#i thought we didn't like dichotomies that have to do with gender

[radelenagreco]

it sucks so bad to see intelligent women talk about transmisogyny

[with-my-murder-flute]

Pyrrha thought

I've been thinking a lot about how much Pyrrha violates the cultural norms that define cavalier/necromancer relationships, which in Jod's empire define people much more than modern gender does, and although it does have a biological component, it's definitely not a natural and inviolable one. In addition to this, Pyrrha after Gideon Prime's death is also literally what some transgender people call themselves: a female soul in a male body.

And then I was thinking about the theories that Samael was Anastasia's son, which would make the cavalier and necromancer lineages in the Ninth House, the blood that must never mingle, literally the same damn thing.

So that thing where Pyrrha talks about her pre-Lyctorhood self as though she was a necromancer. She devised the wards with Cass and Mercy. She helped design the trial at Canaan House. She experimented on Cris and Gideon's brains, and it's relevant when discussing a non-necromancer doing necromancy through soul manipulation. The trial linked to her and Gideon's lab is about a necromancer seeing through their cavalier's eyes and giving them the ability to see necromantic theorems.

She says to Gideon Jr:

We compartmentalized from the Eightfold Word, just like you and your girl—though I’m an accident, and he took more from me than got taken from you.

So... I think the thing that Gideon took from her, the thing they achieved together, was turning him into a necromancer. It was very specifically her aptitude that he took and never gave back.

Part of my thinking is informed by Jod, by how he dismisses and belittles Pyrrha, his "pet cop", and also betrays the shit out of her on the day he creates the bone dome. (Sidenote: Has anybody been calling it that? Because that trips off the tongue but is endlessly mispronouncable. I love it. From now on, it will always be "the bone dome" for me.)

Gideon was, apparently, the second person ever resurrected. What if Jod didn't know yet how to make someone a necromancer when he resurrected them, or if it was just something that was out of his control? Because... basically, I think that he would think that Gideon is the more important person in that partnership. Gideon is more loyal, less likely to question him. Pyrrha is only useful when she's enabling Jod, and annoying when she's not.

So I think that to Jod, Pyrrha being in the more important category of this brand-new dichotomy might be a problem. A problem that could be solved if he could somehow pull the necromancy out of her, and put it into Gideon instead.

Palamedes says, "She was made to be immune to the blue light." That could just mean that a process had the side effect of making her immune, but it might also mean that her end state was designed, from the beginning, to make her into a useful tool to kill Resurrection Beasts with.

It just... feels like something that would fit, at least given my "John is a crap person" starting premise.

[haru-dipthong]

Translation of Sekai no Owari - Habit

I love this song, and the choreo is fucking crazy. I'll attempt to explain some of the decisions I made in the translation below the cut!

First a little explanation about this song. I have been thinking about my gender for a few years now, and I recently had a few conversations that have made me realise I'm probably agender. My partner showed me this song at the peak of when I was thinking about it the most (she didn't know at the time), and I was shocked at how relevant the lyrics were to my thought process and especially to our relationship. This song means a lot to me, and I felt like I just had to translate it.

Anyway, let's talk translation. I've had a look at some other translations, and mine slightly differs in that I feel I've attempted to convey the core message of the song more strongly than the others. For example:

陰キャ陽キャ "What's your MBTI?"

This line could be translated to something literal like "are you cheerful or gloomy" but I felt it was better to use an english-world equivalent of a popular system of putting people into boxes. Also worth noting that this line is extremely short, and my subtitling software warns you when the amount of time the subtitle appears for is too short, based on how many letters are in it. The translation needed to be like, 3 short words. I'm honestly pretty happy with this, I think it fits well and introduces the premise of the song well.

気付かない本能の外側を 覗いていかない？　気分が乗らない？ Nice dichotomy idiot, what exists outside it?　Wanna take a peek? Not in the mood?

Ok, obviously this isn't a direct translation, but I love that post and this song is basically "nice dichotomy idiot" the song, so I really wanted to work it in somewhere. A literal translation would be like "Won't you peek outside your subconscious instincts?" and I had trouble making that sound song-y in english until I decided to work in the meme.

やってるのにイケないヤツ and the ones using skills they don’t have

The Japanese here is a bit of a double entendre. It could be translated to "people doing stuff who really shouldn't be doing that" (いけない being kind of equivalent to ダメ in such an interpretation), but it could also mean "people who are fucking but can't cum". I tried really hard to work in similar sexual imagery ("the ones who go but don't come"??) but it just didn't work and in the end I just made it mirror the preceding line.

I almost want to say that was the hardest line in the song but that award has to go to this:

大人の俺が言っちゃいけない事言っちゃうけど 説教するってぶっちゃけ快楽 酒の肴にすりゃもう傑作 でもって君も進むキッカケになりゃ

Most adults won’t admit it, but what the hell, Lecturing is such a guilty pleasure This, plus a drink - that's heaven And if this gets you to grow up?

Making this catchy and natural was really tough. I actually stole a bit of the first line from another translation because I liked the way they handled the 大���の俺 part. 酒の肴にすりゃ is also a difficult thing to translate - in the English speaking world we don't really have this idea that food needs to accompany a drink.

But the line I'm most happy with is this:

すぐ世の中金だとか愛だとか運だとか縁だとか なぜ2文字で片付けちゃうの？

It’s all about cash, or love, or luck, or fate How neat, summing up the world in 4 letters.

This wasn't a particularly hard translation to come up with ("love" and "luck" are basically the only translations for those words which locked in "4 letters", and it wasn't hard to find 4 letter words for 金 and 縁), but I was surprised to find that none of the existing translations I could find did this. One went with "Why do you want to wrap it all up with a single word?" and another even further abstracted, "How can it be so simple?"

I hope you enjoyed the song/translation! Let me know if you would have translated something differently or if I've made a mistake, I really love seeing your responses!

[rollercoasterwords]

Do you have any papers/books/essays you recommend about sex work?

yes! my main rec is playing the whore: the work of sex work, by melissa gira grant. i also thought virginie despentes had some pretty interesting thoughts on sex work & labor in king kong theory, although i rec that book w a grain of salt--while i think the portion on sex work is pretty strong, many parts of the text suffer from an undercooked understanding of gender that falls back on bioessentialist assumptions (as in, despentes seems to want to challenge/deconstruct gender binaries but falls back a lot on sex binaries in the process). "cultural feminism: feminist capitalism and the anti-pornography movement" by alice echols is a good article examining & critiquing the way certain strains of feminism have talked about/treated porn + sex work, etc.

i also took a course on gender, empire, & imperialism this semester where we pulled a lot of readings from the routledge companion to sexuality and colonialism, ed. chelsea schields & dagmar herzog. the introduction touches on sex work & imperialism, as do various articles throughout the text. caroline sequin's article "white french women, colonial migration, and sexual labor between metropole and colony" was a really interesting piece on some of the roles sex workers played during colonization. there are also 2 articles i didn't read but both look to be specifically dealing w sex work based on the titles: "regulated prostitution in French-colonized northern Vietnam and its failures, 1920–1945" by christina firpo and "the league of nations and colonial prostitution" by liat kozma. we also read a really great article titled "the syphilitic arab? a search for civilization in disease etiology, native prostitution, and french colonial medicine" by ellen amster which explores how narratives of disease & contamination were a tool of colonization, looking specifically abt how these narratives became racialized--that piece focuses a good bit on sex work as well.

and then i also spent some time studying like. sex work in the late-19th century western u.s. as an undergrad, so if u want some texts related specifically to that topic lmk--it was so long ago now that i'm not sure if i'd actually rec any of the books i read anymore tho! the paper i ended up writing critiqued a lot of the history i was reading (which tended to fall into a dichotomy of portraying the sex workers it was speaking abt as either empowered or victimized, etc) so i had mixed feelings.

[dasboligrafo]

7 Takes on The Double Life of Veronique

You know the thing where you like the same thing as a terrible person?

I guess even Lear-esque cringey edgelords like great movies and Keith McNally is not wrong about Sexy Beast and definitely definitely not wrong about the Double Life of Veronique, a movie I've now seen 3x, 2 of which ended in helpless tears (the only way I know if something is art).

This movie was a selection by McNally at a Roxy Cinema mini-festival in October 2023. As I told the crew who I invited (tricked?) to see the movie: now it's your turn to think about it for 15 years!

I love the moment after the movie when people are asking helplessly -- but what does the movie mean?!? And I really, really love the moment when people get angry at the end of the movie. These are real emotions! What's the last time a movie made you think anything other than "god, that was 45 minutes too long?" (The Double Life of Veronique is under 100 minutes! yessss)

[I didn't hear it cause I was, like, weeping, but my friend said at the end a guy behind us was angrily griping that the movie was too slow? Huh? Stuff is literally happening every moment of the movie? There is not a single wasted scene, line or frame? What even are these senses whose proofs we can so liberally ignore?]

Since it might be another 15 years until I see it again and I don't have the benefit of just having written a college thesis that was mostly about Lacan via Zizek, I thought I would type out a few thought exercises/interpretative frameworks that I think apply to this movie:

The contingent nature of the universe/the senselessness of existense -- probably the easiest to justify, especially in the context of Kieslowski's complete ouevre, in consideration of his personal history, based on the interviews he's given, etc...

What to do about emotional apocrypha — what do you do with and about feelings that seem to come from nowhere? Feelings are "real" and we know now (i.e. the science is now there to tell us, eg Lisa Feldman Barrets's fascinating work) they're not in any way subservient in value or usefulness to "reason"; like if anything the opposite, emotions are the "why" and reason is the very patched together and incomplete "how" behind what we are and what we do. Worth thinking about why it is Kieslowski's most compelling films have female protagonists given the historical association to the binary genders for emotion vs reason.

The duality and dichotomy of post-war East/West Europe -- I think this one is sorta obvious but not less resonant? There's a good article out there about how the film predicted a lot of the consequences of the EU. Elsewhere I've read that Polish critics pilloried Kieslowski for a traitor to his kind over this theme, which reminded me of the story about how Bach's works were sometimes not well received by the church patrons who got to hear a lot of it first because they thought it was too dour -- imagine you have the greatest musician who will ever live as your church musician and your biggest peeve is his music isn't fun enough for Sunday. In any event this is a major theme in Three Colors, and I'm sure there's no accident that this movie and the Trilogy are connected by the same fake composer (key work = "Song for the Unification of Europe"...)

Return to theory in film (Zizek) -- he wrote a whole book about it. I'm not sure I agree Kieslowski's films make the case for the return to Theory (ie I think you can interpret his movies without it.) But the fact that you can so unbelievably seamlessly integrate his films to a Lacanian framework gives me that feeling of the inevitability of Lacan.

Art Cinema's enduring interest in interrogating the limits of its medium -- which of course is also present in art literature for its own medium, and frequently not only present but foregrounded in theatre. The Puppetmaster is a clear analogue to the filmmaker (and of God, lmao...they can't help themselves), but also all the unbelievably uncomfortable sex scenes in this movie are a masterclass on the male gaze and how you constitute and undermine it...etc.

Space-time Travel (Zizek) -- right away, I'm going to say I don't think this one is all that interesting, but it's what Criterion chose to accompany the 15th year re-release of the movie. So...ok 🤷🏽‍♀️ I'd say that listening to physics podcasts has convinced me of the value of a literary education (those hermeneutical skills come in so handy), so I see the relevance of thinking of these two together, but I also feel like the fake math is the part of Lacan I always found a little too silly to stand.

The agony of art as vocation -- I'm sorta lazily splitting this out from #5 just because when I originally wrote this post I had 7 points and now I can only remember 6 of them, and I like the resonance of 7....There's a Badiou-esque invocation of the four types of truth procedures at work in this movie that could easily fill the pages of another unread senior thesis: science -- the zizek time travel thing, the way the movie is, actually, concerned with the explanation of what is happening and why, rather than just accepting as a premise that there can be doubles in the world; politics -- the scene where Weronika meets Veronique is at a political rally, the east/west thing mentioned above, etc; art and love, obviously.... But the key to the "plot" of Veronique's life is "Does she keep singing, even if it kills her?"

Random closing thoughts:

I'm still thinking about and cannot resolve the mystery of the subplot about Veronique testifying in her friend's divorce(?) trial. What does it mean?

One thing that always bothered me about Kieslowski is a feeling i have that his movies are slightly (high key???) exploitative of his actresses, which seems like shabby repayment for their taking considerable artistic risks. Maybe I'm just getting this feeling from applying Lacan and Zizek to his movies though (that's two dudes who definitely don't understand about women...). I'd like to think I'm wrong about this, his masterworks are all with women and "about" women. I don't think he doesn't get this, though, see again the Puppetmaster (surely one of the creepiest dudes to ever grace an art film and that's saying a lot).

[scoutpologist]

i think one thing about living in a gendered world is that identifying as genderless is one of the most lonely and isolating things you can be.

i've had periods of time where i thought i was a man and periods of time where i thought i was a woman. admittedly, the brief blips of thinking i was a man were a lot shorter than the decade and some change i thought i was a woman. each time it felt murderous and constraining, but some part of me loved the community, and that's what kept drawing me back.

this isn't to say being a man or being a woman is easy. being any binary gender experience other than a cis man opens you up to heaps of oppression i wish people didn't have to experience. even being a cis man sucks. i don't want to discount that. binary people probably have it worse than i do. but my pain is real too and i have never seen anyone talk about it.

i struggle to extract myself from gender. it's one of the most emotionally difficult things in the world, because if i leave behind all the things i thought i was, all the things everyone else is, i'm left staring at a pure void. out self concepts are built on the conception of others, or at least mine is; i'm this because i'm like this person. when i take that away, take away the foundation of gender, i often don't feel like i have anything left. so i turn back to gender, despite the dysphoria and horror and wrongness i feel.

femininity and masculinity taught me different things, and they are both constraining to me. i prefer to dress in a more "masculine" fashion, if only because i have bad dysphoria when i dress in anything overtly "girly", but when it comes to everything else, i ache for both. i ache to embody feminine joy and care and companionship just as much as i ache to embody masculine intensity and practicality and laughter.

i know these things should not be gendered. to me, as a matter of principle, gendering basic human traits is just nonsensical. but the fact is, unfortunately, that they are gendered, and feel like i will never be able to fully embody the masculine traits i have without abandoning my feminine ones and vice versa. i know i can, but it feels like i can't. and sometimes i can fool myself into thinking that one of them is enough, but it never is. i want to be free.

i'm not bigender, to be clear. i am not a man and i am not a woman. i don't have a gender. it hurts me to say that. i wish i had pride in it, but it hurts me.

i feel like i'm in a double bind. i almost always reflexively think of myself as a girl. i ache to be a girl. i miss being a girl. it gave me a sense of purpose, a sense of camaraderie, a sense of having a place in the world. there's no place in the world for nonbinary people. there's no place in the world for people like me who's souls ache to not be constrained but who's hearts are so caught up in how things are "supposed" to be. but i'm not a girl. i know i'm not a girl. it hurts.

everywhere i turn i find other people outside the binary who are not like me. i don't think a single other person has the same gender experience that i have. no one experiences genderless nonbinaryness like i do. this is liberating. this is also crushing, and that's the thing that's killing me about it.

i get excited at the idea i might not be nonbinary, that i might have a gender, but at the end of the day, i always come back around to this. this is who i am. i'm deluding myself to think otherwise, and i'm sad about it.

i guess i have a lot of internalized enbyphobia, or exorsexism, or whatever you call it. i'm a very black and white person. my mind is stuck in binary even though my soul doesn't even know there's a dichotomy at all. i feel like every day i'm killing some part of me who just wants to be free.

i don't know if anyone else feels like this. if you do, you aren't alone, obviously. i just wanted to get this out. i guess. feel free to reblog and do whatever you want with it. i hope we can all find peace in our genders (or lack thereof) one day.

[90stvqueen]

What do you think lesbians are attracted to in women that we can’t be attracted to in men?

It can’t be anything about femininity or masculinity obviously. That’s both sexist, and cultural so can’t be what drives woman-only attraction.

It can’t be anything about stated identity because someone could lie just as easily as they could tell the truth in such a statement, and it makes no sense because homosexuality and heterosexuality exists in other species with no stated identities. It’s not like other animals without gender are all pan.

Saying idk it’s the vibes or some indescribable trait women have that men can’t but “I can’t explain” is a nonanswer.

Soooooooo what is it? Or do you think any sexuality but bi/pan is just cultural performance or an identity rather than an inborn orientation?

Oughhhh I wrote up a whole answer to this ask, and then tumblr editor crashed and didn't back it up. RIP me. Take two.

I'm answering this ask in good faith, but there are assumptions here that I need to poke at, so let's dive in.

What do you think lesbians are attracted to in women that we can’t be attracted to in men?

Already this presupposes an agreed-upon definition of the word "lesbian." If you look it up, you'll find definitions like "a woman whose sexual orientation is to women," or "a female homosexual." Even these two definitions require a closer examination - some people have different definitions for "woman" and "female" depending on their lived experience and political agenda.

Besides, I know lesbians who don't experience sexual attraction; both these definitions leave them out. I know lesbians who don't identify as women - I'm one of them! There's too much nuance for a straightforward (or gayforward! ha!) answer.

homosexuality and heterosexuality exists in other species with no stated identities. It’s not like other animals without gender are all pan.

When I was growing up/coming out, there were two schools of thought about why people are gay/trans:

One idea is that people choose to be gay, or become gay at some point in their lives (through trauma, conditioning, listening to Lady Gaga, etc). This idea was and is supported by the kinds of people who believe in conversion therapy.

The other idea is that you were born that way; people don't choose to be gay or trans, it's innate. This theory was more popular among the LGBTQ+ community and its allies (thanks, Lady Gaga!), and it was substantiated by the existence of homosexual animals.

It's standard nature vs. nurture, and it's a false dichotomy.

As I typed "homosexual animals," I thought, really, what I mean to say is animals that exhibit behaviors that deviate from heterosexual expectations. What's the difference? Well, as you said, animals can't articulate their identities to us. When we ascribe a label like homo/hetero/bi/pansexual to them, we create blinders for ourselves. If an animal exhibits behaviors that defy that categorization, what then? Sure, the animal doesn't care - it's just living its life. And don't we need categorization so that we have some parameters to study them?

All right, so what does that have to do with people?

Actually, quite a bit, I think. Because like you said, animals can't state their identities to us. The only way we can learn about them is through their behavior. People can state their identities, yes, but ultimately: actions speak louder than words.

What do I mean? Well, first of all, stating your identity is an action that reinforces that identity as truth. If you say you're a lesbian, but you date men, what's the truth, and who has the right to decide?

There are many people who choose to believe that the truth is simple: a lesbian is a "female homosexual," i.e. a cis woman who is exclusively attracted to other cis women (and trans men, who they see as confused cis women). We could talk about whether such distinct categorical attraction exists or if it's just bigotry in action, but it wouldn't be worth the time or energy. These people believe that words and identities are fixed things that can be decided and enforced collectively. This kind of thinking works for a lot of people, especially people who seek a higher authority in the form of "community." It also hurts a lot of other people. But I digress.

Saying idk it’s the vibes or some indescribable trait women have that men can’t but “I can’t explain” is a nonanswer.

I'm doing my best not to give you a nonanswer, because the question is an interesting one - so interesting that there are decades and decades of academic and community-wide discussions about the very questions you're posing. Unfortunately, you've put me in a catch-22, because I can't explain. There are ideas and experiences that we can approximate with language, but there are some things that defy explanation.

So I'll explain, to the best of my abilities, what I mean when I say that actions speak louder than words and that being a lesbian is not intrinsically who you are, but what you do.

Way, way back in the day, before we had words like "bisexual" or "genderqueer," there was an underground lesbian community that consisted of gay and bisexual women as well as trans folks (mostly transmascs, some of whom might have called themselves a man and a lesbian in the same breath). If you were bisexual and you left the community, you were no longer a lesbian - you were "going straight." The same was true of people who decided to perform their gender as written, i.e. butches who assimilated to feminine standards and married men for their own safety.

Back then, you were a lesbian if you were part of the lesbian community. If you were performing the action of being a lesbian.

Since then, there's been a movement away from this kind of fluidity and accessibility (and inaccessibility! not everyone who wanted to be a lesbian had access!) of labels; for example, you'll hear people complaining that a "bi lesbian" isn't a thing. But some of the same people who are making that complaint are people who love the concept of "political lesbianism," a radical feminist idea from the 60s that said, hey, if you want to be a lesbian, all you have to do is leave your man and date women instead - regardless of whether or not you're attracted to women. It's the feminist thing to do! This gave birth to lesbian separatism, which brings us back to contemporary radical feminists trying to define any deviance out of the words "lesbian" and "woman."

This separatism hurts us in the end. I'm not interested in engaging with the hypotheticals and strawman arguments that TERFs often use to silence those of us who deviate from their definitions. They won't listen, and we won't agree. So, ignoring them:

I'm not a woman, but I'm a lesbian. I've dated cis and trans women in the past. What's more, I've experienced and acted on attraction to cis women, trans women, trans men, nonbinary people, and occasionally cis gay men. Uh-oh! Should I have my lesbian card revoked?

Some might say yes, that means you're not actually a lesbian. And to them I say: maybe not on your terms. But I'm living my life on my terms.

And the only way these people can keep me from living on my terms is to restrict my rights, suppress my voice, and if all else fails, kill me.

Which is what's happening to a lot of people like me and my partners right now.

Soooooooo what is it? Or do you think any sexuality but bi/pan is just cultural performance or an identity rather than an inborn orientation?

I think everything is a cultural performance. I think some of us were born with it, some of us discover it over time, and some of us hide it. It's an identity. It's a lifestyle. It's an action. It's a reaction. It's innate. It's a choice.

Until we figure out a way to quantify attraction, we'll continue to attempt to categorize it. I don't know why I'm not attracted to most men. I don't know why I feel femme in a butch's arms and butch in a femme's. I don't know. I can't explain. It may be a nonanswer, but I hope I've given you things to think about, anyway.

[horizon-verizon]

You said: '...their grand theme of "women-good-men-bad" plot (as in violence vs nonviolence).'

Not the same anon but I've been thinking a lot this week on that line of thinking.

On my first viewing I liked the show in general even if I didn't agree with several things but the more and more I thought about it the worse it became and now I feel that the show is MORE sexist and misogynistic than the original material.

It took me a while to realize that not only are women not allowed to gain any kind of power or have active decisions, but they purposely exchanged and eliminated things to create the dichotomy of man=violent and woman=pacifist.

Alicent is not only no longer the mastermind behind the entire movement but she is not even included in the plans, her only moments of power are when she exercises it in the meanest way and it really doesn't have much impact.

She actually just wants her children to be saved! She never wanted to govern! And she thinks Rhaenyra could be a good ruler (until 5 minutes pass and she changes her mind).

Her gloating line about Visenya dying and wishing Rhaenyra died in childbirth? Eliminated and even with all the anti-bastard prejudices that left her I doubt they would let her tell Rhaenyra that the death of their children doesn't matter as much because they were bastard blood.

Rhaenyra cries for a damn page instead of being allowed to be upset that the usurpation led to her having Visenya early. Revenge? Oh no, there is a prophecy and I must think about it. She also doesn't want power or rule, not even because it is a position that her father assured her was hers and she feels entitled to have it. Show!Rhaenyra has moments where she seems ready to quit or the weight of responsibility would crush her.

Rhaenys who fought to be recognized, campaigned for her son and then made sure it was ride or die with Rhaenyra? Well, she's allergic to any kind of female friendship, she's resentful of what she could never have forever, but she'll abandon ir in a heartbeat because her only ambition is to support her (biological) family in la la la, nothing happens here Land.

I don't see this Rhaenys dying believing it's for the best and will be defiant to the end and I certainly don't see her stopping Joff (who I don't think he likes that scene either) goes on a suicide mission.

Baela is the only one who remains more or less the same and yet she looked askance because... She and Rhaena miraculously appear.

On the other hand: Otto who was fired by Aegon for not being bloodthirsty enough? Yeah, I don't see that happening.

Daemon? A psychopath who will jump at the opportunity to kill in a heartbeat, even his wife who was too far away to commit the crime. Redeeming traits? Nope, there isn't. We also have child neglect and domestic violence, good change no?

Corlys is supposed to be the one to advocate for pardons later, here he doesn't see the big picture but instead becomes blinded by his own greed and goes to war because he is unable to talk to his wife.

They are not nuanced characters, they are tell me that the ambition is bad and we must not allow it to contaminate women and men are inherently violent.

Anon talks about this post.

I realized why I really couldn't totally like any of the characters beyond their looks (and only sometimes not even then, I'd say 25% of the looks in season 1 were good) when I read this one reblog by @rhaenyragendereuphoria HERE. They mentioned Robin Morgan and the terfness of the idea of women being the peacekeeping managers of male natural violence and it clicked for me. Goes to show how we can't exclude transphobia against trans women when talking about gender studies, violence, and anything to do with cis women bc as we realize that gender itself is a social creation and not dependent on genitals alone, the better we understand how the traits assigned to women (all but in different ways) are meant to be twisted according to the masculinized male's interests of control and domination. Homophobia also can't be totally discussed or fought against without understanding that it is about rejecting the "feminine" or anything coded as "of women". Such things require a sense of fixedness of gender and sexuality for masculinized male control.

This post by xenonwitch showing what others wrote about the male gaze can also help you out to understand how the HotD writers are writing in the male gaze--yes, even Sara Hess one of the women.

The show just feels too shallow BECAUSE they seek to reduce the idea and sense that this conflict is in feminist interest AND they do not invest or follow through with many proposed themes or potential motifs that they brought bc they don't really understand what they have to change nor its consequential implications in-world for the sake of bothsideism and checking boxes.

Plus, if you look carefully, even the most active persons in canon lose their activeness for the sake of the "theory of accident"--as Seth Abramson kinda calls it--where a major or critical character does not intentionally cause harm or prepare for the worst and the point is that we are supposed to see how they react to things happening to them.

Instead of making critical plot points happen through willful action! the "nuance" and intrigue of say, Aemond's killing Luke, is that he didn't mean to kill him, but it also wasn't an accident but also he was so mad about his eye and followed him for more than 5 mins in anger on a giant dragon in his big age of 19 versus a 14-year-old. Aemond has all the control until the very last minute when Vhagar goes ham and munches on Arrax and Luke; Alicent has no real control and "accidentally" takes Viserys' words the wrong way instead of her just ordering the castle shut down for the green council and actively trying to bring them to her side, being the spearhead of that anti-black function. Rather, it vacuums out all real stakes because the people feel like paper to write on.

The show makes a lot of their characters not have to make them confront some risks, build the right tension, or cross certain boundaries--example Alicent, doesn't have to confront her own long fears about her kids dying and the question of a woman ruling because she heard Viserys say that Aegon should rule. In other words, no accountability.

Finally, the characters also seem stupid as to how: Alicent thinks a page is going to stave off any threat of violence from Rhaenyra or herself, and Rhaenyra for reasons goes along with it!--she has been harassing Rhaenyra for years, and said page is of Nymeria (the woman who made her destiny and conquered regions...while Alicent is usurping Rhaenyra); when she accepts Rhaenyra's apology at the feast after the stain of her slicing her and almost causes the blacks/Luke to lose Driftmark but wouldn't listen to her before in episode 4 about not sleeping with Dameon AND again, sh's been trying to get Rhaenyra and her sons killed for 10 years from the belief that Rhaenyra would cause her oen kids deaths indirectly or directly!, basically just bc she now feels Rhaenyra respected her status as Queen and Viserys presented himself as a victim of their infighting...that he is actually largely responsible for...so she isn't protective of her kids and does have an severe inferirority complex or her main motivation is social power over protecting her kids, but the show would ahve us think that she hated Rhaenyra bc she was trying to prptect her kids.....her problems--as she saw it--remained the same after Rhaenyra's apology, wtf?!; Rhaenyra suddenly does not want to act at all against the greens, even give up -> based on violence and the prophecy, but said prophecy is actually all the more reason to stamp out the green usurpation bc her father couldn't have given Aegon that information and if he did he would have told her his plans long before he died...so why is she thinking of just giving it up if she were responsible?!!!!

no repercussions for Laenor's beau getting his face smashed in under the king's roof during a wedding feast (makes more sense during a journey, not a feast) --> lack of empathy towards Joffrey there, he couldn't die doing something considered honorable in his society, no he has to die like a dog [wanted to complain]

Because of this nonsense that one has to unpack while whatever episode is playing, I couldn't enjoy the characters and dialogue apart from the most superficial things. Apart from some scandalous behvior and Rhaenyra being savvy (episode 4 & daemyra in episode 5). Rooting and intrigued by the fashion of the wedding. I'm not even excited for Rhaenyra's maybe-bloodthirsty reaction to her son's death bc I know they will somehow ruin it, esp since they are only putting in 8 episodes for this coming season. They already didn't do enough for the first!

They also have a chance and when asked to explain take it to the most discriminatory level that turns you off if you have a modicum of respect for people. An example of this if claiming the Velaeryons being black is useful to make it "more obvious" that Rhaenyra's first sons were not Laenor's as if that means we should look at Rhaenyra's situation as being just her fault, that she should have just rolled over and "done her duty" when in fact the circumstances were almost set up against her...why? BC she is a woman! And why are we making the Velaryon's blackness or PoCness just a tool for denigrating another character instead of something for themselves?!

[detransdamnation]

Maybe i am in a bit of a blind spot now but stumbling upon your blog and a few of your last answers made me question - if gender roles were nonexistent in society so the sex a person has wouldnt dictate how they are treated - how could someone develop an unease about something truly neutral? I know there are sex differences in humans and thats what we talk about when we speak of transsexual people - the desire to change sex based on a terrifyingly strong discomfort with the one one has. But i am at a loss when it comes to understanding where would that discomfort even start/be influenced by (again as long as the sex you are would make everything neutral) because i always assumed that its that dichotomy of how society views females and males is what later translates into the literal base of where it comes from which is one’s sex. Then - Would the dysphoria grow out of purely desiring something that one doesnt have along the lines the grass is greener on the other side? Getting to experience sex the way it feels like as the other sex (especially in case of not heterosexual people)? Or only An aesthetic pursue? If the only thing that differentiated us in society would be the biological abilities of our bodies and the appearance of it…why do you think would someone still come up with an idea of desiring the other?

After reading especially the last answer it made me think that after all there must be some truly transsexual people who are just born being transsexual. Thats why i decided to send it because i think you established somewhere that you believe there are no trans people who are trans ”just because”, just because they have a brain of the opposite sex trapped in the wrong body etc.

I hope this makes some sense, its not an attack on anything you said more of a big wonder and desire to understand better and i really hope it comes off this way.

You make total sense. Your message doesn't come off as an attack at all.

Anon, I'll be real with you. I reread my answer on whether or not I believe gender abolition would also abolish dysphoria. I did rush in writing that response, greatly so, so the way I phrased my thoughts was particularly subpar; however, as I was trying to tie everything together in this response to you, I realized that the viewpoint I argued didn't really make sense when I held it up to my other beliefs. So, this is a humble admittance that I was, frankly, talking out of my ass. I'm going to use this as an opportunity to reassess my beliefs on this topic and will be re-answering that question once I have done so.

In the meantime, one of the best ways to assess your beliefs is to argue something you disagree with or are unsure of, so I'm going to double down and continue the argument as if I'm completely confident that it's the truth, if only to hopefully better explain where I was coming from when I wrote my previous response. So, proposed argument: Gender abolition will not necessarily abolish sex dysphoria.

First of all, what causes dysphoria and how does gender fit into that framework? I talked about this at length here [AL] and here [AL]. I specifically want to zero in on something I said in the former link:

I [...] do not personally believe that there is a “main reason” on as to why dysphoria may develop in a young person in all cases. I suppose my own “main reason” would be that I fell into the trans community because I never thought seriously about transitioning prior to that time—but the thing is, even if I hadn’t, I would still be dealing with everything else that influenced my getting to this point. [...] If I were to take the trans community out of that equation, it would just be the influence of the trans community missing.

Let’s replace the influence of the trans community with the construct of gender and let’s fast forward to this hypothetical dream society where gender is not an existent thing. We can apply what I said above. We’ve taken away gender and its influences—but we still have everything else. There are numerous factors that could cause a person to develop sex dysphoria; in a genderless society, we have only taken away one. In order to shut down any possibility of dysphoria developing, we would need to get rid of every single possible factor and influence and that is just not a possible feat. Homophobia is a significant factor in many cases of dysphoria and will remain so in a genderless society unless efforts have been previously made to abolish it. No amount of social change will ever eradicate abuse, which can be a trigger in dysphoria in that (especially long-term) abuse victims are prone to redirecting emotional pain to certain aspects of themselves, especially in an effort to regain control, even though they may not “make sense.” It is also impossible for us to eradicate, for instance, natural aspects of our biology that are just plain inconvenient or uncomfortable, which may become objects of fixation (especially in puberty) and cause a person to develop sex dysphoria thereafter. These are just a few examples off of the top of the head—but they and more may all continue on as potential factors because these things, in and of themselves, do not have anything to do with what we have abolished. They do not cease to be potential precursors to mental illness, such as dysphoria, just because we have taken one precursor away.

But why dysphoria? Why would someone develop sex dysphoria in a genderless society if sexes were seen as entirely neutral? Well, let’s turn our attention to another mental illness that is perhaps most reflective of dysphoria (so reflective, in fact, that some people believe them to be one and the same): body dysmorphic disorder. Body dysmorphia is “a mental disorder characterized by the obsessive idea that some aspect of one's own body part or appearance is severely flawed and therefore warrants exceptional measures to hide or fix it.” One’s “flaws” cause significant distress, even to the point of seeking out cosmetic procedures in an aim to “fix” them. Anything can be a trigger in body dysmorphia, although some of the most common include facial features, hair, skin complexion, and coincidentally, sex characteristics such as breasts, facial hair, or genitals—which are all inherently neutral features. No physical feature is objectively “wrong” or “bad,” “good” or “right,” “pretty” or “ugly.” They just are.

So, then, we could ask the same question: Why would people with this disorder fixate on these features and develop an unease with them if they are truly neutral? We could argue the societal pressure of beauty ideals, and certainly, that is a factor in a lot of cases—but if body dysmorphia were truly an issue of how certain features are seen and treated, exclusively, then by all means and purposes, people who are considered to be conventionally attractive should not also be seen developing the disorder. Marilyn Monroe could be an example of this: considered one of the most beautiful women in the world in her time and years after and yet (was believed to have) struggled with body dysmorphia until the day that she died.

Things don’t have to be “not neutral” in order for someone to not like them. Things can be neutral and still cause one discomfort. Things can be seen and treated as indifferent by the collective and yet still be hated by the individual. Why do non-dysphoric people have insecurities at all? A lot of the time, they don’t have specific reasons. I don’t feel they need to have reasons. Just like I don’t feel dysphoric people need to have an ultimate reason on as to why we would develop sex dysphoria when we could have fixated on any other physical trait.

I think where people tend to get tripped up in these discussions is, they try to apply what they know to be reasonable to mental illnesses and how they present in order to rationalize, to themselves, what we are feeling and experiencing—but in doing so, I feel we easily lose sight of the fact that, even without mental illness, the brain does not need a logical reason to fixate on something, to hate something, to want to get rid of something. Marilyn Monroe having been an icon of beauty did not change the fact that she didn’t like her face—and my not believing in gender does not change the fact that I don’t like my sex and desire to be the opposite. Marilyn continued to feel the way she did because she had body dysmorphic disorder. I continue to feel the way I do because I have dysphoria. Both disorders alter how we perceive reality and cause us to believe things about ourselves that are not objectively true. We desire what we do not have because that is a symptom of the inherently nonsensical disorders that we have. That is all there is to it. That is our “why.”

And I am content just leaving it at that. It is my own personal stance that we cannot chase the logistics behind something that is not logical to begin with. At the end of the day, there is no ultimate reason for mental illness. Mental illness does not need to make sense. Mental illness only needs humanity. It will continue to exist no matter how humanity progresses.

So, under this argument, there are a few different points to be had, main ones being that gender abolition will not necessarily abolish sex dysphoria because gender and sex are not one and the same; to take away gender is to take away only one possible factor in one’s dysphoria; and although outside factors can (and do) influence dysphoria and would continue to do so in a genderless society on account of the previous two points, there’s ultimately no “reason” on as to why dysphoric people would continue to cling on to their sex in this society where the two sexes are seen and treated as the exact same—simply because dysphoria, being a mental illness, does not exist on a plane that is rational.

Considering these viewpoints and assuming that they all coexist in this genderless society, then, it may be easy to conclude, like you did, that some people are just born transgender. I do understand how you may have come to that conclusion after reading my response and even I, looking back, feel like that is what I insinuated, even though I did not mean to and was not coming from that position. To clarify, as I have stated before, I do not believe in the idea of “true trans,” and seeing as this is a belief that I actually hold very true to and have for a long time, I’d like to explain why. This is no longer me proposing an argument that I am merely “considering.” This is me demonstrating what I believe.

There are a few different things to consider in the statement, “People are born transgender,” starting with the implications of what it means to be transgender and specifically the dysphoric aspect of it. To suggest that someone could be born transgender is also to insinuate that someone could be born dysphoric, that someone could be born already set to hate their bodies as they grow older.

Of course, we could be less technical here. You may not be born with mental illness in the literal sense—but you can develop mental illness extremely early on in life. So, under the argument that dysphoria is a mental illness, dysphoria can develop from a very young age, and therefore the child, express (what may be interpreted as) a transgender identity. Okay, fair enough. What I have never received closure on is, if a young child exhibits hatred of any other part of their body for any other reason, it is universally considered abnormal, a red flag, something to treat—but as soon as gender or sex comes into the picture, this self-hatred becomes something to validate.

Let’s say that a young child tells you that they do not like their body. Without any other context, what would your first reaction be? Chances are, you would assume that someone or something in this child’s life has taught or influenced them to think this way, even if only inadvertently, and hopefully, you would rush to tell this child that there is nothing wrong with their body, that they are perfect just the way they are. But let’s say, after probing a little further, this young child tells you that they don’t “feel like” their sex, or that they want to be the opposite (in little kid terms). Would you then change your tune and decide that they were “born that way,” that they hate their body because they were just meant to be the opposite sex instead? If your answer is yes, or your no follows hesitancy, I have to wonder what, specifically, would change your mind. What is it about dysphoria that is so different from any other form of self-hatred? Moreover, what implications do you think there are in a child telling someone they presumably trust that they are uncomfortable in their body—and that trusted adult telling them that they are uncomfortable in their body because they were, indeed, born “wrong?”

This leads to an essential question that we, ironically, so often overlook. We have a dysphoric child in front of us. What would make them transgender? The most likely definition of a trans person that everyone could agree on would be someone who is dysphoric, likely someone who has been dysphoric since early childhood—but even that is not a perfect or even accurate definition because not all people with dysphoria go on to transition, not even people with long-term or “treatment-resistant” dysphoria. If dysphoria does not make a transgender person, what does?

Let’s say we have one-thousand dysphoric people in front of us and one person in the group—say, the young child in this analogy, now an adult—is transgender. The only thing that distinguishes this person from the rest of the group is the very act of transition. If this person had never transitioned, there would be no difference between them and the rest of the group. We would have a solid group of cisgender dysphoric people. The transgender person is distinguished only through action, self-identity and personal experience in attempts to accommodate that self-identity. “Brain sex” has been proven to be a myth, so we know there are no biological differences to point to them having “needed” to transition—and even under the possibility that there do exist biological markers in dysphoria that we have not discovered yet, that does not prove that people can be born transgender. At most, these markers could stand as predispositions, similar to how people can be carriers for certain diseases or have “bad genes” that make them more likely to suffer from certain ailments—but none of these things equate to destiny, and in fact, in the case of dysphoria, would only prove that a supportive environment could prevent it—and transgender identity—from coming into the picture at all.

The suggestion that some people are just “made” to go through with any action, including transition, is an insinuation of fate—and I do not believe in fate. I believe in free will to some extent, although that would open us up to the more philosophical question of whether free will is truly free, seeing as we are reflections of our environment and cannot completely separate ourselves from it. In either case, we have seen and established that we can both influence one to develop dysphoria, as well as prevent one from developing dysphoria, all depending on how we, as a society, treat them—and if the people around us can help to prevent dysphoria from becoming an issue entirely, thereby circumventing the desire to transition at all, it is impossible for transgender identity to be truly innate to any one person.

In summary and in closing, mental illness, including dysphoria, is encouraged by—and sometimes even brought on by—our surrounding environment in almost all cases. Environments naturally change overtime, and in the process, certain factors in mental illness may become less common or even disappear entirely; however, just because one goes away does not mean all others disappear. One of many of our possible futures as a society is one without gender, and unsurprisingly, this would get rid of gender as a trigger in dysphoria—but so long as no other factors have been dismantled in the process, they will continue on as potential influences in its development, even in this genderless society. It then may be easy to conclude that some people are just “born” transgender, especially seeing as how the development of sex dysphoria in a genderless society would be even more random (comparatively to that of a gendered one)—but that conclusion, that “Some people are just born that way,” would not be reached with any other mental illness, and beyond that, does not give us, the society, enough credit or responsibility. The fact that there are trans people who barely even remember not being trans, such as myself, stand not as proof that we are “true transsexuals” but as proof that we live in a society that is hostile to multiple vulnerable populations and it is up to us to change that. Gender abolition will not solve all of these problems and it may not even get rid of sex dysphoria entirely—but it is essential and a great place to start, which is why I continue to stand for it, even despite it not being a perfect fix.

I hope this gave you a little more to think on.

[aurorawest]

Reading update

The Winter Spirits: Ghostly Tales for Festive Nights - 5/5 stars

I bought this solely for the Natasha Pulley story, "The Salt Miracles," (I WOULD READ A WHOLE BOOK ABOUT FLINT AND THE SAINT, MX PULLEY), but every story was really good. My kind of spooky.

Seriously though, I wanted so much more of "The Salt Miracles." How was it a queer love story despite not being a love story or queer? God I love Natasha Pulley.

Henry Hamlet's Heart by Rhiannon Wilde - 5/5 stars

Really lovely YA romance set in Australia. The yearning is impeccable. Also, I hate myself for saying this, but it's historical fiction—it's set in 2008.

Handmade Holidays by 'Nathan Burgoine - 3.5/5 stars

Giovanni's Room by James Baldwin - 4/5 stars

Not an easy read. The main character, David, is despicable, but in large part because he lives in a society that expects rigid adherence to gender roles. One thing I found really interesting was repeated emphasis on the fact that David won't act, he waits for someone else to do it for him—he acknowledges that if Joey had asked him to stay, he would have, that if Giovanni had asked him to stay, he would have. And then Hella tells him that as a woman, she has to wait for men to tell her things, but David doesn't tell her he's gay, he waits for her to figure it out herself. Hella makes this into an explicitly gendered dichotomy, which is interesting with David constantly fretting about not being a man because of his queerness.

Queer classic, people should read.

Merry & Bright by Joanna Chambers - 5/5 stars

They Hate Each Other by Amanda Woody - DNF at pg 2

Contained the following absolutely baffling author's note, which I quickly became so resentful of that I stopped reading.

Against the Stars by Christopher Hartland - 4.25/5 stars

Near-future sci-fi where everyone gets one 44 second look into their future. Fairly dark for YA. Also thematically relevant to my MCU fic.

Mistletoe & Mishigas by MA Wardell - 4.25/5 stars

This book was lovely. I loved Theo so much. Sheldon is very annoying but also very lovable. And it's nice to read a Hanukkah romance!

Haunted Hearts by K Sterling - DNF at pg 2

Did anyone edit this?

The Bruising of Qilwa by Naseem Jamnia - DNF at pg 21

Wanted to like this one but it just wasn't very well written. You ever read books where it's obvious the author spent too much time on their wOrlDbuILdiNg to the exclusion of actually writing a good book? Yeah.

Between Shadow and Flame by CT Bryce - DNF at 26

Editors? Hello?? Seriously, I feel like people are writing manuscripts on their phones and uploading them directly to Amazon from there.

The Power of the Dog by Thomas Savage - 4.5/5 stars

Oddly I found this to be not as difficult of a read as Giovanni's Room, in my private game of Ranking Queer Classics Against Each Other. Obviously Phil is an awful man, but in the end I felt bad for him, tbh. Phil is like, a really catty twink wrapped in layers of toxic masculinity and repressed homosexuality. And then Peter is a sociopath. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to sympathize with Peter? I didn't think I was, but then I scanned Annie Proulx's afterword and it seemed like she thought we were supposed to? Obviously you feel worst for all the people Phil just heedlessly tears to ribbons because he's a maladjusted asshole. I think the thing is, there were just enough glimmers where Phil acts like a human being that I was like, maybe you can be saved! Ah, tragedy.

Anyway, good book, 10/10 would recommend. (and no, I haven't seen the movie)

[mrschwartz]

Mojo dojo casa house?

hogging this ask to share my opinions on the barbie film which i had promised i'd do!

i only watched it once so obv i'm gonna catch a lot more in subsequent viewings and might even change my opinion on some things but

at first view what impressed me the most were the production and costume designs! the barbieland set and the barbies' outfits are really impressive and fucking awesome, they helped a lot in the immersive nature of the film and to sell the premise. the commitment to the rules of the doll universe was fucking stellar, the walking on tiptoes, her floating down to the car, there not being any actual liquids or food

and like okay. the plot. phewwwwwww. it's metamodern and i get it, and while it certainly was Extremely self-aware it often seemed like said self-awareness was being actualized by someone with a very specific, not necessarily privileged but oftentimes limited, worldview. for example, america ferrera's speech was great but didn't it feel like feminism 101? i thought the film was going to commit to some more radicalized notions, i guess lmao

but i don't want to judge it based on my expectations, let me judge it for what it is! something that i have to give it credit for is the critic given to barbie dolls themselves, especially the ones from sasha (maybe it's bc i'm zillenial so i've been her lol). i wasn't expecting the film to open that discussion and that gave it a turning point that i think was much needed. what i will say is that i think too much importance was given to the historical significance of barbies lol ("you set feminism back 50 years you fascist!") but i think that's a given since the movie was produced by mattel iself

i would love to analyze this film for what it is and not mostly for the message it's trying to send (bc i'm The Biggest believer that stories don't have to have a moral lesson, and in fact are probably better when they don't tbh) but it truly only works when you take into account the discussion it's trying to sparkle. and good for it! it did its job, people are fucking talking about it lmao. we're in a weird cultural moment where people like me think the film would've benefitted from being more radical (by GOD not in a terf sense, terfs can die and burn lmao, but in a let's free the nipple and grow our body hair and raise boys and girls the same way sense) but conservative people think it IS radical for supposedly sending the message that women should hate men (???)

on that note. i'm Definitely not siding with the conservatives here (my god please god Definitely not) but the film kept hammering on the fact that we should fight the patriarchy (and i've seen people saying that you're missing the point if you don't realize that the film is us vs patriarchy and not women vs men) but i think that's giving too much credit to the film vnfjvnfjv like i said, it's feminism 101, so in the end the barbies still take back barbieland, no? they go back to the beginning of the film, this idyllic world where one gender rules all and occupies all of the space. and like I GET IT, it's a comment on how the opposite is what happens in our world, i'm not stupid lol. i'm just angry that the dichotomy IS there, is all i'm saying. the film criticizes the things women are associated with and the expecations we have to live with, but also plays straight into it when this world governed by women is all pink and glamourous and perfect lmao does my critic make sense? that particular message of the film feels very girl power 2014 tumblr core

speaking of which, anyone else not happy at all with the capitalist recuperation this film brought about? "let girls dress in pink and wear barbie merch to this blockbuster multimillion dollar movie!! this is our moment, if men can cosplay to watch mcu films then the girls can have this one!!" oh honey. "movies for girls" and "movies for men" much? there goes the polarization again. AND the commodification of something that Should be counterculture. thanks for contributing to both <3

all of this not to say that i didn't like the movie! i did it was great i laughed a lot! sometimes its self-awareness bothered me for how "biased" it was but most of the time the film really benefitted from it in its comedy! depression barbie made me HOWL lmao, and the kens serenating the barbies with an acoustic guitar gave me war flashbacks bc literally what woman hasn't been there, stuff like that

and. it did make me cry lol. the final scene when barbie is talking to ruth handler and finally understands what it's like to be human and more specifically a human woman really touched me bc it was a commentary on the personal. it wasn't getting at broad social subjects, it was all about internal conflict and acceptance. reminded me of the epiphany scene from soul and the parking lot scene from everything everywhere all at once. i feel like metamodern films rely a lot on these self-referential and social commentaries, but are also slowly walking towards looking inwards a lot, and that means so much to me. the examples i've observed so far in cinema are fucking beautiful, i hope it's here to stay

[butchviking]

You're usually so big brained but you honestly believe that if these past women and lesbians who literally weren't allowed to live full lives without concealing themselves as men can be categorised as "trans"? When the choice was to either appear as a man or have their lives ruined and achievements erased? When in the modern sense "trans" is about inner feelings instead of an actual effort in passing? These past women didn't feel like men, they HAD to appear as men because society didn't allow women to do anything. Such a need doesn't reflect the current trans community's hypervisibility. Calling them trans is an insulting misnomer

hmm so i have several points on this.

can you define transgender? bc if it's not someone of one sex assigned the corresponding gender role at birth who chooses to pass as the opposite sex in order to live in the opposite gender role, then I don't see what it could possibly be. unless it's going to be "someone who identifies as trangender", in which case. well. we know how that kind of definition goes.

like i said, you can speculate on motives all you like. many women in days gone by absolutely chose to live as men bc they weren't allowed to live full lives as women, particularly as lesbian women. the thing is. many women in the modern age make the SAME decision for, subconsciously or consciously, the same reasons. like this is obviously not something commonly admitted by current transmen (for lack of a better phrase lol) but is smthn reaaaally often discussed by detrans women. for the amount of 'transmen are just women/lesbians who want to escape sexism/homophobia' often cited in radblr circles, im always confused by. 'this woman/lesbian who wanted to escape sexism/homophobia cannot possibly be a transman'

"These past women didn't feel like men" ok for real like ofc we can't know how each individual person felt (again i don't think thats super important to defining them as trans tho unless we're defining trans purely by identity status which is. kinda meaningless i feel like being trans-identified and being transgender are actually not always synonymous at all) but actually. u know what. many DID 'feel like men', this is a common experience of many women and particularly lesbians and particularly women/lesbians who chose to LIVE AS MEN thru history. literally sexual inversion theory was not only believed by straight people bro many lesbians have thought of themselves as 'a man in a womans body' for a long time

hey why can so many gendercrits say things like 'transmen are women' but then when u say 'this historical figure was a transman' theyre like 'how dare u imply thats not a woman'. like bro if u think transmen are women then. calling them a transman isn't denying that they're women at all. like only females are transmen so saying someone is a transman doesn't hide or disguise their femaleness. in fact it openly states it. those two things aren't in conflict they go hand-in-hand.

btw yes i KNOW im always going on abt how the cis/trans dichotomy isnt real but listen. the grey areas of trans identity politics in the modern age isnt at all whats being discussed here like this isnt abt calling someone like joan of arc trans for being a woman who wore mens attire. again we are talking abt people of the female sex who literally lived as and passed as men like thats. i cannot stress enough that is like the entire definition of a transman. even if that word wasn't around in their era for them to self-identify with.

idk what u mean abt their need to live as men not reflecting the current trans community's hypervisibility. can u explain that?

also btw i think its fair to say that while the benefits of living as a man in deeply misogynistic cultures are obvious, it's not technically a need and the vast majority of women have (no blame on them the pressure is immense and physical force often involved) usually yielded to the demands of gender thru time. and even imposed that on other women often. and so sue me i think its nice for those who are defiant of gender to be able to point to people like them in history and say. that's me. that's someone like me and people like me have always been here. and i know trans identity/transition is often considered by gendercrits to be a cave-in to gender and i DO see the point there i see all the points i promise but. listen im biased but i honest to god think that the decision to live in the opposite gender role is like. no its not as defiant as being openly gnc and telling everyone who doesn't like it to cope and seethe but it IS a lot more defiant and i think a lot braver than to cave in to gender the other way, by conforming and being a feminine makeup sexy dresses kind of woman. im veering wildly off track here and ive had too much wine i think but let's end on a hot take: top surgery isn't feminist at all but its still more feminist than a boob job.

[patriciavetinari]

I'm rereading Pratchett's Equal Rites (also first time reading it in English) and I have some thoughts. It's a very endearing book, but I can just feel, especially reading it right after Going Postal, that Pratchett was still very much developing his style and his world at the time. It's the earliest witch book and the image I get is of Terry, an upper middle class white British straight man looking at the whole situation of gender in fantasy, only-men-can-be-wizards and only-women-can-be-witches, and quietly going 'that's bullshit and I need to show that it's bullshit'. That's an ambitious way to start a sub-series.

But I also think that because of his background, and the lack of Gender Studies (for the lack of better descriptor) he sort of bit off more than he could chew. He sensed that there is a story there, a concept to punch the patriarchy and lovingly mock the fantasy tropes, but he, again, as a white British man, didn't actually have what it takes to make the most of his own great idea of a little girl deciding to become both a witch and a wizard.

The book and the story and the concept and even the world, particularly Ankh Morpork, feel half baked. Not in a bad way, in a way that sometimes we want the molten cake that oozes in the middle, but half baked nontheless. He set himself a big task but also it feels like halfway through the book he sort of got stuck at his own limited understanding of gender essentialism and gender as a social construct, he couldn't quite figure out how to make the story truly punch up at the patriarchy and gender dichotomy, he didn't arrive at the concepts outside of gender binary, not really. Even though it feels like he really wanted for this book to do exactly that, explore outside of binaries and dichotomies. But in the 80s he either didn't realize gender studies and texts on transgender and intersex issues were the answer, or he felt that would overcomplicate things – idk, I'm just speculating.

Because I can sense it even in the dynamic on the book. It opens with a bang, a wizard accidentally leaves his staff to a girl instead of a boy. He has some very good ideas, like 'witch magic and wizard magic inside her are feeding off each other'. That's very good, very poetic in terms of gender, also very powerful, I think.

But then halfway through he sort of winds it down, loses the momentum and probes around his idea more carefully. And the book is awfully short for the grandiose saga that this could be. Also we don't really hear about Eskarina Smith in further books, unlike Granny Weatherwax. And the book hardly has a description of Ankh-Morpork as this huge bustling 'progressive' city, it's a very vague backdrop where Pratchett even (sort of mistakenly) writes, that Guild of Thieves also seems to be responsible for assassinations, and the Guild of Assassins is not mentioned at all, though Vetinari should have already graduated it many years ago. That's not important, of course, but goes to show he hadn't decided on a few things yet.

What I think would have helped, if he would freeze the concept and write it many years later, around the time of Moist books, when his every sentence is linguistic jewelry and the baking of the story is done expertly, like macarons. Of course, Equal Rites was part of his developement, only the third Discworld book, and probably he wouldn't be the same writer in the long run had he not explored his concepts, however half-baked they turned out, but I just think there's a better story there that he managed to figure out before publishing.

Or another book about Eskarina would be very welcome. She's mentioned in two others I think, but another book centered on her and criticizing the gender essentialist dichotomy that she explores as an adult with much more mature and learned Terry writing it, I think would have been a masterpiece. He doesn't really come back to the whole female witches vs male wizards dichotomy, not in a such dedicated way. Maybe he still couldn't quite figure it out, who knows, I know we praise his works for being progressive, but they are also not that revolutionary, especially as time went on and he did have the opportunity to learn more and clearly did.

In any case, it's a lovely little read and it's interesting to see an author developing.

[booksandwords]

Window Shopping by Tessa Bailey

Read time: 1 Day Rating: 5/5 Stars

The Quote: "Being dishonest is not me. You're right. But it's not you, either. I don't think it ever was. We're going to meet somewhere in the middle tonight and find out who we could be What that could feel like." — Aiden Cook

Warnings: discrimination (criminal record)

It is easy to see why Window Dressing is as popular as it is. It's insta-attraction, grump/sunshine, workplace romance all wrapped up in pretty and sparkly Christmas wrapping. This takes the grump/sunshine dynamic and gender swaps it, 90% of the time when I read the grump/sunshine dynamic the female character is the sunshine and the grump is the male. In this case, 25-year-old Stella Schmidt, a recently released convict and prospective window dresser is the grump. The sunshine is 32-year-old Aiden Cook, general manager of Vivant, a New York department store. The whole story (epilogue excepted) takes place over less than a week. Honestly, it is an effective way to tell the story. Better yet, at 240ish pages and written in a way that makes this pick-up put-downable, and possibly a great seasonal read.

I adore Stella and Aiden, their dichotomy gives me joy. Good lord Aiden himself has a serious dichotomy, there is nothing two-dimensional about him. But he occasionally gives me whiplash, I get the feeling he does that to Stella too. It is the best kind of whiplash though. "I let the bow tie fool me, didn't I? When he told me he could be downright rough, I didn't fully comprehend his meaning. Or maybe I thought he was exaggerating. He wasn't. This man just yanked up my skirt in public, touched my body like he'd been studying it his whole life and growled at me. Possessive things, jealous things that should turn me off but oh lord, they don't." (Stella). This quote is a perfect demonstration of it, and he does this a lot. Aiden is the epitome of the Southern gentlemen when we meet him, raised in Tennesee by a sassy af woman. I really like his mind and his attitude towards people. He is a perfect balance to Stella.

As a man of conscience and principle Aiden is something Stella aspires to be and feels she doesn't deserve. These feelings are kind of where the primary conflict comes from in their relationship. "I will not start making major decisions when I've only been out of prison for a single month. I'm not letting him make any bad decisions. Look at the way he charged downstairs and rescued me, carrying me upstairs like Prince Charming. But I'm not a princess. Not the kind of girl who ends up with Aiden Cook." (Stella). Stella is a strong and fierce woman. It takes us quite some time in the scheme of the story to find out what Stella was convicted for, though we do find out early on it was a four-year sentence. It is up to the reader to understand Stella's conviction and judge her for themselves, she does claim responsibility for her actions. Just be aware there is a moment where there Stella is discriminated against for her felony past, it is spiteful and awful. I really like her. She has a strong backbone, is just trying to turn her life around and is happy to be swept off her feet by the right man. Unbeknownst to her Aiden is definitely the right man.

Have a dump of quotes and thoughts.

There is a beautiful quote about Christmas magic in the second paragraph. Stella is a non-believer but it is written in such a way that Tessa Baily isn't those who do believe in the special time of year.

I scan the immediate area for maimed penguins or some other sign that I've gone around the bend. All is well. As normal as New York City can be, which is to say there are three people fighting over one cab, the strains of a saxophone emanate mysteriously from the ether and a sparkly pink wig lies forgotten in the gutter. Nothing that would be considered unusual, though. I'm not hallucinating, why has this man stopped to tell me a story about his relatives? I'm not what one would refer to as approachable. In fact, I'm fluent in Fuck Off. Hopefully he speaks it, too. Or at least knows how to read body language. — This is Stella after Aiden tells his first of many Aunt Edna stories, a highlight of the novel. I really like this as a description of New York City. And yeah Aiden is completely ignorant of or unwilling to read body language. It's honestly kinda funny. (Stella)

"I'm curious what you make of all this." "You're referring to Penguin Chernobyl?" — Anyone who has seen a quote from this book has likely seen this quote. But it is really funny. And it repeats later on. (Aiden and Stella)

"It's going to be a good day." On the other side of the office, assistant fingers pause in the act of typing out God knows what at two hundred miles an hour. "Nand what exactly is your basis for that theory?" asks Leland over the top of his wire-rim glasses. "It's Monday and it's snowing." "Both of those things are the sign of a clean slate. It's like we've got a fresh spiral notebook from the drugstore and this time we're going to use good handwriting all the way through. Not just on the first page." — If you want an example of Aiden's perfect optimism at all times, this is possibly my fave quote for that. I like his wonderful play-off with his assistant Leland. (Aiden and Leland)

The red dress in the window display is stunning. When Tessa Stella is right she's right, women are unlikely to buy that sort of beauty for themselves. But damn sometimes a woman needs that dress.

"You don't get locked up somewhere for four years and leave without a few soul scrapes." — I adore this quote it is just a wonderful way to comfort someone who has ended up with claustrophobia due to incarceration. (Aiden)

"They want it room temp. Last time they wanted it freezing." "Maybe we should have the water blessed by a priest and burn the demons out of them." Leland suggests. "St. Patrick's is only a few blocks away. I could be back in no time." — 'They' are the devil incarnate board of directors, Aiden's father, grandmother and cousin. I adore Leland, he is said to have the disposition of a cranky senior citizen and the pessimism of Eeyore. I want to know more about Leland. There is more going on in that head of his. This quote isn't Leland's highlight but it's close. He has a stunning moment later on that I won't spoil for readers. (Linda and Leland)

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words are just a representation of the speaker's inside—not me. And not you. — Edna is possibly my favourite character in the book. She makes me laugh, the woman has had A life. Aiden loves to tell stories about Aunt Edna, they are funny and kinda quirky. Just making the reader and Stella smile. I love this line so much though. (Aunt Edna, quoted by Aiden)

Sitting with people I half-know, drinking, letting myself slip into a slightly numb state where I don't overthink every word out of my mouth. The vibe is completely different, however, we're not trying to decide how we're going to top the previous night or what wild stunt we can get away with. That lack of peer pressure is more intoxicating than the alcohol. Is this what adulthood feels like? I could get used to it. — There is something to be said for recognising this difference. The difference between teen drinking and adult drinking. Or maybe it's more drinking to get drunk and social drinking. (Stella)

"It's nice not to be in a rush with this window. I can take my time with Norma." "Excuse me," Jordyn says. "You named the mannequin?" "Oh, she has a whole persona. She's thirty-nine. A single, career-driven lady who is about to make partner at her firm. But with one month to go until she turns forty, she realizes how little self-care there is in her life. When was the last time she pampered herself? Never, that's when. And she isn't planning on it now. There is work to be done." I reach down to brush the fine edge of Norma's bangs. " — She has some good friends, though. College roommates. And they know her better than she knows herself. They see she's only doing for others. All she gives herself is pressure. So they give her the gift of rediscovering her physical beauty with a smoky eye kit from Chanel and the 24k Gald Mask from Peter Thomas Roth."I know this is a super long quote, almost needlessly long but I appreciate the idea of personification of inanimate objects to create a bond. With a persona, and a backstory the story flows easier too. While Norma belongs to the second window Stella works on her first window has something of a story too. She knows who she wants to sell to, that is essentially what all this boils down to. It is a great point to include in a fiction piece. (Stella and Jordyn)

"I swear. Roll your eyes one more time. I never loved that clown like I love your crabby ass. But we lived in the same house and you hadn't spoken to me in nine months. Nine. Not a bless you or a how's it hanging." There's a grunt in the background. "I'm crazy about you. But I'll still carve out your eyeballs." Grunt. This one more affectionate. — This is Edna, her husband Hank and their all-but son Aiden. The whole conversation this comes from, which includes Aiden saying Edna would love Stella, is just fantastic. (Aiden, spoken is Aunt Edna)

🍿In honour of Leland. I was right there with him. 🔥

I love the cover choice. The import of it isn't truly understood until right at the very end. Essentially it isn't as simple as seems.

[deerydear]

Early after the stage where I was trying to "accept my detransition" and my lack of trans identity.... I came across this website, and this essay:

I see at least 1 Tr*nny friend a year stomp on the brakes and bail out and switch back to assigned gender. Its a pretty brave and heavy thing to do cuz if you detransition then you run the risk of looking like a flake weak quitter. Worse though is that people who really are so fucked up and crazy that they cant quit and have to stay in this no matter how awful it gets, well sometimes I envy a detransitioner. Sometimes i feel like I'm an idiot sick-o for putting myself through years of hell, mangling relationships with other people, getting awkwarded and even shunned for being a weird monster at the dinner table, and once again if only I'd just been a fag all these years I'd have boyfriends out my ass by now. Literally.

In the particular trans community groups I lurked around, some people supported this weird 'dichotomy' of Cis versus Trans.

As if I couldn't relate the them if I didn't take hormones like they did. As if I was 'less than'..... or whatever. I think it was my own emotional perception that really fucked me, also.

I felt like I needed to prove my masculinity, prove how tough and macho and killer I am. I'm a big man. I have that psycho-complex that some people conceptualize as "a man's problem, gained from male socialization", but the truth us that we are all individual humans and we all can choose the life we want. We can choose to emphasize the traits we like or don't like.

Before I found the trans groups, I found the tumblr feminist groups where they would do all this speculation of "men's problems" and "women's problems". Some people wrote as if they thought neither group understood eachother, at all. As if we were not actual humans, but just concepts.... just puppets. Look outside your own perception. Do not let your mind atrophy, supported by the weight of your own fairytales. Always be looking, learning, watching, understanding.

but again, it was my own problem. My own question of free will.

"Just because these particular people choose to live a certain way, Do I choose to, as well?"

"Well, what if they say that they believe they are 'the most 'revolutionary' or 'radical'? That's their own perception, of course!

We must always strive to see something new, to learn something fresh, which nourishes us..."

"Well, what of the old Villain in your story? The cackling Witch. The gloomy Devil in that tower.... Do you forgive them?"

"What does 'forgive' mean?"

...."What if you could save them?

What if you had met them, earlier in their lives, at a point where the seed of cruelty was still a sapling in their heart, not yet taken root... Would you help them? Would you stop them with compassion? Compassion saves lives. I know.

The only reason I turned around on the bloody trail was a girl's brave compassion. She treated me as an equal, even as I had glared at her... I had created a fiction in my head, with a bunch of stock characters. Real people only loosely fit into these costumes, but it was like a barrier between me and the world.... so that I didn't have to feel it for what it was. Safe in my delusion, but not really safe.... because when I turned around, the murderer was standing right there.

The woman I met had been kind to me. She showed me that the World has Kindness in it.

It is not teeming with venom, poised to attack at every turn.

Yes, there are killers.... but there is true love."

Perhaps it is just the process of destroying the Ego, once again. You say, "I want to be a kind person", and then an evil wretch shows up at your doorstep with every intent of seizing upon you.

You realize you can't be a stock-character from a fairytale. You have to respond to the world as if it is Real... because it is.

i can only write, here, but you have to think. You decide for yourself what to do.

[deuterosapiens]

It occurs to me that June is almost over, and July is about to begin. Pride Month is gone, the way of the Dodo, and I haven't said anything about it, talked about it. Feels like I should, though I couldn't really think of anything to say that was worth saying.

It's weird to me. I don't have the sort of history that's grief-wrought. I don't have the pain or the experiences that others have, nor a story that's courageous or inspirational. I mean, I have a history of emotional abuse from my father, but that's got nothing to do with me being gay. He more-or-less stopped after I came out (probably realized that disowing his gay son would inherently make him look terrible or something, I don't know).

So. What's there to say?

I consider myself to be a homosexual. I went through various mental processes that resulted in that conclusion because simply calling yourself "gay" isn't exactly a thing that one should do in my part of the world (though I suppose it's quite a bit better for me than for many, many others). In the single digits, I didn't think about girls. In the early doubles, I still didn't. 'Sure, bisexual then,' I would think when I thought about it at all. Then on-line I discovered the word demisexual and felt like that was as good an identity as any. Not really. Call a rabbit a rabbit. "You are GAY." Nothing fancy or complicated.

Waited until I left for University though to start actually exploring that in finer detail. Had a boyfriend then, not just a crush whom I would think of randomly at night but never bother to talk to. Had the humorous revelation later that some of those guys I'd think about were varying degrees of LGBTQ+, but that's them, and they moved on and away, and really so did I. That first-year boyfriend and I broke up, I was devastated. Mind snapped and I kind of went crazy.

The road to recovering my sanity from that break-up was paved with poor decisions and some, shall we say, a somewhat lax set of personal standards regarding preferences for partners. Discovered the Lars von Trier film Nymphomaniac (not strictly relevant to this story, just felt like dropping it in). Got back to square one with myself though, which was not just good, but good enough.

Rimshot.

At work I'm something of a punchline. I make and take jokes at my expense. I'm the brooding gay with the all græy wardrobe, and the obsession with jackets in the summer. I'm also heat-proof, reasonably so.

Flash-forward to this year, I guess. Two very specific, unrelated events, lead me to question if my assumptions about myself were, strictly speaking, as true as I thought they were. I'd given no thought to myself as a cis-male, for the same reason I don't exactly think too much of myself as a gay-male. The idea of that simply not being the case never occurred to me. Then, during a conversation with a coworker, they revealed that they'd spent the entire time thinking I was non-binary. Which again, never really came up as a consideration of mine.

So suddenly that question was in the back of mind. Then, after reading Redfern Jon Barrett's Proud Pink Sky, the question came up again, this time digging into me. Like a Cenobite's meathooks digging into the mental flesh of my understanding of my own gender expression and presentation.

I'm still not entirely certain where I've landed myself on that. Am I non-binary? Am I something that lies outside that spectrum? I don't have an answer. I don't really believe in binary dichotomies as a part of our natural world anyway. Even something as simple as day and night has dawn, dusk, evening. The afterlight. Not so binary at all, when examined closely.

For the time being, I continue to view myself as male, for simplicity, and because I have simply not explored this whole world of potentiality in its entirety. I'm still looking to understand, in its entirety, what I am with regards to myself.

Not a very good conclusion, I suppose, but that's an ongoing thing. I've got a thing for Labyrinths, and I guess it's fitting that my late night introspection should lead me into one. What can I say, I'm just a humble gargoyle.

So, nothing important to say that hasn't been said a thousand times a thousand times, and by a million times a million people who are far more equipped to tell it.

For a long time, I had a difficult time loving, or even liking, myself. I'm getting better at that. Kind of. Being something else besides the thing I am at work, at home, in my day to day life, something entirely separate of that person-suit, has helped.

The beauty of anonymity: I'm more myself than I am when I'm myself.