#i understand that not everyone subscribes to that meaning; but denying it exists is harmful

[iwaasfairy]

i dont think we should use loli as a body type description tho😭 it is strictly used for 15 and below girls, whether slutty or curvy. i know we’re just here for shits and giggles but im personally a strict pizzagate follower and all the child sexualization in media seems a bit too intentional and i’d like to stop it if i can… please stay safe everyone! <3

i'm not having a discussion about this on my own dark content blog. I am a loli, i'll continue to refer to myself and others as lolis, and if you genuinely think that I mean anything else by it then you should unfollow me. This isn't the blog for you.

Loli is absolutely a word for a body type + personality/fashion sense. Pretending like it doesn't, or hasn't, commonly been used for that is silly and does so much more harm than good. Me calling myself a loli isn't child sexualization.

Urbandic definition below. This is all I'll say about it.

[itsclydebitches]

I keep seeing people calling Good Omens queer bating and a I can't help but ask why? I read the Aziraphale/Crowley relationship threw an Ace lens and they are clearly as close to married as they are probably going to get without stepping on holy ground.... and they love each other... why is it considered queer bating?

Personally, I think it's mostly young queer fans turning legitimate grievances on the wrong target. A case of getting so fed up with queerbaiting in media as a whole that they're instinctually lashing out at anything that seems to resembles it on the surface, without taking the time to consider whether this is, in fact, the thing they're mad at. Good Omens is a scapegoat, if you will. The equivalent of snapping at your partner after a long day. Your friend was an asshole, your boss was an asshole, the guy in traffic was an asshole, and then you come home to your partner who says something teasing and you take it as another asshole comment because you've just been surrounded by assholeness all day, to the point where your brain is primed to see an attack. Your partner wasn't actually an asshole, but by this point you're (understandably) too on guard to realize that. Unless someone sits you down and kindly reminds you of the difference between playful teasing and a legitimate insult - the nuance, if you will - your hackles are just gonna stay up and you'll leave the room, off to phone a different friend to tell them all about how your partner was definitely an asshole to you.

Only in this case, that "friend" is a fan on social media doing think pieces on the supposed queerbaiting of Good Omens, spreading that idea to a) people who aren't familiar with the show themselves and b) those who, like that original fan, have come to expect queerbaiting and thus aren't inclined to question the latest story with that mark leveled against it. Because on the surface Good Omens can look a lot like queerbaiting. Here are two queer coded characters who clearly love each other, but don't say "I love you," don't kiss, don't "prove" that love in a particular way. So Gaiman is just leading everyone on, right?

Well... no. This is where the nuance comes in, the thing that many fans aren't interested in grappling with (because, like it or not, media is not made up of black and white categories; queerbaited and not-queerbaited. Supernatural's finale is proof enough of that...) I won't delve into the most detailed explanation here, but suffice to say:

Gaiman has straight up said it's a love story. He's just not giving them concrete labels like "gay" or "bi" or "asexual," etc. because they are literally not human. Gaiman has subscribed to an inclusive viewpoint in an era where fans are desperate for unambiguous rep that homophobes cannot possibly deny. The freedom to prioritize any interpretation - yes, including a "just friends" interpretation - now, in 2021, feels like a cop-out. However, in this case it's an act of world building (they are an angel and a demon, not bound by human understanding of identity) meeting a genuine desire to make these characters relatable to the entire queer community, not just particular subsets. Gaiman has said they can be whatever we want because the gender, sexuality, and romantic attraction of an angel and a demon is totally up for debate! However, some fans have interpreted that as a dismissal of canonical queerness; the idea that fans can pretend they're whatever they want... but it's definitely not canon. It is though. Them being queer is 100% canon, it's just up to us to decide what kind of queer they are. This isn't Gaiman stringing audiences along, it's him opening the relationship up to all queer possibilities.

We know he's not stringing us along (queerbaiting) because up until just a few days ago season two didn't exist. Queerbaiting is a deliberate strategy to maintain an audience. A miniseries does not need to maintain its audience. You binge it in one go and you're done, no coming back next year required. The announcement for season two doesn't erase that context for season one. No one knew there would be more content and thus the idea that they would implement a strategy designed to keep viewers hooked due to the hope for a queer relationship (with no intent to follow through) is... silly.

In addition, this interpretive, queer relationship between Crowley and Aziraphale existed in the book thirty years ago. Many fans are not considering the difference between creating a totally new story in 2019 and faithfully adapting a story from 1990 in 2019. Good Omens as representation meant something very different back then and that absolutely impacts how we see its adaptation onto the small screen. To put this into perspective, Rowling made HUGE waves when she revealed that she "thought of" Dumbledore as gay in an interview... in 2007. Compare that to the intense coding 17 years before. Gaiman was - and still is - pushing boundaries.

Which includes being an established ally, particularly in his comics. Queerbaiting isn't just the act of a single work, but the way an author approaches their work. Gaiman does not (to my knowledge) have that mark against him and even if he did, he's done enough other work to offset that.

Finally, we've got other, practical issues like: how do you represent asexuality on the screen? How do you show an absence of something? Yeah, one or both of them could claim that label in the show, outright saying, "I'm asexual," but again, Gaimain isn't looking to box his mythological figures into a single identity. So if we want that rep... we have to grapple with the fact that this is one option for what it looks like.

Even if he did want to narrow the representation down to just a few identities for the show, should Gaiman really be making those major changes when he's only one half of the author team? Pratchett has, sadly, passed on and thus obviously has no say in whether his characters undergo such revisions. Even if fans hate every other argument, they should understand that, out of respect, Good Omens is going to largely remain the same story it was 30 years ago.

And those 6,000 years are just the beginning! Again, this was meant to be a miniseries of a single novel, a novel that, crucially, covered only Crowley and Aziraphale's triumph in being able to love one another freely. That's a part of their personal journey. Yeah, they've been together in one sense for 6,000 years, but that was always with hell and heaven on their backs, to say nothing of the slow-burn approach towards acknowledging that love, for Aziraphale in particular. We end the story at the start of their new relationship, one that is more free and open than it ever was before. They can be anything to one another now! The fact that we don't see that isn't a deliberate attempt on the author's part to deny us that representation, but only a result of the story ending.

So yeah, there's a lot to consider and, frankly, I don't think those fans are considering it. Which on a purely emotional level I can understand. I'm pissed about queerbaiting too and the knee-jerk desire to reject anything that doesn't meet a specific standard is understandable. But understandable doesn't mean we don't have to work against that instinct because doing otherwise is harmful in the long run. We need to consider when stories were published and what representation meant back then. We need to consider how we adapt those stories for a modern audience. We need to acknowledge that if we want the inclusivity that "queer" provides us, that includes getting characters whose identity is not strictly defined by the author as well as characters with overtly canonical labels. We need both. We likewise need to be careful about when having higher standards ends up hurting the wrong authors - who are our imperfect allies vs. those straight up unwilling to embrace our community at all? And most importantly, we have to think about how we're using the terms we've developed to discuss these issues. Queerbaiting means something specific and applying it to Good Omens not only does Good Omens a disservice, but it undermines the intended meaning of "queerbaiting," making it harder to use correctly in the future. Good Omens is not queerbaiting and trying to claim it is only hurts the community those fans are speaking up for.

[ugh-fml]

Micro-labels, enby lesbians, and many more hot takes on the lgbtq community.

Hi, uhm I kinda have a platform here? I mean, I used to when I posted a shit ton of Zim shit—

But let me just jump into this discussion rq:

I don’t really subscribe to the whole “everyone is valid” in the lgbtq community thing, and here’s why: that ideology leaves it open for “super-straight” and “m*ps” to be supported and feel like they’re allowed to join our community. And if you have a problem with that alone, I really don’t get why you would allow p*dophiles and straight people wanting to feel special :/

Another thing that this ideology has allowed is the widespread usage of micro-labels. I don’t necessarily have an issue with the actual people using them, I’m sure they’re all very lovely people, I just think it’s very excessive to call yourself labels that virtually no one uses. And here’s why:

1. You’ll have to CONSTANTLY explain yourself because your identity is hyper-unique. This is also true WITHIN the community!! (coming from someone who used to use micro-labels)

2. There are already better labels to use out there:

For example, here’s what I used to identify as BEFORE I realized I was a lesbian:

Bisexual, but, asexual and romantic attraction towards men.

And for reference here’s my label now:

Lesbian.

See how much better that is?

Micro-labels illustrate confusion (and this is why they feel relatable and very applicable to yourself!) and prevent you from actually exploring yourself further and finding a label that suits you best.

Anyways, now that I explained why I don’t necessarily like the valid ideology and micro-labeling, let’s jump into why I dislike non-binary lesbians as a LABEL.

A. It’s contradictory.

A lesbian is women solely loving women, and since enbies are not women, this label doesn’t apply to them. Using the GENDERED label lesbian to describe yourself just doesn’t make any sense because, y’all have been saying that you don’t feel connected to womanhood and don’t feel totally or at all a woman. So then, from my understanding you shouldn’t feel comfortable using the label at all?

B. Lesbians really don’t like when you use that term... I think this one’s self explanatory.

C. The stripes in the lesbian flag are supposed to include TRANS women who are Lesbians, not non-binaries. Especially the ones that don’t identify with being a women at all...

D. This is super harmful to lesbians as well because we are constantly denied our own sexuality time and time again... this term isn’t for you if you aren’t a woman who solely loves women, it’s not saying you aren’t valid in your feelings, it’s literally just common sense.

E. There are already other labels that exist to describe your experience. Queer is perfect to describe that, although I know some people aren’t comfortable identifying with the term at all, there are still other options! (I feel like that part is up to you)

I know it’s strange because y’all have nothing to call yourselves from the get go, but I really do think this is the part where y’all can split off from using the term lesbian. I’m ready to be supportive of whatever y’all decide calling yourselves because I do see the issues y’all face as a double minority.

I’m not trying to be an asshole telling y’all what to do, but then again, I’m very tired of waking up and being told by someone I don’t know that all lesbians are ok with them using the term.

And it’s getting to be too much.

So what can we do about this?

1. Start educating others on why this is harmful to lesbians in general

2. Try to build your identity of something that suits your gender identity more.

I hope that made sense!! Thank you for reading I guess and any type of discussion is open!

****edit: removed the word feminine because not all women are feminine (love you butches and tomboys <3)

[thewatsonbeekeepers]

Chapter 10 – Oh No Love, You’re Not Alone [TLD 2/2]

[A line from Rock’n’Roll Suicide, which titles the previous chapter – listen here! X Possibly Bowie’s best song.]

This chapter aims to break down the infamous hug scene step by step – I couldn’t handle this scene for a long time, Mary and Irene seriously breaking with the otherwise reasonably coherent series, but I have a reading. This reading is complicated in that it relies – like this whole meta series – on every character in the scene being a part of Sherlock. This is obviously sad because it means that our boys don’t come together in one of the only moments of physical affection they’ve been allowed in the last ten years, but bear with it. There are three important symbols we need to know going into this scene: our three main characters. The grounding of this meta series is that, within the EMP, Sherlock is our eyes, the part of his brain that is consciously navigating the subconscious and trying to make sense of it. John represents his heart, normally in antithesis with Mycroft as the brain, but in TLD really taking centre stage himself. To get a handle on Mary, I refer you back to my TST metas [XX]; TLDR, at the end of TST Sherlock stages Mary’s assassination attempt on himself via Norbury, only to replace himself with Mary at the last second because he cannot cope with the implication that it is the loss of him that has made John suicidal. To be colloquial, then, Mary is comphet – which is essentially her function in every Sherlock Holmes adaptation anyway, but you know. Thinking about Mary in terms of comphet is useful particularly in terms of her obsession with Sherlock wearing the hat which dogs the end of this episode, and which for many spoiled this scene the first time around (i.e. me). Wearing the hat is a euphemism in tjlc for masking one’s sexuality, drawing on the Victorian phrase ‘a hat of someone else’s choosing’ X – Sherlock’s throwing off of the hat was so momentous in TAB that many of us were reluctant to see it brought up again. However, this all makes sense.

Before we take this scene from the top, I feel the need to say that someone has brought me tea in a glass, by pure coincidence. I feel this is a good omen.

The scene opens talking about Eurus!Faith, and one of the first possibilities touted is that Sherlock made up a dream woman who gave him all the info he needed. Not subtle – although Eurus has other purposes in the narrative which become very important, she does also kick the narrative along quite nicely here. However, as mentioned in the previous chapter, she’s not the only character who does – think of the random comments that allow Sherlock to piece together ‘everyone’, despite having nothing to do with the case. So what our boys are saying about Eurus!Faith, if we think about it in the context of the episode, instead of just her, points to the artificiality that is casting such a massive shadow right now. John’s ‘magic dream woman’ comment comes straight after Sherlock talking about being able to predict anything – undermining the entire basis of the episode as magic and dreamlike, so we know where we stand. Sherlock is only experiencing all of this semi-lucidly – kind of like TAB – so it’s up to his heart to try to get him to twig it I suppose.

Sherlock then suggests that Eurus!Faith was a hallucination brought on by drugs, in keeping with the theme of the episode, but also with our own themes. Drugs are used to cover up one’s true sexuality, and Eurus up until this point has only been used in her various disguises to veil Sherlock’s desires as heterosexual, so in that sense she is linked to the mirage that drugs can cause. Heart!John’s response is to keep Sherlock off the ‘sweeties’, which is a good sign for us – the more we fixate on the sober region of Sherlock’s brain, the more we’re in the place where he can’t hide from who he is, and his heart is pushing him there.

It seems that comphet!Mary is the one pushing Sherlock to talk to his heart here, which might raise questions, but as we’ll see one of the first things she tells heart!John to do is to ‘make him wear the hat’ – everything she says is fitting in with the paradigm of Sherlock Holmes that the heart cannot cope with and needs to leave behind. Mary also suggests that Sherlock should wear the hat to her as a tribute, because she’s dead. I like to read this as the weird sense that we should be respectful of old classics, as though queering them is somehow disrespectful – this gets thrown up a lot in relation to Sherlock Holmes. One time it really got thrown up though was in the making of TPLoSH – the reason it’s not more explicit is because the Conan Doyle estate didn’t want Wilder to damage ACD’s legacy. The necessity for comphet of the Victorian era is dead and gone, but we still consistently pay tribute to it in our culture.

Sherlock keeps mentioning Culverton’s confessions, which we’ve talked about in the last chapter – but in this world of mirrors, he’s unable to map them onto himself perfectly yet. It’s the same thing as Eurus heterosexualising his interactions – we’re working in a world of mirrors and proxies, because the reality of queerness is so off limits in his mind.

Then we get the text alert. Irene Adler has long been established within the mind palace as a symbol of Sherlock’s sexual desire. So, at the end of this, as Sherlock is about to neglect his heart and let it descend out of Baker Street, we get this sudden cry of sexuality – and the heart turns back. Comphet!Mary, through the hat linked to conventional storytelling metatextually propelling Sherlock’s comphet well into the 21st century, immediately jumps to the conclusion that Sherlock loves Irene Adler. There are several reasons why this is absolutely wrong. Firstly, we are dealing entirely in symbolic people here, so why Irene would suddenly be a real person instead of a metaphor is tonally dubious. Secondly, Irene is a long established metaphor for sexuality anyway. But thirdly, and most importantly – this scene, which revolves around the Irene Adler text alert, is the beating heart of the episode and arguably the entire series. For Irene Adler to be referenced once more in the series, in a minor line, suggests that she is not the actual focus. It’s about what’s going on within Sherlock.

[A side note: Mary’s exposition in this scene makes me cringe – I hope I’m not the only one? But if you will set up a complex network of metaphors and then leave several years between series, maybe you need that.]

John then deduces that it’s Sherlock’s birthday – again, reasonably unbelievable that he wouldn’t know this, given that Mummy and Daddy Holmes would definitely have made a big deal of it. It’s difficult to know for sure what the birthday symbolises, but John saying he has always wanted to know it might make us remember Sherlock actually seeking out John’s birth certificate to find the name Hamish on it. This meta [X] explains why this represents hiding a part of ourselves that is essential – i.e., from birth – which would fit the concept of the birthday. However, this may be tenuous.

Heart!John’s outburst at the discovery of Sherlock’s sexual desire – not necessarily how it is directed, but that it exists – is basically: well, what do you do about it? Why don’t I know about this? It is incredible that Sherlock has managed to compartmentalise this from his heart for so long, but that’s the pro of having an incredibly intricate mind palace I suppose. The Harvester in High Wycombe situation is sex without strings attached – I think the veiled suggestion here is masturbation, because Sherlock has refused the heart any involvement in it, but Sherlock denies the suggestion. The level at which heart!John is losing it is desperate, and the idea that ‘High Wycombe is better than you are currently equipped to understand’ suggests an affection starvation of epic proportions. I had problems with John’s claim that romantic entanglement would complete Sherlock as a human being (Sherlock being ace is a common reading, often touted by the writers themselves, and whilst I don’t subscribe to the theory such a statement plays into a pretty harmful narrative about ace people). The line is still dubious when said by heart!John because of the wider narrative it plays into, but spoken by Sherlock’s heart to himself does suggest that Sherlock’s denial of his sexuality has been crippling him.

The idea that comphet!Mary sent heart!John back to Sherlock is a difficult one – there are two warring versions of Sherlock’s heart here, and comphet!Mary’s idea of heterosexuality (posh boy and dominatrix, even whilst metatextually acknowledging that it’s a boring cliché) does require the unity of Sherlock and his heart, just in a way that isn’t possible. However, another possible reading about letting Sherlock die without comphet!Mary might take us back to TST – the hypothesis assassination when comphet!Mary took the bullet for Sherlock at the last second admittedly slowed down Sherlock’s analytical processes, but it’s quite possible that his heart wasn’t ready for it, that the heart wouldn’t have let him realise it and Sherlock would actually have died in the mind palace. His heart was too afraid to show up – which, true or not, is echoed in the idea that heart!John wasn’t there when Sherlock/Mary were shot by Norbury, but attending to heteronormative domesticity (sorry Rosie). It’s also devastating that the heart wants to be the Sherlock Holmes of the stories still – and we’re breaking through, but it’s TFP which will finally push through that, not this scene.

Heart!John’s admission of cheating here is vital. Eurus as mirror for John has long been discussed, and as we’ve seen in a previous chapter (X) she takes on a female form to give Sherlock’s desires an acceptable outlet – but here we have an acknowledgement from heart!John that he betrayed comphet!Mary in his texting of Eurus. The texting is made to parallel Sherlock’s own engagement with his sexuality in terms of Irene – he’s later revealed to have texted her too. Whether that just suggests merely thoughts or masturbation (or something else?) I don’t know, but the parallel suggests that such engagement with his sexuality is the same as heart!John’s covert engagement with gay trauma Eurus – in other word, both romantic and sexual illicit desires have been acknowledged, and have existed simultaneously though compartmentalised. We can see the paralleling of heart!John’s romantic desires with Sherlock’s sexual desires in moments like when heart!John admits that he still wants more – the camera focuses on Sherlock, who looks at heart!John like a moment of realisation (possibly because he’s recognising the form his heart has taken – that’s the headcanon).

But this is not a happy scene. Heart!John declares that he has never been capable of comphet, but that he wants it, and comphet!Mary tells him to get the hell on with it – taking special emphasis to call him John Watson. There’s no Hamish here, which in a conversation begun on birthdays might make us worry, but crucially calling him John Watson rather than John is a link back to the original stories, when we know that using just first names is a big indicator of the modernity (read queerness) of the adaptation, not least in the EMP (see TAB). Comphet!Mary’s heterosexual compulsion is thus still going strong based on the historical stories. And what’s sad here is that the impulses are acknowledged! Sherlock not only acknowledges his sexual desire but even that he acts on it (the texts), and heart!John acknowledges his romantic attraction, and where they had been compartmentalised the hug as a moment of unity tells us that Sherlock has joined those dots, acknowledges his existence as a romantic and sexual being. And then – he puts the hat on, he still needs a high of some description to cope with his birthday. I believe that Sherlock’s acknowledgement of Mary’s ghost at the end, previously visible only to John, is a new recognition of the compulsory heterosexuality that his heart has been grappling with – but he puts on that hat in order to capitulate to it. (Never fear, the hat is coming off later).

The hat wearing comes in a separate scene, in terms of framing, to the official hug scene, although logically they must happen within 20 minutes of each other in the same room. [I am resisting the urge to make a crack joke about what happened in the interim. I’m sure there’s something on AO3 about it.] It’s a horrible addendum, because heart!John has just confessed his biggest secret, and Sherlock acknowledges it – but then immediately downplays it. Just texting. In superficial terms, this downplaying is personally not what I would want from a friend – in metaphorical terms, it’s deadly. It’s a subtle undermining of the entire previous scene. We can see that the wall hasn’t been broken through, that he’s still chickened at the last second (much like at the end of TST) in other ways – he still has the appearance of drugged Sherlock, in particular the facial hair, which is used to reference bearding typically in the show. I also maintain – though others may take issue with this – that Cumberbatch’s gait changes when he plays a high Sherlock, and although ostensibly not high here that slightly clumsy gait remains the same. It is not a good vibe. And then, the final shot of this scene isn’t one of acceptance or closure. After Sherlock acknowledges Mary’s presence, the look on Martin Freeman’s face is one of quiet but terrible sadness, as well as anxiety.

A final thought before I leave this scene, having discussed what happens at the end of TLD in a different chapter – it’s worth noting that Sherlock has a mug of an unspecified hot drink throughout this scene, but it’s left ambiguous whether it’s coffee or tea. (Yes, it could be something else, but given the heavy focus on coffee and tea earlier in the episode, along with the pre-established drinks code, we can assume.) This ambiguity, I think, is deliberate – it allows Sherlock to acknowledge desire but still mask it through vagueness and ambiguity. It’s a way of lying to himself – and goodness knows we’re all capable of that, and can probably see how such a fudge might apply to a mental analysis of such a situation. I’d love to hear others’ thoughts on this scene though – do let me know! Until next time.

[mueritos]

You know not all transmeds are bad people, right? Yes you may not agree with their ideologies, but not all of them are like Blaire or Kalvin. Not all of them push their thoughts onto others or ignore a person's pronouns simply because they don't agree. They still try to be polite. At the end of the day, you're generalizing them, just as some transmeds tend to do as well.

I’ve had this ask in a while now and at first I was mulling over it and now I just look back and laugh. This is the equivalent of Trump saying “there are good people on both sides.” Here’s the thing: I recognize that on each side of an issue the people that comprise them are individuals. What I don’t recognize is the fact that the ones with harmful rhetoric are excused for not being as open or as assertive about it as others in their community. This lengthy so I will insert a read more. Not proof reading this so if there's spelling mistakes just get over it.

There is a spectrum to bigotry from violent and genocidal fascists to white women who clutch their purse just a little bit more tightly once a brown man enters the elevator with her; the point is is that it’s still bigotry. Here's the amazing thing about bigotry: we all perpetuate it. Yes, that means even the largest of saints are still capable of backwards thought. That’s quite clearly the point. For example, its not enough to say you’re not racist, no, because saying that gives a person enough feelings of validation to feel like they don’t have to examine their own internalized thoughts/feelings/ideas. What SHOULD be hailed as correct is to say you are ANTI-racist. The addition of the word ANTI signals two things: 1, you are AGAINST racism, and 2, you are working to be AGAINST racism. This includes keeping up with current events, listening to others’ experiences, learning when to be quiet, etc.

So how does this relate to the idea that all transmeds are transphobes? Well, we’ve already established that everyone is and are capable of bigotry on various levels. I feel I’ve already explained why transmed ideology is already transphobic before, but just to summarize why I personally do not subscribe to it: I refuse to partake in neocolonialism. Transmed ideology is a direct erasure of indigenous trans and gender variant identities/peoples by the assumption that trans or gender variant identities are rooted in medical diagnosis/treatment, and also by the assumption that gender dysphoria is a byproduct of transness when really its a byproduct of a Eurocentric society. Essentially, colonization sucks and is the reason why trans identities are so controversial in the first place (literally one of the first things that Christopher Columbus did when he set foot in America was round up all of the Two-Spirit people and set his dogs on them).

Okay, so I said my opinion with a bunch of fancy words, so what? The issue here boils down to neocolonialism. What europeans did to America (yes America and not THE AMERICAS, people seem the forget that north and south american are literally ONE continent) is obviously still evident today. In other words, what colonization did to the world is still evident today, and I think it’s incredibly important to be aware of how it’s still being perpetuated today. Rigid ideas of gender are just not true and to think that they were always so is just so false...”It was something of a historic coup to enforce the notion of two fixed, idealized genders that we now consider natural. Speaking in strictly physical terms, many perfectly healthy people are born intersexed, with male and female physiological characteristics, showing that these categories exist on a fluid continuum” (Anarchy Works, Peter Gelderloos). I’m not sure if you can understand the GRAVITY of the quote above, but this is not just online discourse, my friend. Trans identities have always existed, you see this in native Two-Spirits and in los Muxes from Oaxaca, Mexico, and biological variation is a natural and healthy phenomena that occurs in ALL species (and in fact is necessary for species survival). Concepts and ideas of “otherness” originated from colonizers with fucked up religions and capitalist greed. When we refuse to accept experiences other than our own (non-dysphoric/poc gnc trans ppl/mogai), when we refuse to listen to science and history (biological variation, indigenous trans identities), when we refuse to own up to the fact that evidence and science changes (”gendered brains” has been disproven yet still heralded as evidence for transmeds, etc), we are not only denying our perceived reality, we are perpetuating centuries of violence. 

Do I believe all transmeds are bad people? No, and I never said that. I just said transmed is transphobic. I am someone who believes in change as I have seen it occur in people I never thought possible. My father called my uncle a f*ggot for marrying late and today he is unlearning the years of hate instilled in him by a society that teaches to oppress and colonize. My mother told me no one would ever see me as a man, and today she calls me her son. Their comments were bigoted, but they are working to not be so.  THAT is what matters. I let my thoughts and my ideas and my research be presented publicly in hopes that someone may question something they were taught to be true, or in hopes that someone may learn to understand others better, etc. I focus my efforts on those are trying to understand, not on the ones who are just “polite” and sit on the sidelines watching with disgust in their minds. You may not necessarily be a “bad” person for subscribing to transmed rhetoric, but one should not deny the fact that transmed rhetoric is transphobic/racist/colonialist. If you are not working to be against bigotry, you are part of the problem. Decolonize yourself.

I hope this cleared things up. If I have some information incorrect, pls let me know. If you also have additional information, please add! If you would like additional reading/viewing:

Anarchy Works:

 https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works (Ch 1. Human Nature)

Los Muxes:

 https://youtu.be/iiek6JxYJLs

https://theculturetrip.com/north-america/mexico/articles/a-brief-history-of-muxe-mexicos-third-gender/

Two-Spirit:

https://kitschmix.com/two-spirit-spiritual-concept-gender-native-tribes/

 https://www.ihs.gov/lgbt/health/twospirit/

http://plainshumanities.unl.edu/encyclopedia/doc/egp.gen.004

[kyojuuros]

“Love someone.”

One of the recurring themes in this manga, more prevalent during recent chapters now more than ever, is the reality that hatred only breeds more hatred and continues the cycle of violence, oppression and prejudice. 

Kruger was a man who was fueled by his hatred for Marley. He grew up only to find himself torturing, killing and titanizing other Eldians, all in the name of the eventual restoration of Eldia. He helped to condition Grisha, who was also fueled by his deep hatred for Marley, to believe that there was a chance to turn the tables and restore Eldia by overthrowing Marley. In the end, the only results either of these two bore was more death and hopelessness. Grisha realized he couldn’t even be a suitable husband and father. His hatred took over every facet of his life and it failed him in the end.

Kruger, in his final moments, tells Grisha to love someone. It didn’t matter who; his wife, his child, even just any random person. If he doesn’t learn to love - to truly love - history will only continue to repeat itself. He goes on to tell him that this is the only way to save Mikasa, Armin and the others. He must carry out his mission to the end. 

And I think it’s so important that we are shown several times during the Grisha files how Eren’s memories and actions have become intertwined with Grisha’s and Kruger’s. It’s almost like this is a three-way conversation without them even knowing it. 

Like his father and Kruger before him, Eren found himself fueled by hatred and revenge. It was the primary thing on his mind from the moment Armin showed him that book and he realized he wasn’t free-

- and it was only exacerbated when his hometown was destroyed and his mother was killed in front of his eyes. 

Early in the series we are introduced to Eren’s very black-and-white view of the world. Those who deny others their basic freedom are no better than animals, that they don’t matter, and Eren had no qualms in killing those men for what they did to Mikasa and her family. But, you see, his act of cruelty toward these “animals” was born from a place of care and concern for the life and freedom of an innocent girl he’d never met. And this act of cruelty led to one of the most beautiful acts of care in this series.

His actions saved a little girl from a life of enslavement. She said she was cold, and so he chose to give her warmth. When she tells Eren her feelings later in a moment of finality and hopelessness, he rejects their death and promises to give her this warmth and care as many times as she wants him to.

Eren loves her. 

He defied his superiors in an effort to save Armin’s life. He lamented that his own hatred was all that he had, and admired Armin still for having his innocent dreams to push him forward. He was desperate to not have to let Armin go if it was an option, and prioritized the ability for Armin to achieve his dream of seeing the ocean.

Eren loves him.

Even if it gets in the way of Eren being able to accomplish the change he wants to see, he is firm in that he will not sacrifice Historia’s life. He stays silent for as long as he can in order to protect her from a cruel fate, no matter if that hinders the ability for Eldia to move forward. 

Eren loves her. 

Eren as a character embodies the duality of the beauty and cruelty that all humans are capable of. Although he believes that he is fueled only by his hatred, I think that it is apparent he is fueled by his love for his friends. But I think what is ultimately going to define his character and the conclusion of his arc is whether he allows his love to grow and help shape the future into something better, or if he will allow his hatred to consume him and continue the cycle of destruction and oppression. 

As the central and title character of the series, I feel that the conclusion of his journey and his struggle will shape the overall theme and message of this series. Because of this, and because of the many times that hatred is declared as the reason progress and positive change is inhibited, I believe that ultimately the love between Eren and his friends will win out, preventing the future from cycling through the same negative actions over and over. Characters like Gabi and Falco will benefit from this as the next generation, and his friends will be able to find their own peace as a result of Eren’s actions, no matter how questionable they may be at the current moment. 

The only way he can save Mikasa and Armin is by carrying out his mission to the end.

His actions currently may be cruel, but all of the evidence points to the reality that his actions are all set in place as a means to an end to protect the people he loves dearly. This is what drives him more than anything.

The many questions floating around fandom right now is whether Eren intends to crush the world with the rumbling, whether he will sever the Eldians’ access to paths, whether he will sacrifice himself to save his friends, among many other ideas and theories. I have a theory - I think that it’s possible Eren did once consider using the full-scale rumbling, but has since changed his mind.

Eren admits himself that he once saw everyone across the ocean as his enemy. The world wants the island destroyed, and Grisha’s memories were filled with hatred from both Grisha and Marley. It was the only natural conclusion for Eren to come to. But when he crossed the ocean to meet his brother, he realized that it’s not that black and white. Not everyone is an enemy. People are the same no matter where you go. Good and bad people exist all over, and it isn’t something that is defined by one’s race or even their actions. He learns to understand that Reiner didn’t attack Shiganshina that day because he’s a bad person or a heartless murderer - he was a brainwashed child. 

Eren tells Reiner that they are the same. They’re pushed by their environment to act in cruel ways, as that’s the only way for them to move forward and pursue their goals. 

Eren’s enemies in Liberio were the Marleyan military and the War Hammer Titan. He lamented that civilians were going to get caught up in the attack. Much like how Kruger accepted participating in the cruel fate of several hundreds of Eldians in his belief he’s doing the right thing, much like how Grisha allowed himself to slaughter children in order to ensure that stealing the Founding Titan wasn’t for naught, Eren here has to accept the casualties in Liberio for the benefit of the many. He realizes the pain and sorrow he’s about to inflict, but as regrettable as it may be, he feels he has no choice if Eldia is ever to become free. It’s very reminiscent of real world war.

It’s hot hatred fueling his actions here anymore. His personal goal is to protect his friends from the fate of titan inheritance, to free Paradis from the thumb of oppression, and I’d even argue after having spent a lot of time in Liberio, he hopes to free all Eldians from the cruel fate of existing in a world that detests them. He must commit atrocities such as the attack in the internment zone in order to accomplish these goals. If the friends he loves so much are ever to be truly free, he must become a “bad person.” 

In Liberio, his mission is to bring Zeke back to the island and to find a way to stop this war before it can continue to take the life of his friends - in particular, before Historia has to be sacrificed to the curse of Ymir in order to maintain the dangerous deterrent that is the rumbling. 

The only way to truly save his friends, to save the Eldian race, is to eliminate the titans. Eren intends to do this, and he firmly says so. This is the main reason why I subscribe to the theory that Eren’s endgame is to sever the Eldian paths from his people so that they no longer can become titans. It is the only true way for him to save his friends and his race. Although the prejudice wouldn’t disappear overnight, it’s a step in the right direction. At least they can’t be turned into monsters anymore. At least titan inheritance will no longer continue. “Breeding and dying like livestock” will no longer be the way they have to live. 

His actions are born from a place of concern and care for his friends and fellow Eldians.

How would crushing the entire world with the colossal wall titans “put an end to 2000 years of history under titan rule?” It would only perpetuate it further. This is why I believe this won’t be, or can’t be, Eren’s ultimate endgame. It continues the cycle of death, despair, fear and hatred.

So if it turns out his goal is simply to rewrite Eldian DNA to sever the paths, and not something more destructive and harmful such as activating the rumbling and eliminating the rest of the world, why must he push his friends away? Why is he treating them so cruelly?

Well....

Time and time again, Eren’s trust in his loved ones and comrades has betrayed him. Someone always dies. The only times where he was able to save everyone was the times he allowed himself to believe in his own strength. 

He knows that Mikasa and Armin in particular would follow him into hell if he asked them to. But Sasha’s death only reaffirmed to Eren that when he chooses to rely on his friends he will end up losing someone. And ever since he almost lost Armin during the retaking of Wall Maria, Eren can’t bear the thought of losing any more of his loved ones. He chose to believe in them one last time and Sasha died as a result. And like every time before, he surely blames himself. It doesn’t matter how carefully he plans something out, miscalculations are bound to happen and he has no power over this. He harshly learns to understand this in Liberio.

He loves these people and he’s unwilling to sacrifice them. And he feels like he can’t even trust them to stay alive if they continue to follow him down his path.

So how do you get those who would follow you into hell to stay away? 

Hit them where it hurts. Don’t give them a reason to follow you anymore. Make them lose faith in you, make them question you, make them hate you, and they won’t die trying to protect you. 

Want to make extra sure that they stay out of the line of fire?

Although he is using cruel methods to push his friends away, the fact of the matter remains that he cares about them. He’s taken no pleasure in hurting them or jailing them. But to him it has become necessary in order to protect them. 

He loves them. It’s not about hating the enemy. It’s not about enacting revenge. It’s about protecting what he cares about, who he cares about, and ensuring them a future they can live freely in. Even if it means destroying himself and his ties to them in the process. 

Destroying the world for the sake of the island will not bring his friends peace and prosperity, and it will not ensure a positive future for Eldia or humanity. It’s not that simple. Not really. 

Love exists beyond the walls, where people are just people and not monsters trying to wipe out the island. Eren sees this through Falco more than anyone during his time on the continent. Falco is a kind young boy who’s actions are born from a place of love and care. Eren says that he would be happy if Falco could live a nice, long life. Something he’s also told his most precious friends. But... how would that ever happen if Eren let him die? 

I can’t say for sure whether Eren accepted Falco as a casualty in Liberio or if he simply trusted in Reiner to protect Falco from Eren’s transformation. But he understands that Falco is very similar to him in that his actions stem from him wanting to protect someone he loves, just as Eren’s are. And he connects with Falco over this. 

The way I see it, this story has gone from “who do you eliminate to ensure a better life for everyone” more to a “what do you eliminate to ensure a better life for everyone.”

A boy who killed grown men without any remorse in order to protect an innocent little girl is most definitely capable of growing up to become a man who destroys an entire world he dehumanizes the same way in order to protect those who are close to him. But the thing is, is that Eren doesn’t see the world the way he saw those traffickers and if his personal growth means anything, then he can’t go down the path of total destruction as a means to an end to save a few loved ones. It wouldn’t be right. It wouldn’t feel right to the themes of the story that have been presented. It wouldn’t feel right in the face of all of Eren’s character development.

If Eren, despite all he’s learned and how much he’s grown, has still resigned himself to believing that the path of destruction is the only way, he will have to be pulled out of this mentality before he can cause such a great deal of harm. Particularly if the message to this story is to have any positive meaning.

His coldness isn’t truly benefiting the island. The hatred that fuels the Yeagerists is a destructive force that is only causing divisiveness and more death. Zeke’s drive to euthanize Eldians, born from his self-hatred simply for being Eldian himself, has caused a great deal of pain and suffering among the Eldians on Paradis. And were his euthanasia plan to happen, it will only cause continued misery of the Eldian race as they all watch each other die off slowly with no hope for a future that they were denied. 

Hate is a destructive thing. But love? Trust? Kindness and understanding?

Love is a powerful thing.

If Gabi and Falco are meant to represent the future, then it becomes apparent that love is what will prevail and help to push Eldia, and humanity in general, forward in a positive direction.

Eren’s friends know that he loves them. If Mikasa didn’t still believe this somewhere deep down in her heart, she would have discarded that scarf with complete disdain, rather than folding it with care and placing it somewhere gently. Even if they cannot allow Eren to die because he holds the Founding Titan within him, none of them list this as the reason for going to help him in the battle. They all simply don’t want him to die, and they want to understand why he’s behaving this way. 

I strongly feel that Eren will come to realize that the love his friends have for him will prevail no matter how hard he tries to push them away. That relying solely on himself is a dangerous path that will lead to more harm than good. He shouldn’t hold the burden all on his own. It doesn’t matter how much he wants to protect them or whether he feels he can trust them not to die.

If any of Eren’s friends are to die in battle again while believing he hates them, I think he would regret that more than simply allowing them to put themselves in danger fighting alongside him. Believing in his own strength rather than the strength of his friends is bound to fail him eventually.

I’m not sure what’s going to happen next, or in what way Eren will have to come to this realization. But, I don’t know... revisiting this scene in the anime between Kruger and Grisha really moved me. As though it was truly a message for Eren. 

Don’t let hatred fuel your actions. Love someone. It doesn’t matter who. Let love fuel your actions and decisions.

It wasn’t Eren’s hatred for the Smiling Titan that drove him to punch its hand that day. It was his desire to save someone who he loves dearly. And in that moment, it saved everyone. 

It’s only through love that Eren will be able to save Eldia.

[whitehotharlots]

TERF war

I took feminist lit and theory courses as an undergraduate, in 2003 and 04. For the time, the courses were incredibly trans inclusive (bear in mind this was a year before Jon Stewart would dismiss Dennis Kucinich’s suggestion of appointing a trans SCOTUS justice, referring to the hypothetic appointee as “the honorable chick with dick”). A good 20% of the course was dedicated to reading books by and about trans people. We even got a visit from Leslie Feinberg—the person who literally coined the term transgender, and one of the kindest souls I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting.

The foundational, explicit understanding I was taught in these classes was that biological sex is innate, a fixed fact of a person’s bodily being, whereas gender is a fluid and malleable social construct. No one could have gotten through these classes thinking the opposite.

The utility of this understanding is easy to grasp: by denying the fixity of gender, feminists were able to undermine social and interpersonal structures that had traditionally denied women freedom, choice, dignity, and agency. A woman was not biologically destined to a life of domestic servitude; nor was she naturally inclined to be more submissive or deferential. Most germane to this discussion, this understanding validated the existence and experience of gender non-conforming lesbians: just because they were not traditionally feminine didn’t mean they weren’t women, or that they were in need of any fixing.

Very recently—within the last 5 or 6 years, as the abstract language of feminism has permeated the wider culture and gotten watered down for sake of digestibility—the poles have shifted. Now, we are told, it is actually gender which is fixed and innate, a metaphysical force lurking within us, suppressed by social pressures, unleashed gloriously with the aid of surgery and supplemental hormones. Biological sex, meanwhile, is a construct that doesn’t exist and shouldn’t even factor in to one’s analysis of gender relations. Sex is hereby an utter fabrication, a projection of the sick evils of normalized (cis male) consciousness engrained upon people’s erstwhile blank bodies.  Taken to extreme, we are told this therefore means trans women can get periods and that there is “literally zero” difference between trans and cis women. Ergo, having a uterus doesn’t make you a woman, biological or otherwise—it simply makes you a “uterus haver.”

The utility of this shift comes from the fact that trans self-actualization relies not just on social positioning but on bodily experience. Trans peoples’ mental wellbeing often hinges on their having access to the medical interventions required to get their body to conform to their innate sense of gender. Since we live in a country where few people have access to basic healthcare, trans people have had to medicalize their position—assert a fundamental and harmful mind/body disconnect—in order to have these interventions regarded as essential, rather than elective.  

So while it’s perfectly understandable and useful, this shift nonetheless represents a profound upending of decades of feminist thought, and I’m shocked that it doesn’t appear to have even been deliberated upon. It was asserted through tumblrs and tweets and everydayfeminism dot com posts, everyone kind of nodded their heads in agreement, and that has been that. For the most part.

Now, we might able to say that the reversal is simply academic: trans people and cis women each need to advance their respective theories of gender and sex to serve as the basis of political programs that might afford safety and respect to each group. There’s no need, necessarily, to concern ourselves too exclusively with the details. Consider a parallel: anyone who was actually involved in theoretical side of gay rights in the 70’s-90’s knows that saying gay people were “born gay” was not a universally agreed upon assertion. Many argued that this was essentially a reactionary frame which stigmatized homosexuality, making it seem like gays would have chosen to be straight if only their brains or genes hadn’t screwed things up. Eventually however, the “born this way” line prevailed, became mainstream, and was the basis of most of the gay rights campaigns of this century. Most of the people who disagreed with it on academic grounds still supported it, at least publicly, once they became aware of its political utility. Why can’t we do the same with today’s split conceptualizations of gender and sex?

Seriously, why can’t we?

The sex/gender-fluid/innate reversal came around the time when trans people started receiving their first regular, non-dismissive appearances in US media. This was the first time most people had been bothered to think seriously about gender, and the first time that the existence of trans people was admitted to as something that wasn’t freakish or a punchline. That’s a huge positive, obviously. And it happened with surprisingly little mainstream pushback (compare the responses to Laverne Cox’s appearance in Orange is the New Black with the intense outrage that accompanied Ellen Degeneres coming out just 15 years earlier—the difference is astounding).

This is where things get troublesome. Many established feminists, especially second wavers, were upset to see their life’s work upended in such a way. Some reacted horribly dismissively. Others wrote thoughtful, seemingly even-handed pieces that nonetheless seemed calculated to subtly dismiss the experiences of trans people, like by repeatedly misgendering trans authors. And still others respectfully expressed objections to or concerns with mainstream trans rights assertions. These writers tended to operate in either academic or upper-middlebrow spaces, and their prose is consequently calm, erudite, and often super dense. The rebuttals to these pieces came from places like jezebel, loveisarainbow dot com, or geocities.com/sunsetstrip/3765/madtransbitch. These pieces are easily digestible, frequently angry or even violent, and hyperbolic without exception, accusing the cis feminists of fomenting or even committing violence against trans people. In the court of woke public opinion, the second wavers did not stand a chance. They were accused—sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly—of abject hatred of trans people, blamed for suicides and murders, and grouped in with the racists and homophobes of yore. Within a very short period of time, those who haven’t learned to be quiet have been shunted away to the darkest academic backwaters (or they live in the UK, where university cultural studies is dominated by second wavers).

But, again, why not just be quiet? Honestly, that’s my preferred approach. Maybe it would be different if I had based an academic career on one assertion over another. But overall it seems like both groups should still be able to pursue their own political agendas on their own terms, so why bother discussing this contradiction? And just on a personal (that is, cowardly) note, I might not agree that biological sex is a construct, and I certainly don’t think gender is innate, but I also think trans people should have easy access to medical intervention, so why not let the inversion stand? 

But herein lies the problem: politically, the two groups are not separate. One of the most frequently levied criticisms against certain feminist authors and movements is a lack of trans-inclusivity. Pink pussy hats were verboten within hours of their debut. Colleges have cancelled productions of The Vagina Monologues (not because it’s overwrought treacle, but because it talks about vaginas, which makes it de facto transphobic). These incidents may seem trifling by themselves, but they serve as avatars of a very real and important conflict: cis feminists are being demanded to center their feminism in an understanding of sex and gender that directly contradicts the base of their ideology. Because of this, actions and symbols that were recently taken as signs of love and solidarity are now being cast as hate speech. Cis women are being told, literally, that they have no right to call themselves women (trans women are “women,” cis women are “menstruaters”). Cis lesbians are called homophobic for not being attracted to people with penises. In short, a trans movement that purports to dedicate itself to ensuring that its purveyors be given the right to be recognized by own their self-understanding is doing so by denying that same right to others.

The only possible result here is a complete collapse anything resembling a unified feminist movement. Meaning, I guess, that it fits in perfectly with the atomized understandings of social justice that stem from internet-based discourse. I suppose I could end with a plea for decency and understanding, perhaps even outline a alignment that would allow for trans advocates and cis feminists to recognize tactical points of departure from one another without fear of committing literal assault or denying the existence of one another. But we’re past that point, I think. There’s no more space for humane liberalism. Everything’s a knock-down, drag-out these days. We don’t even pretend to want to help one another.

Addendum:

People are raising the fair point that a vast majority of trans people don’t subscribe to the sort of wrecker beliefs I outline here. That is absolutely true and part of what makes the shittiness of online gender discourse so tragic. I did not mean to suggest that these beliefs are at all common among trans people. I intended to criticize only the shitty woke media apparatus (everydayfeminism et al) that occludes any attempt at effectively theorizing gender because it prioritizes hyperbolic victim mongering over achieving political goals.

[askanonbinary]

how do you feel about the xy xx stuff? like for me i like seperate gender identity and sex as different things, like i know i was born as one or the other but like my brain does not correlate with that like ya i get im a boy or a girl but i dont feel like one or the other i feel like both

Well, I mean. XY and XX are two of the common chromosome pairs you can end up with. I don’t think anybody is denying that. What I have heard said is:

Those aren’t the only possible chromosome pairs to end up with, and it’s disingenuous (and intersexist) to act like they are, especially from the medical community.

There are several ways in which someone may be born with chromosomes other than XX or XY and never even know it (or not know it until later in life), so there’s no reason to stress those combinations and only those combinations.

Your chromosomes do not determine your sex/gender. They determine your anatomy.

What I believe you’re actually asking is “do you subscribe to the belief that sex =/= gender?”

I will not speak for the other mods, but personally? Short answer: ultimately, no. Longer answer: I have a lot of conflicting thoughts. On one hand, our perception of gender is, no matter how much we try to detach, wrapped up in the cissexist/exorsexist gender binary that has been constructed. So, for many, the idea (or for them, fact) that sex =/= gender is an incredibly helpful explanation, especially in tackling and dealing with any physical dysphoria. Particularly for people who are not cis but still fall within the binary (although not just these folk), the sex =/= gender idea is a useful one to explaining and categorizing how they feel and how they know they are not cis. However, I also think that the claim sex =/= gender can be overall as harmful as it may be helpful. It can be a less helpful idea/concept/fact for nb/trans people with no dysphoria, nb/trans people with gender euphoria, nb/trans people who do not want to transition, or nb/trans people who prefer the idea/concept/fact that they are biologically whatever gender they are. I think it’s also harmful for its part in holding up the gender binary: specifically in the mutilation of intersex babies and mislabeling/misgendering trans/nonbinary folks for “official” purposes (specifically medical purposes).

Personally, I have a hard time reconciling myself with sex =/= gender because for me, sex = gender and I simply have the body I have.

tl;dr I’m not opposed to having the two camps (sex =/= gender AND sex = gender) coexisting, as both concepts are useful for different people. For me personally, sex is just a synonym for gender and my sex/gender has really nothing to do with my anatomy. I do not personally consider the dysphoria I’ve experienced in the past to be intricately connected with my gender, only my perception of my body (which is something I’ve struggled with even before I ever started questioning my gender). But my experience is not everyone’s experience.

I’m also going to go ask the other mods to chime in if they want, so you can get a robust answer to your question.

~ Mod Sock

I disagree that sex=gender, although I understand what you are saying. My sex, however, is not and will never be my gender, will never in any way be connected to my gender. I am not an intersex individual, this is actually something I have looked into when I first began struggling with my identity with the understanding that it is easy to not know that you are intersex early in life. Biologically, I fit every standard for what is considered female. Thats just how it is. 

Now, having said that, I am not female. Understand, I am a mentally ill individual who has a very weak grasp on reality- I do not experience delusions nor hallucinations, but my concept of “self” is so far removed from my body and even my experiences that to describe any portion of my identity as connected to my body would undermine the relationship I have with it- which is to say, none at all. My body is not me, my gender has always been an expression of my self, removed from my sex and removed from other’s perceptions of who I am based on my body, if that makes sense?

This is not the experience of every other nonbinary individual. However, neither is yours. A lesson we have been pushing here a lot is that there is no one way to be nopnbinary, and this is a great example of that. The concept of sex not equating to gender is not a belief that many subscribe to, but rather, a reality for a huge amount of nonbinary people. The idea of the gender binary, and its inherent relationship to the idea of a sex binary is incredibly harmful, yes. Medical focus should move beyond describing sex and more about describing specific anatomy, yes. But in discussions about identity, it is important to recognize that everyone lives with a very different view of reality; what is blue for some may be something else of others, yes? But that doesn’t make my blue any less blue than yours, it is just a different perception of it. This is my reality, and yours is yours, but something as incorporeal as gender should not be discussed in terms as how it exists to you, rather, as understanding how others exist to themselves.

(note to readers: both of us discussed this separately and edited our arguments to reflect our changes in thought process so if it looks like I’m responding to a different argument; whoops, my editing was not super effective)

-Kan

[wzpadgett-blog]

Class 10 - Miguel de Unamuno and Heidegger, Being and Time

Miguel de Unamuno

Miguel de Unamuno writes from Spain during a time of political and social turmoil. He writes about the foundation upon which morality is based, arguing that it is martyrs who make faith rather than the faith that makes martyrs. We may have been taught the lessons and values of our spirituality, but it is our own subjective lives that we use as a tool to best uphold this spirituality. We put the lens of our chosen dogma or worldview over our perception, making the world seem more comfortable and make more sense. It is the main reason to uphold our morality. We do what is good because we will be judged after this life by God. This is the fear that shaped Western morality, but the belief in God is not necessary to subscribe to and live by the values and ethics contained in Christianity. Unamuno writes that “if a man should tell you that he does not defraud or cuckold his best friend because he fears hellfire, you may depend on it that he would not do so even if he stopped believing in hell”. Fear of eternal damnation is a good excuse for good morals, but it is just that - an excuse. Our faith acts as a logical reason to uphold good behavior and morals, even in the face of the absurd and nothingness of death. Despite a lack of belief in the soul and life after death, we should “act so that in your own judgment and in the judgment of others you may deserve eternity”. Humans tend to want to do what’s good, and will therefore create whatever reason they need to validate acting that way. Unamuno writes that “it is not in his head but in his heart that the wicked man says there is no God” because it is natural to question or deny His existence using reason. The difference is that the wicked man believes in his heart that there is no God because he wishes to be able to act however he wants without judgment.

Heidegger - Being and Time

Heidegger’s Being and Time was difficult to read, but proved to be interesting once I had read over the sections a second time. His style of writing is very academic and analytic, making the reader feel they are reading a write-up on a scientific experiment rather than the ramblings of a philosopher. He was chiefly concerned with the meaning of the being within the being of being which analyzes the being of being… or just the nature of being in general. I found his ideas about the everyday being normally experienced by Da-sein to be very interesting. Despite Da-sein’s main goal as understanding being, it normally falls into a somewhat detached mode of being when confronted by the necessity of going through everyday tasks and life. At a certain point in the text, he ponders whether this mode of everyday being is authentic or inauthentic to the “I” Da-sein ascribes itself. I found myself grappling with this same question over the past few years. Are we our most authentic selves when we are alone and in self reflection, or when we are in action without reflection? Do our everyday activities cause us to be more genuine to ourselves? Or is it merely a cover up of “busyness” that distracts us from and distorts what we really are? Heidegger later goes on to write about the “them” in our world, and how we judge by how much we have in common by how much is different. Just as a brief observation, I felt this section of the text explains how we use our similarities with those around us as a way to judge ourselves and root out how we don’t fit in. He then writes about how we live in the world of the public, where all things like potential and individual success are leveled down. This section really clicked with me, as I’ve found myself questioning the negative impacts of “the public” on the individual (in my own thinking, it is usually my own self I think of). There is an attempt by the “them” to level everything down to averageness, to make everything easier and everyone happy. There is also a reluctance to talk about or allow anything that might cause fear of controversy. I’ve believed that while this incubation of human experience has definitely helped those who wish to plunge into the everyday and wait for death, it’s also been extremely harmful to human potential and progress. The public constantly judges and deems what is acceptable human behavior and thought, manipulating what progress has been made to sate the need for constant comfort while dragging each individual further from what they truly are. This only serves to replace someone’s own being with that of the crowd and to level them down past the point of intimidation or excellence.

[circularwastemememe-blog]

Resistance

Even I do feel relatively in peace, there are aspects of me that I truly need to re-examine. 

I ran into some obstacles. I gotta look into my soul and emotions to gain some insights.

I found my previous collaborator trolling me again, and that really annoys me. I try to find ways to make a difference to my circumstances but I feel truly frustrated as though the world is against me. 

My mom asked me to stop fighting back or announcing his wrongs in public. But I cannot go on letting others treat me as shits. This is unfair. I also hate the fact that my life is full of such type of drama to deal with. I stand alone because there seems to be no one to help me. Then I start to feel resentful. I begin to wonder who the fuck would wanna involve themselves in such world of mine - a world that is full of discrimination, fights, anger, failures, disappointments, and hard works. Then I begin to hate my body, my voice as though they are separate beings disconnected from my face. I won't say I'm going to break down but there is something wrong that needs to be fixed. How to find the problem? Go to find it in the worst matter that is highly likely to trigger you - watch Clara's new video. Gee, it sounds almost like a dark joke but I mean it. I had been filled with negative vibes towards this woman, who had been the source for a great many negative inspirations despite that it is hard to associate all this with her beautiful, flirtatiously pleasant face. 

I forced myself to be detached: If I did not have any bit of personal conversation, even just feeble connections, if she were truly a total stranger, if I did not know her life a bit, how would I feel about her video? I think I'd subscribe to her channel and leave her a positive comment full of appreciation and encouragement. And I'd share her video on Facebook posts and with some of my guy friends with my best wishes that she would get a substantial career with her lovely singing voice and her skillset on cinematography. Yes. That is me. I would be doing that as a pure good wish for a beautiful woman who gives me minutes of relief and aesthetic exaltation, which is sheerly impersonal. Even I don't know her, I wish her well. 

Then why I wouldn't since I did have some feeble interactions with her before? Because she manipulated me with her beauty and made me give her more values than she deserves in my life, all for her vanity. Because she knew what happened to me and chose not to say a thing to relieve me. She pretended to be a liberal-minded humanist but she ain't. What makes it worse? She pretended she cared but she did not. All her beliefs are just words to invite likes so simple-minded suckers like me would leave a comment saying she is beautiful inside out. She seemed sweet and gentle with positive words but she was not really a considerate person at all. All her good manners are for her self-image but the well-being of others. Because after all that, I just realize she is very selfish, narcissistic and cold. After having some idea about her, her video appears like she is winking to deliberately seduce/manipulate the audience as she abuses her sex appeal to get the recognition/attention she wants, like she is making fun of people who sincerely care about her as she celebrates her success of making many people fools for her. She is like that type of person who smiles and flirts with guys while her female friends are dying next room and she is not going to do a thing about it. Other guys told me she is trying too hard to be edgy and authentic but fail. Other guys told me that she is rich French middle-class whose stereotypical temperament is, they always do what they want and they don't give a shit, proud and selfish. Others said, why would anyone wanna show nude pictures in public without being paid to do so? This chick obviously loves herself very much. 

She has all the qualities to be a great female singer or artist. (I don't really know whether she can write any song except that she cannot really do live singing with her ukulele since all her videos are processed and edited together. Which is fine. At least she can make good effects with cinematography.) But she just does not have much of a soul to sustain all that even she seems to try very hard by changing her styles. No one bothers to tell her that because they are busy figuring out ways to get into her pants.

Then, I gotta pretend I'm not me and ask me one important question: Do you want her? 

The truth is, I don't know. It seems common senses to want her because all that she is given out there. I bet most people would say yes if they are asked, within ten minutes. I always try to hold a pure mind when it comes to beautiful ladies despite their drawbacks. I wanna mold them into that wonderful woman with my love by overlooking their faults so they will get to become that perfect companion I always want. Then why you don't know, dude? Why? Are you pretending? Yes and no. I'm afraid of the harm she's going to do to me if I don't keep my guard. I'm afraid of giving her that importance, that burdensome value in my life, that much power. And obviously, she cannot do good with all that power. If she is likely to shoot randomly with a gun, you should have enough senses not to hand her any ammunition. Ok, all this is resistance. Who would wanna be with someone who holds such strong, negative opinions towards them?

If someone holds such a negative view of me, what would I do? I will try to understand them first. At least they bother to complain. It is better than people who don't say a word. Silence is the highest form of contempt. It is never my wish to crash anyone's self-esteem. It is not a zero-sum game - you win and I lose. No one wins, in fact. Judging from that, Clara must feel a need to contempt me so she can win by all means. Also, her need to win in this case is very questionable as though there is something unspeakably weak and frail hidden beneath. 

Maybe I'm being conscientious with this question. Without building a solid bonding, whatever motivates me to want her is superficial - I wanna caress a beautiful face and go to bed with good-looking people as everyone in this world would like to. I also know how it feels to get people into liking you for your appearance. Admiration given free is valueless. Only admiration earned has everlasting values. It is also pretentious to deny your attraction to her but all that is kinda superficial. I have eyes and I'm human and I do enjoy watching fine things. Objectively, I do appreciate her in some aspects but I don't admire her after living through all this. I must say, she handled it horribly. In the end, she acted like a 12-year-old who was unable to sustain an authentic friendship and unfriended some unwanted ex-suitor on Facebook. I was surprised but not so surprised. I somehow felt sorry that she had let herself go and descended to a new low point, as though she were my teenage sister and I was with all that patience in this world to wait for her to get reformed. 

Further, judging from my experiences of going to bed with beautiful men, they are usually mediocre lays. The moment I screwed them or they screwed me, I felt bored. Looks is not everything. I tend to give woman's looks more value than man. As to men, I prefer to look at their souls. 

I guess I'm okay now. Despite the excruciating distress from this experience, I've come to accept myself a bit better, appreciate a bit more of what I have and the few true people around me. I thought she was what could make me happy but I was wrong. I worked so hard to get what I've always wanted, things and people as goals to attain, people who seemed to be able to make me happy, but all I got was more and more unhappiness in my pursuit of "happiness." Now I just wanna be around people who don't make me unhappy. People who stay around and interact with me to create true values for me. Such values will always exist even they age and change physically. That is precious enough for me.

Clara will eventually age or die someday as we all do, or change her hair and get into an un-fitting style that uglifies her, and all she had created was just a lovely image without content for me. My portraits of her would always be there as I genuinely spent years of my life creating something out there with my heart and soul. I love those works for their true emotions and raw affections even they could be fruits of erotomania. Reluctant as I was, with my fate, I had created true values out there, despite being unseen by this world. Which is fine. Because I believe in me, myself and my art. May the world rot and perish, they will be there as always.

I'm sorry to have been so harsh on her. She is just a girl who wanna celebrate the few things she has had online so she can like herself a bit better. I place her under my microscope for scrutiny because I was also a girl who looked for importance online. I thought she was higher and it broke my heart to see my "idol" act like some commonplace person as it angered me that she had fooled me so well. Gee, I still sound so negative. I think I should make an effort to grow up and forgive her as she is just a lost girl who plays goddess, like my 5-year-old niece who gets delighted when we call her Snow White and treat her like a princess even she is not. (Hopefully, she will grow up and mature in time and be alright with herself, even without someone who treats her like a princess.)

I think I'm alright now.

[wz2sseo]

A Data-Driven Method to Finding Out Whether Your Content Sucks — SEO NYC & Digital Marketing

At times, you have to show some love. You have got to be brutally honest.

Since I respect one (yes, you!) As a reader, sugarcoat things for you personally or I do not want to lie to you personally. You deserve much better.

I want to provide you with the best information.

If I am being brutally honest: Your content might suck.

It’s not your fault–my content has been downright awful for several years. It took me a very long, long time to get great at blogging.

Blogging is difficult. Making up content that is amazing is challenging.

You probably don’t know where you’re going wrong, although you might know your content is not as excellent as it could be.

And where you’re going wrong, if you don’t know, you’ll never improve.

That is why I’ve assembled this method of finding out if your content stinks. There’s no guesswork here. I’ve laid everything out for you here, step by step.

I wish someone could have given a guide just like this when I started blogging to me. It might have removed years of mistakes, and I am not exaggerating.

Get to the right mindset

I did not actually know how to produce my content when I started blogging.

For a while, I believed I was an lousy blogger.

In the event you think that way, let me assure you: You are not a bad blogger.

Writing is a skill everyone. I wasn’t born to compose. I had to hone my writing for years.

I know from experience that it may be tricky to see precisely why your content stinks.

Fortunately, there are numerous methods I’ve learned.

I want to point out two things before we get into the nitty-gritty.

First, you will need to be your own worst critic. Do not be too harsh on yourself, but try to detach yourself from your writing.

There’s a famous quote in writing that applies here:

Do not get too attached to anything, when you’re writing. You’ll need to be honest with yourself through the composing process, so try to appear over your writing as if it’s someone else.

Secondly, do not be reluctant to ask for help. I work all of the time. My writing is not perfect, and I’ve been blogging for over ten years.

There’s no doubt in finding a author or editor that will help you out, if you get stuck along the road.

Better yet, email a blogger you admire, and ask for their help. It seems crazy, but most bloggers (yes, even the big names) are more than happy to help up-and-coming bloggers.

Now that you’re prepped, let us make your content glow.

Specifically, let’s talk about assessing content that is bad.

Many times, if your content is bad, you will just know. Other times, it’s more challenging.

Below are a few of the frequent flaws of content.

Problem #1: Keyword stuffing

You are witnessing stuffing if you can use both hands up to count the amount of keywords in a paragraph.

When someone uses a several times within a brief amount of space, stuffing happens.

Moz made a Excellent example up:

Keyword stuffing has existed for years, and folks still use it today in an endeavor.

But stuffing is truly good at one thing: annoying your readers.

Optimization may be a potent tool, but stuffing ruins it. Plus, Google does not enjoy it. You will need to repair it pronto when you have key word stuffing.

The way to repair it: Fixing keyword stuffing is a two-step procedure.

First, let go of your key word obsession. Remember, you’re generating content for human beings–maybe not to search engines.

Consider writing an entire article without thinking about keywords in any respect. You do not have to use the last product, but I really do recommend this exercise to get you.

Problem #2: Reader unawareness syndrome

I’ve said it hundreds of times before, and I will state it again: Blogging is all about creating amazing content to your visitors.

That means you have to know who your subscribers are.

I’ve read lots of articles that were well-written with outstanding research and examples. The only problem? The content wasn’t aimed at the site’s demographic.

We had no clients because no one was really interested in the version we were pitching.

Since the company does not understand what their audience needs product ideas fail. It is the exact same for websites.

If you send that type of content and don’t understand what your readers need, your site will be immediately forgotten.

This is a great opportunity to check into the demographics and psychographics  of your readership to understand who your subscribers are and why they read your content.

You’ll get feedback for, and you also can not get much better than that if it comes to marketing.

Problem #3: Poor writing

When I first started blogging, I had been a author, to put it lightly.

There’s no denying that even content that is well-written could take you . If you’re able to write well, you’re control your readers’ full attention.

More to the point, excellent composing puts you up. Having the ability to communicate your ideas clearly is an invaluable skill to possess, no matter what industry you’re in.

Similarly, bad writing may harm you. You won’t be seen by people and they may doubt your credibility.

You could have the best content on the planet, but it is going to flop if it’s not written well. That is why it’s a wonderful use of your time to research writing.

If you struggle with writing, do not worry–than you may think, it’s much easier to improve.

The way to repair it: in summary, research copywriting from authoritative resources. Listed below are a few

Become a frequent reader of their blogs in your specialty. For example, in marketing, Hubspot, Inbound, and Inc are three popular blogs.

A very simple method to locate the top blogs in your niche would be to run a Google search.

If you’re responsible for finance, for example, search “finance blogs.” Locate popular blogs that are 5-10, and read them.

Finally, put what you have learned into training. Compare your content to all those blogs you read. Do you see similarities? If you struggle, where is your issue?

This 3-step procedure can help you become a better writer, but it will not happen overnight. Keep this up and you must be dedicated.

Keep practicing, and also, as I stated earlier, do not be reluctant to ask for help.

Problem #4: Insufficient value

Jay Baer from Convince and Convert researched 25 popular site articles and found that people love tools and tips. Many of those 25 articles featured information that readers could use.

Regrettably blogs withhold value from their subscribers. Many bloggers are frightened to give too much away.

What those bloggers do not understand is that people read content in order to find something precious.

Think of it. The reader is now currently spending energy and time to check out your content, and they’re on the lookout for something ahead.

It seems counterintuitive, however, giving out a ton of value will make your readers devoted to your brand. I know that it seems crazy, but it’s true.

If you’re worried about giving worth off, do not be. It’s worked for me and others, and it is going to work for you also.

The way to repair it: Start creating content with the only aim of supplying value. Do not be worried about doing SEO or composing headlines that are clickbait. Focus on value.

Try to provide at least one takeaway that is helpful that you write. (Longer content must possess more takeaways.)

These takeaways ought to be bits of information that readers can utilize in their own lives. Ideally, they ought to have the ability to execute the advice.

Be sure you let your readers know what value they’re getting. Start with the title.

You can tell right from what you will receive if you read the report. That is what you wish to achieve.

Whatever media pack it full of worth. You won’t regret it.

Conclusion

Allow me to reiterate that: If your articles stinks, it’s not as you suck.

Writing content is challenging. It’s taken me years of training to get where I am today, and guess what? I am still studying.

However, it’s very important to understand when your content does suck.

There’s a possibility that your content will earn a great deal of impressions. Individuals who have never heard your brand can encounter one of the articles, and they’ll judge your brand according to your content.

And if your content is bad, you’ll lose clients. But if your content is excellent, you are going to win over people.

What sort of data would you use to determine how successful your content is?

from SEO Consultants – wz2s.net http://wz2s.net/a-data-driven-method-to-finding-out-whether-your-content-sucks-seo-nyc-digital-marketing/

[mothaut]

1:28am 1/24/17

I am trying very hard to keep my Facebook out of these political arguments because it does no good. No real change will come from a Facebook post. However, I would truly like to know why any woman would be against what the Women's March stood for. This is the beginning of the mission statement for womensmarch.com: "The rhetoric of the past election cycle has insulted, demonized, and threatened many of us - immigrants of all statuses, Muslims and those of diverse religious faiths, people who identify as LGBTQIA, Native people, Black and Brown people, people with disabilities, survivors of sexual assault - and our communities are hurting and scared. We are confronted with the question of how to move forward in the face of national and international concern and fear." I fully understand that many people believe health care is a privilege, not a right. I disagree but I understand it (capitalism is the short answer to that one) But even if you don't support it, you have to understand that the march took place because we believe it is a right - a right to life even when you don't have money. I also understand that many people believe there is no need to push for equality for the LGBT community, for POC, for those who do not subscribe to Christian beliefs. I don't agree, but I understand that there will always be people with prejudice, people who lack sympathy for other's misfortunes. What I don't understand is how a woman can see proof of the misogyny America voted into the White House and not take a stance against it. Our new president is the epitome of rape culture. You cannot deny all the quotes that support that because there is an abundance of proof. Again, I suppose this comes down to the general population's lack of sympathy for those less fortunate. If you haven't witnessed it yourself, how do you know how bad it is? It's just locker room talk, right? No harm done, right? QBut just because you haven't witnessed these disadvantages doesn't mean they don't exist. Wouldn't it be nice to go for a jog at night without carrying pepper spray or fearing for your life? Wouldn't it be nice if you could dress the way you wanted to without worrying if a man will take it as an invitation for cat calling, harrassment or worse? That is why we march. This is how we choose to support our cause and create solidarity for those who are often discriminated against. Please do not call us whiney just because we want everyone to live the life they choose. Do not call us sore losers because we don't like the new president. This is so much more than just being upset that "our side" didn't win.