butches, buff butches, trans butches, butches who go on T, butches who choose not to, non-binary butches, etc!

And before you or anyone else asks because I know they will, no, this has nothing to do with trans men. Butch women can choose to take T and get top surgery and it won't make them men, on the same slot as trans men can choose NOT to get it and it doesn't change the fact they're men. It is an individual way of presenting that at the end of the day doesn't concern you! I hope this helped you a ton!!

I LOOOVE talking about lesbianism and the diversity of butch women! Ask again soon and have a good day!! <333

[nobodybetterlookatme]

aren't you a lesbian?

I did identify as a lesbian for a long ass time, yeah, but now my sexuality/romantic orientation is just kinda ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ tbh lmao

[romantically-yours]

I finally own decent heels and I want so badly to be able to use the newly acquired height to pin a cute girl against the wall and fluster her

[fappellmoan]

i won’t apologize for being a hater. seeing comments on chappell roans posts about being too hypersexual and needing to dial it down (mmm dial what down. say it very explicitly to me. what is making you uncomfortable in your own very clear words) and directly contrasting it with renee rapp just made me not like that girl even more i’m sorry! maybe she should try not being an annoying blonde bi girl who only seems to hang out with other blonde bi girls making mediocre pop. whoops

[sanchoyo]

well talking to my mom went well (I just told her I’m really unsure rn. Her first response was ‘oh well what’s the rush, ur not dating rn are u?’ Which. What does that have to do with gender??? It made me stop and laugh at least lmao). Also she suggested I just keep the clothes in a box or smth for a month or two so that if I change my mind abt dresses and skirts I don’t throw them out and regret it. Which was an awesome suggestion bc quite frankly I’m very emotionally attached to my clothes. A lot of the dresses are real vintage or actually worth a lot too and very unique and…a part of me wants to try and rework them and sew them into either shirts or pants bc they’d fuck severely but 1. I don’t have a sewing machine 2. I…feel weird about modifying such old clothes. It feels kind of bad…like what if I fuck them up bc lack of sewing experience!! I’ve only rly done basic mending (…and I guess that Ichigo cosplay years ago but even that didn’t turn out great bc it was my first project. aaa)

[stillgeekingout]

#it's very strange #because i often feel like the culmination of those characters arcs #like if the point is they're ace great but like... #the option of lesbianism just *never* occurs #which--and again not to discredit any ace people or ace readings of her work--is such a common lesbian experience! #like myself and a bunch of other lesbians i know had that journey #of going 'hmm i don't like men... guess I'm asexual! (do not ask me about women i will combust)' #like lady bird... whatever #little women... alright i suppose if you wanted to make a comentary on how lma was forced to add the heterosexual romance at the end #and not suggest anything about a real person and also not deviate from the source material #but barbie was insane #the coding was next level #like c'mon birkenstocks??? #and i argue that barbies acceptance of genitalia could be read as an acceptance of sexuality or the very least exploring it #so why isn't she a dyke??? (other than mattel probably giving a hard no on that)

I don’t know, the thing that really bothers me about Greta Gerwig’s films is that there is just this gaping hole where gay women should be. Like, when you’re making these movies about the trap of heterosexual marriage, breaking free of that, and the only concrete answer is to be a single woman over and over and over again, it feels like an intentional absence. You can watch the movie with a queer lens, but it is egregious that you may only consider homosexuality in her movies in this way. It ought to be in them. There is no reason for it not to be there. Women don’t fuck women in Greta Gerwig’s feminist liberations. Often, they don’t have sex at all.

[yourplaceinaugust]

kinda funny how i used to use the term lesbian to describe myself and then i realized im not really a girl and im also attracted to men and now im a transmasc who has only ever liked men

[hyperlexichypatia]

As I keep shouting into the void, pathologizers love shifting discussion about material conditions into discussion about emotional states.

I rant approximately once a week about how the brain maturity myth transmuted “Young adults are too poor to move out of their parents’ homes or have children of their own” into “Young adults are too emotionally and neurologically immature to move out of their parents’ homes or have children of their own.”

I’ve also talked about the misuse of “enabling” and “trauma” and “dopamine” .

And this is a pattern – people coin terms and concepts to describe material problems, and pathologization culture shifts them to be about problems in the brain or psyche of the person experiencing them. Now we’re talking about neurochemicals, frontal lobes, and self-esteem instead of talking about wages, wealth distribution, and civil rights. Now we can say that poor, oppressed, and exploited people are suffering from a neurological/emotional defect that makes them not know what’s best for themselves, so they don’t need or deserve rights or money.

Here are some terms that have been so horribly misused by mental health culture that we’ve almost entirely forgotten that they were originally materialist critiques.

Codependency What it originally referred to: A non-addicted person being overly “helpful” to an addicted partner or relative, often out of financial desperation. For example: Making sure your alcoholic husband gets to work in the morning (even though he’s an adult who should be responsible for himself) because if he loses his job, you’ll lose your home. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/opinion/codependency-addiction-recovery.html What it’s been distorted into: Being “clingy,” being “too emotionally needy,” wanting things like affection and quality time from a partner. A way of pathologizing people, especially young women, for wanting things like love and commitment in a romantic relationship.

Compulsory Heterosexuality What it originally referred to: In the 1980 in essay "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence," https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/493756 Adrienne Rich described compulsory heterosexuality as a set of social conditions that coerce women into heterosexual relationships and prioritize those relationships over relationships between women (both romantic and platonic). She also defines “lesbian” much more broadly than current discourse does, encompassing a wide variety of romantic and platonic relationships between women. While she does suggest that women who identify as heterosexual might be doing so out of unquestioned social norms, this is not the primary point she’s making. What it’s been distorted into: The patronizing, biphobic idea that lesbians somehow falsely believe themselves to be attracted to men. Part of the overall “Women don’t really know what they want or what’s good for them” theme of contemporary discourse.

Emotional Labor What it originally referred to: The implicit or explicit requirement that workers (especially women workers, especially workers in female-dominated “pink collar” jobs, especially tipped workers) perform emotional intimacy with customers, coworkers, and bosses above and beyond the actual job being done. Having to smile, be “friendly,” flirt, give the impression of genuine caring, politely accept harassment, etc. https://weld.la.psu.edu/what-is-emotional-labor/ What it’s been distorted into: Everything under the sun. Everything from housework (which we already had a term for), to tolerating the existence of disabled people, to just caring about friends the way friends do. The original intent of the concept was “It’s unreasonable to expect your waitress to care about your problems, because she’s not really your friend,” not “It’s unreasonable to expect your actual friends to care about your problems unless you pay them, because that’s emotional labor,” and certainly not “Disabled people shouldn’t be allowed to be visibly disabled in public, because witnessing a disabled person is emotional labor.” Anything that causes a person emotional distress, even if that emotional distress is rooted in the distress-haver’s bigotry (Many nominally progressive people who would rightfully reject the bigoted logic of “Seeing gay or interracial couples upsets me, which is emotional labor, so they shouldn’t be allowed to exist in public” fully accept the bigoted logic of “Seeing disabled or poor people upsets me, which is emotional labor, so they shouldn’t be allowed to exist in public”).

Battered Wife Syndrome What it originally referred to: The all-encompassing trauma and fear of escalating violence experienced by people suffering ongoing domestic abuse, sometimes resulting in the abuse victim using necessary violence in self-defense. Because domestic abuse often escalates, often to murder, this fear is entirely rational and justified. This is the reasonable, justified belief that someone who beats you, stalks you, and threatens to kill you may actually kill you.

What it’s been distorted into: Like so many of these other items, the idea that women (in this case, women who are victims of domestic violence) don’t know what’s best for themselves. I debated including this one, because “syndrome” was a wrongful framing from the beginning – a justified and rational fear of escalating violence in a situation in which escalating violence is occurring is not a “syndrome.” But the original meaning at least partially acknowledged the material conditions of escalating violence.

I’m not saying the original meanings of these terms are ones I necessarily agree with – as a cognitive liberty absolutist, I’m unsurprisingly not that enamored of either second-wave feminism or 1970s addiction discourse. And as much as I dislike what “emotional labor” has become, I accept that “Women are unfairly expected to care about other people’s feelings more than men are” is a true statement.

What I am saying is that all of these terms originally, at least partly, took material conditions into account in their usage. Subsequent usage has entirely stripped the materialist critique and fully replaced it with emotional pathologization, specifically of women. Acknowledgement that women have their choices constrained by poverty, violence, and oppression has been replaced with the idea that women don’t know what’s best for themselves and need to be coercively “helped” for their own good. Acknowledgement that working-class women experience a gender-and-class-specific form of economic exploitation has been rebranded as yet another variation of “Disabled people are burdensome for wanting to exist.”

Over and over, materialist critiques are reframed as emotional or cognitive defects of marginalized people. The next time you hear a superficially sympathetic (but actually pathologizing) argument for “Marginalized people make bad choices because…” consider stopping and asking: “Wait, who are we to assume that this person’s choices are ‘bad’? And if they are, is there something about their material conditions that constrains their options or makes the ‘bad’ choice the best available option?”

[juchily]

its a stupid show about cannibalism and women where the women don't have visible body hair and their hair roots and makeup (looking at Nat...) aren't doing how reality realities.

I like the girls and everyone more than anything but they are such horrible people, every last one of them past and present may we please not treat them as pookies who arent responsible it haven't done bad things (doing bad things inst necessarily bad, at anytime a person is going to do a bad thing, that's life, it matters if they own up to it and learn from it and the girls have not...) and I get it, the memes are funny, misty is a poodle sweety cutie pie who's done nothing wrong and totally hasn't drugged a bunch of people, lottie is a sweet deer eyed baby who totally doesn't have self worth issues and problems with self sacrifice, self harm, and totally didn't start the hunting thing as well as saed travis and almost had him murdered

This is still and adult show and no matter who may watch it (I'm in highschool, not even necessarily what some people may consider a young adult), we must treat it with nuance and care as well

PSA to everyone in this fandom before YJ goes on Netflix, season 3 comes out, and we inevitably gain some new people: LET PEOPLE ENJOY THIS SHOW. Let people be shippers, deer Lottie and raccoon Nat people, shitposters, Travis or Misty haters or lovers, deep scholarly analyzers, fanfic and smut writers, gif makers, ETC. People are allowed to have any opinion they want about this show as long as it’s not harmful to other people. If you don’t like it literally all you have to do is ignore it. We don’t all have to agree on everything, that’s what makes it fun. It’s good to have different perspectives, just be nice to each other.

And it’s not that serious, IT’S👏A👏FUCKING👏TV👏SHOW👏

[nerdvi]

In the wake of the whole james somerton fiasco and inspired by this post, I wanted to share a few of my um, soft signs, like, orange flags to detect when someone is bullshitting you.

First of all, I am on the spectrum which means 1) I tend to take what people say at face value and 2) I have a strong sense of justice which makes me prone to biases, all of which combined means I am at perpetual risk of swallowing the bullshit.

So, what to do about it? You turn on the critical thinking and pay attention.

As one of my favorite youtubers, Hannah Alonzo, likes to say: "consider the source, remember the motive". Who is talking to you?? What do you know about them?? What biases might they have?? How do they interact with your own biases?? Where are they talking from?? Is it anger?? happinness? boredom?? Also, why are they talking to you? Are they trying to sell you something?? Are they trying to convince you and why?? How do they go about the finantial motivation, if present? If you have, in this case, a white cis gay man talking to you as it he has it the worst of the worst in the world, there's probably some exaggeration and you should start to wonder. There's a good chance he's bullshitting you.

How they talk about women and POC No, no, stay with me. There's a rule I had back when I was dating men: Always beware of how they treat their mother. With the exception of extremes like mama's boys and cases of abuse, how a man treats the woman with whom they have that familial bond is a good indicator of how they are going to treat you. Do they berate her? speak ill of her? are aggressive or controlling? do they dismiss her opinions? Same with creators, and by god I tell you, specially cis male creators, queer or otherwise, always always beware of how they speak of women, how they treat women, how they treat POC. Somerton had a weird vendetta against straight women. It went mostly unnoticed. Then, he was dismissive towards lesbians and other queer women and it was once again overlooked. Then he went ahead and made sinophobic content about genres and cultures he knows NOTHING about. Again, it went unchecked. What I am telling you is IT'S NOT NORMAL. Contempt about women and non white-western cultures is not normal and if someone has them as them as an enemy or a scapegoat, they're probably bullshitting you. Take what they say and fact check it, see for yourself.

If at any point in a video or an essay you find yourself thinking "wait, really??" then it's time to fact check. Is it a bit suspicious?? is your logic telling you that's not quite how this works?? Then take to google, my friend, they might be bullshitting you. At worst, you dodge a fake fact, at best, you learn way too much about a topic you were already interested in.

Beware of the lack of nuance. I can not stress this enough. We all love monochrome, but life and societal issues are never black and white. It's just impossible, there's too many factors to consider. If you are being presented situations or anecdotes as absolute truths, you're probably being bullshitted. If it's too good to be true, it is. If it sounds waaay too convenient, it probably is. A good researcher, a serious investigator, will always have some nuance because they have done the work and checked the sources. If someone provides you 1) no nuance and 2) no sources, THEY'RE BULLSHITTING YOU.

These are the ones I can come up with just of the top of my head, I'm sure there's more and please, add them. Remember that naivité isn't a crime, I'm fairly naive and that's made me distrustful, and these are some of the techniques I've found that help me navigate through a world of information without losing myself.