#it is the context that makes them gendered and you have to deconstruct and understand that context in order to get closer to neutral

[kirkwallguy]

Idk if you've posted about it before and I missed it, but I saw ur tag mentioning you have a critique on datv's treatment of transness and I'd genuinely be interested in hearing about it :)

hi, yes i have but it's been a while since i last talked about it! i've been meaning to write a long essay on my issues for a while but it would require actually playing the game and i don't want to do that. here's a long rant that got away from me though:

i've complained sometimes about various stereotypes or missteps in the way specific trans characters are represented, but i'd be able to ignore that if it weren't for my main issue, which is that trans characters just aren't properly woven into the world, leaving them feeling alienated in a way queer characters in previous games never were.

it's very clear that the writers haven't broken down their own perceptions of gender and the various cultures surrounding it enough to say something insightful, which is fine because most people haven't, but when people defend the game on the sole basis that its depiction of transness is revolutionary i do have to take some issue. there are books from the 60s that take a more interesting approach to deconstructing gender lol. veilguard may feel progressive in the landscape of aaa video games but i don't think that means it should pass without critique and i don't think that we should have to settle for this when it's possible to do so much better.

the easiest and most frequently discussed example of not properly incorporating transness into thedas is the use of language in the game. you've probably seen the endless arguments about whether taash calling themself nonbinary is an anachronism, and though i'm sure some of the arguments are in bad faith i think people overestimate how many people (on here specifically) are arguing from that perspective. it's been extremely frustrating to be called transphobic by cis people over this when i'm coming at it from the perspective of someone who has actually studied shit like this.

this is a problem throughout the game but it's easier to examine codex entries for this post than go through entire scenes. i've talked about hating the language in this codex entry before, but it really annoys me so let me complain about it again lol.

acknowleding that trans as a prefix means "change" is actually a good start here and if wasn't for how this codex entry continues i'd just shrug and move on, but i really hate the absolutist way it uses the very modern "affirming" and "was always" narrative and language as though it's universally agreed upon. you can argue that this is subjective and what taash was told (though which shadow dragon is talking to them like a GIC psychologist lol?), but when the entire codex entry feels like an educational pamphlet for clueless cis people it just comes across as very odd.

and then the rest of the codex entry just abandons any attempt at making the words "work" etymologically and gives extremely bare-bones descriptions of them. some of these words are younger than me, i saw them being coined on various forums and corners of the internet. is it representation if you say the word and put absolutely no effort into representing or even discussing the agender/bigender/demigender/others experience? in another post i compared this to being like if they did a lord of the rings remake and confirmed legolas as being bisexual by making him wear a bi flag pin with no extra context - of course people TODAY use that flag to signal their experience with bisexuality and there's nothing wrong with that, but to link modern language/signals with an experience that has clearly existed since before either of those things were invented comes right back around to being oddly invalidating, as though these experiences wouldn't exist without modern english speaking understanding of them.

as for the argument about whether or not it's anachronistic: i don't personally think you need to adhere to a binary of modern / historically accurate language and culture to make queerness work in a medieval-ish fantasy setting. the previous games (for all their faults) managed a pretty established status quo where they didn't aim to portray a utopia with a widespread queer culture while also not being gratuitous with their homophobia. and as much as queer x-topias can be interesting when done well, i think this is a good thing for a big budget fantasy game - unless you're EXTREMELY in the know about gender roles and queer theory etc, how can you hope to portray a queer utopia? some people write books whose sole point is to portray a world without gender roles or homophobia and they still misstep, i don't think it's the casual inclusive background thing a lot of fantasy authors believe it to be. it would have gone the same way as origins' claim that men and women are treated the same; maybe you make queer people hold hands in the street without being questioned and nobody makes negative comments about your romance option, but do you subconsciously assign gender roles to jobs? do you portray the majority of npcs adhering to western cishet gender norms? what is the ratio of monogamous f/m relationships portrayed compared to other relationships? these are all things people just straight up don't think about when designing a world and they will accidentally create a society that is welcoming of queerness in THEORY while actually replicating our own cishet patriarchal values.

i don't think veilguard is attempting to be a utopia, i don't think it's attempting to be anything but a finished game, but i see people defending it on the BASIS of it being a utopia fairly often.

taash's arc is another pretty big example of this struggle to examine gender in real life beyond the writers' experiences, namely white canadian. it's a deeply racist attempt at a multucultural narrative where one culture (which has already been demonised throughout the series, including in veilguard) is portrayed as less welcoming of queer people while the other culture, which is still a society with binary gender roles despite being a matriarchy, is portrayed as being instantly and unquestionably accepting.

there's a LOT of potential in an arc for a character like taash if they'd been written by someone with actual interest (and probably experience) writing about the queer experience of existing within two very different cultures. the qunari ARE a culture who are fairly big on binaries but they have an established acceptance of transition that would make their understanding of gender fairly fluid, meanwhile the lords of fortune seem ideal on the surface but human/(our) culture has so many hidden binaries that you don't notice in everyday life unless you're the one being alienated by them.

this could have been a chance to slightly turn the racist Othering of the qunari on its head by showing our own society from the perspective of perhaps some aqun-athlok characters taash befriends, a codex entry about an aqun-athlok character from the past that taash finds and takes inspiration from (maybe they start out aqun-athlok then reject the gender binary entirely?), or even from shathann, perhaps as a character who has explored her gender in the past or decides to explore it as a result of taash. (imagine if shathann was actually aqun-athlok herself, having adopted taash, and some of her complicated feelings about the qun involved the fact that her identity was more accepted there. just SOMETHING to balance the scales a little.)

then again, not even rivain gets to be the fully "progressive" society and taash has to go to the shadow dragons for their gender education. i think it's funny that someone seemed to be projecting an ultra-progressive modern activist group image onto the shadow dragons, i think i've said before that they remind me of all the modern au fanfiction about les amis from les mis that i used to read as a teenager, when they're supposed to be a ruthless abolitionist group. i think this choice was largely to facilitate interaction between the factions but it does feel a little odd given the other racist elements in taash's arc.

there's also the issue of the actual topic of medical transition being avoided. we have tarquin and mae, two characters who have seemingly undergone some kind of medical transition. we have top surgery scars in cc. but there's no discussion of how this transition happens - is hrt magical as krem suggests and is that the only option? is surgery affordable? do different countries and cultures have different levels of advancement in medical transition? these are things i'd want to see written about in codex entries, not lists of various identities that anyone can find by googling a list of genders.

i'm a little disquieted by the avoidance of medical transition given everything happening irl, but it's maybe the issue i understand the thought process behind the most. it feels like a very safe attempt at not veering too far into what happened with krem / the decades of weird fascination with trans bodies. my feelings on this entirely hinge on whether or not the dragon king does actually have top surgery scars lol, for my sanity i'll say he doesn't.

anyway, this all sucks because i've seen SO many fans do better for casual oc posting or fanfic. i've seen so many amazing ways trans culture and hrt and surgery could work in thedas and it's depressing that the writers couldn't even attempt to do something interesting with it. i know there was a lot of crunch that impacted the quality of the writing but i do also think some of these issues would have persisted if they'd had all the time in the world.

[takemebacktowheniwassane]

i've been seeing a lot of falsettos posts recently deconstructing the fandoms beliefs and firstly

holy fuck thank you, i try to steer clear of fandom (and fandom-izing thereof) drama but this is getting a lot more visible recently so here's some little tidbits for you

whizzer brown is not an unflawed character!

okay so i haven't seen enough dissecting this but!!! in the chess game!

the whole point of marvin using that game to determine the ending of their relationship is because he suspects whizzer is constantly deceiving him and wants to prove it.

whizzer LITERALLY proves him right!

he asks marvin to help him along (yes i know he says he doesn't want help, hear me out, it's a little more complex than that) and takes advantage of the fact that marvin is- like- infatuated with him.

he draws him into a sense of false security then starts throwing accusations at him ("since you need a man!" "what?" "who's 'brainy'," "or witty, move.") until hes able to win, which he does with ease because he's been using marvin having this idea that he isn't smart against him.

of course, marvin's side of this isn't the best either but honestly, for once the fandom should focus on a different character when they think 'insane asshole'. typically we should also probably change our perspectives a little to be more unbiased cuz fr guys, this is getting really.. annoying.

i understand he's the most visibly flawed but that doesn't excuse constantly picking the worst parts of this musical (without other context, btw) to use against him.

and this post certainly isn't here to excuse anyone either i've just got a lot of opinions that i wanted to share while falsettos is.. trending? right?

2. marvin's (headcanoned but still somewhat researched) autism

this one isn't brought up as much but when i do see it around, it's kind of a skewed viewpoint.

while rewatching bits of the proshot i realized a lot of different neurodivergent traits that he shows-

he's helpless during I Never Wanted to Love You and is childish and regressive when he's upset (not every autistic person is like this either, i know this is a bit of a touchy subject so i just wanted to add that).

usually when people depict it i see it either toned down or joked about which is fine when all in good fun, and when its done respectfully.

not here to attack anyone, just here to point it out and say that yes :) he most likely is neurodivergent, but despite that his actions aren't condoned. he's still kinda a dick who needs to get his shit together

3. ..the lesbians also have shit going on?

just putting this out there- I DON'T SEE ENOUGH FOR THE LESBIANS! OR TRINA!

the girls in this musical are like thoroughly neglected and i think that's kind of shitty just assuming the fact that william finn put them in to demonstrate how gender roles put people in degrading positions (and he even makes it more prevalent by showing marvin as something like a misogynistic character who forces whizzer into more feminine roles to show the audience what woman have to/had to go through in society).

anyways, the lesbians aren't just there guys. they have a plotline too. in Something Bad is Happening, you derive a lot from charlotte singing about the outbreak of HIV/AIDS and realize how she operates on a daily basis (she's passionate about her work and takes every bad day as a hit to her life and career, explaining in a way that as a black, jewish, lesbian, FEMALE doctor in this time, everything that goes wrong is immediately brought down on her so much more than it would as any straight white male pharmacist-).

cordelia on the other hand has to handle the fact that her girlfriend is so adamant about her work ethic that she can't actually be super present in their relationship at times like that.

but either way she still sticks by her and is constantly trying to be supportive and endearing despite feeling like she's not amounting to her gf who's basically a hero in her eyes.

i kinda just wanted to bring that up because they mean a lot to me and they don't get enough love from the fanbase, thank you for listening to my TED talk <3

[kamirai-k]

Kang Haesol and the Stoic Male Lead Trope (In the context of Roles Reversal)

All right, I have been seeing constant discussion about Haesol and it really lets me understand that most of y'all don't understand Kang Haesol as a character (Or you just don't have common sense) and that genuinely boggles my mind while letting me know that many people do not read Shoujo and do not understand Shoujo tropes because if you did you would understand her a lot better.

So I'm going to be breaking down the one Shoujo trope you have to know to understand Kang Haesol as a character.

Stoic male lead.

Yeonwoo's Innocence is not only a roles reversal but it is also a Shoujo deconstruction. If you read a lot of Shoujo and romance in general you can pick up on this pretty quickly. Therefore pretty quickly you should understand what type of character Haesol is.

Kang Haesol is the stoic male lead. Given this is RR she is the female lead but this does not change on account of her gender.

This male lead archetype are the ones who do not speak their emotions. They show them instead through action. THAT! is the character archetype that Haesol is based around.

Another thing about these Stoic characters is that they are obsessive. That is a constant trait that all of these stoic characters have in common and it makes a lot of sense given that because they constantly repress their emotions. When something happens and they lose their grip they are going to blow up and show themselves in ways that are not all that pleasant. (All that emotional repression does something to you and it's only a matter of time until it blows up)

The thing about Yeonwoo's innocence is that typically when this trope is put in a Roles Reversal setting the female lead is not exactly like the stoic male lead that is her counterpart. In an RR setting the female lead who is a reflection of this archetype is typically watered down and made a more feminine version of this archetype that loses all its flavor. as the story goes on but Yeonwoo's innocence does not do this.

Kang Haesol is a genuinely stoic character. She is not going to get all blushy and emote because she is STOIC! The Definition of stoic is someone who shows little to no emotion. Kang Haesol is the personification of this trope in female form and You all need to understand that. If you're expecting her to become some cold beauty who ends up a housewife or whatever TF don't. That is NOT her character and it never will be.

With Stoic characters, you have to actually pay attention to them to understand them. You have to WANT to understand them to be able to peel back the different sides of their personalities and Haesol is perfect for this. If you just look at her surface level you see nothing but a stoic person.

But if you actually LOOK at her and how she interacts with the world around her you understand her a lot better.

That is the appeal of The Stoic archetype. That mystery of who they are is what draws Shoujo readers to them and what makes them such interesting characters.

Kang Haesol is the female version of this archetype so don't treat her any differently. You don't tell male stoic characters to smile more or show more emotion so don't do the same to her.

Kang Haesol throughout the story stays consistent and her personality is still at its core that typical stoic male lead archetype. She's the perfect stoic character.

That is until she meets Yeonwoo.

Love at first sight is also a stoic male lead thing and it is done perfectly in this manhwa. (ah we love it when the calm one loses their marbles)

A character who has their emotions mostly in control but one person (that love interest) throws a retch into their usually calm waters.

Here's the thing though. Haesol is different.

Haesol has no grasp on her emotions. She can not perceive her emotions because of her trauma and how being a child model affected her (those who say we know nothing about her need to read the manhwa again because her backstory is literally thrown in your face in multiple moments of this manhwa) she can not understand her emotions because it is the coping mechanism she developed while she was being abused. If she showed emotion she was punished for doing so. So of course she locked them away. Then being with her mother only made things worse because she never truly cared enough to actually help Haesol and instead hurt her even more.

Which only made her retreat further.

Then she meets Yeonwoo.

Then she felt emotion.

Unbridled, overwhelming, EMOTION! for this "girl" and the confusion of it makes it worse. The confusion of why she's unable to get this "girl" out of her head and why everywhere she turns she sees this beautiful person wherever she turns confused and deludes but excites her.

Then she finds out that "she" is in fact a "he" and that she has a chance (Not like she wouldn't have a chance with a girl like have we seen her?)

Of course, she's obsessed!

Of course, she wanted to get closer to him. Of course, she will use whatever excuse she can to get near him.

Of course, she wants him desperately! He's the first person to elicit such strong emotion from her and it's positive! Not only is it overwhelmingly positive but it's all consuming and she's terrified because she's never felt this before.

Of course, she hides it away and shows nothing when showing emotion has only ever led to disaster.

Now that that is out of the way, the reason why I wanted to explain this is because people don't seem to understand her character, especially in relation to Yeonwoo.

Understand that this is a Shoujo deconstruction and a roles reversal manhwa. (it's a good one as well. the most well-written one I've ever read)

This is a two-in-one so unless you have experience with Shoujo/ romance and works that deconstruct popular tropes you most likely won't understand many of the things that are being done in this month.

Haesol very clearly is obsessed with Yeonwoo.

It is painfully obvious and you don't even need to reread it to understand that. (though his manhwa has insane reread value) The moment you get to the scene where she turns around after Yeonwoo asks to go to the amusement park with her you should already have alarms blaring (if you read Shoujo) because you understand that's not what a stoic character would typically do.

In Shoujo, the first meeting with the stoic male lead most of the time is very one and-done. The stoic male lead most of the time does not turn back and ask the female lead anything much less talk to her.

It is mostly their second interaction that does that.

However in Haesol and Yeonwoo's interaction not only does she give him her umbrella but she also engages in a brief conversation asking if he's ok. Sure it's small and bearly a minute but it still matters. If you understand the context surrounding that scene you're going to understand that her giving him her umbrella means that she calculated that he has to give it back to her.

Furthering their conversation... and making sure she gets to talk to him again.

There are so many little details that have been put into this manhwa that need to be talked about more because this is just one of them.

Haesol is a character whom I've said multiple times you need to look at her actions and not her words if you want to understand her as a character.

Also given that she is a Stoic character her obsession is going to be deep, it is going to be unhealthy, and it is not going to be in any way light.

Given the fact that Yeonwoo in fact enables these tendencies of hers you all need to understand that is going to likely get worse. Not in a bad way Shoujo has a tendency to make obsession like this completely viable (as we should let the girls have their fun. I personally love it and fall for it hook line and sinker) but given that this is Esol we are talking about she will probably twist this trope on its head in some way shape or form.

In all honesty, I'm just sick and tired of people constantly making horrible takes about Haesol as a character when it is clear they do not understand who she is. It is very clear that you do not read Shoujo or consume romance in general because most of these takes would not be happening if people actually understood the context of the genre.

[moremysteries]

Why "No One Talks Like That" Is Unhelpful

I've been thinking about some unhelpful critiques I have been given in the past and what made them so unhelpful, which lead me to sort of wanting to deconstruct why "no one talks like that" is such a bad critique.

So, things to consider before you give the critique "no one talks like that", which will likely reveal what you're actually trying to say:

Conversational conventions are often different in fictional worlds.

Just because something is normally "uncouth" or "strange" to say in reality, that does not mean the same can be said about fictional worlds. I personally got the "no one talks like that" critique because one of my characters was, supposedly, too blunt about their marriage proposal. This was in a fantasy world where marriage was treated in an extremely practical fashion, the same way someone would treat buying a new house. I got treated as the "person who constantly interrupts people giving critiques because they can't handle it" for simply trying to give my teacher some much needed context. This type of critique is not helpful to anyone, because it completely fails to understand or even attempt to understand author intent. "No one in real life talks like this", yes, and that is the point. To actually give helpful critiques to fantasy dialogue, you need to first understand how that fantasy culture differs from the ones you are accustomed to, and judge the dialogue based on it.

2. When you say "no one talks like that", who are you really referring to? The general population, or the people specifically within your social circle, area, or culture? Because you will likely find it is the latter.

I don't think it's necessarily bad for people to draw from their experiences when giving critiques, but I do think it's important to analyze one's biases in doing so. Before you say, "no one talks like that", always sit down to analyze why exactly you think that, and consider having a proper discussion with the writer about what experiences they are drawing from. As one examples, a straight person who is unfamiliar with queer culture may feel inclined to say "no one talks like that" about queer characters using terms or addressing topics like gender, sexuality, etc. in ways they are not accustomed to. It's not because no one truly talks like that, it's because they are completely unfamiliar with it.

3. Always, always, always consider context.

This ties into the fictional world idea, but goes beyond that. "No one talks like that" can feel extremely tone deaf as a critique if the person isn't properly engaging with the context of a scene or a character. "No one talks like that," okay, but this particular character is stressed and running on adrenaline, they're not exactly meant to be talking normally. "No one talks like that," this is a literal demon from Hell, why should they talk like we do? "No one talks like that," this character is neurodivergent, and it makes complete sense for them to talk like that. Also, keep in mind the genre and the style of the story. Not all stories are trying to have realistic dialogue. You wouldn't criticize a story set in wonderland for having unrealistic dialogue, as this is very much the point. Now, unrealistic does not mean meaningless, which is why considering the context of a story helps you give more specific and helpful critiques when it comes to dialogue.

4. Does nobody talk like that, or is it just socially unacceptable to talk like that? There is a difference.

I mentioned neurodivergent characters, so let me expand on that issue here. There's this attitude I think really needs to be squashed that characters must talk in a neurotypical fashion or else they are badly written, because neurotypical individuals find this easier to understand and see it as more "proper". And it expands to this general attitude I've seen that, if characters are not following certain social rules or etiquette, then the dialogue is badly written. This puts so many constraints on character dialogue that doesn't actually help with character writing.

Sure, not everyone is going to go out to a parking lot and scream profanities to see the shock and horror of those passing by, but this shit stain character I created absolutely would. "But characters need a good reason to break this etiquette", not everyone cares about social etiquette, and characters are absolutely the same way. So long as their character has been established as such, this is fine. Also, reactionary responses like, "no one would talk to their parents that way!", in response to a character severly breaking a social rule or greatly going against a certain social value, are not actually helpful critiques. It is an emotional reaction that reflects what you view as proper, not if the action is accurate to the character or not.

5. Is it true that nobody talks like that, or do you just not understand the dialogue?

If dialogue is confusing, you need to delve deeper into why that is, and consider whether this is intentional or not. Just because the dialogue does not personally resignate with you, that does not mean it is poorly written. Same goes for dialogue that is meant to be confusing at first, and is given further context later. Have a conversation with the writer to see if this dialogue is meant to be confusing, or if there's been a miscommunication. It's also important you reflect on whether a project is for you when critiquing. If you hate dialogue full of rhymes, then you probably shouldn't critique a story where everyone talks in rhymes.

6. Is the issue the way they are talking, or the way they are talking about something in the specific context of the story?

When analyzing why dialogue doesn't sit well with you, is it because the characters' reactions feel off or out of character? For instance, is the character that is well established to hate sweets now ranting and raving about how good milk chocolate is? The issue then isn't that "no one talks like that", the issue is, "it feels out of character for them to address (topic) like that". Yes, it could be argued no one hates sweets one second and then praises milk chocolate the next, but phrasing it as "no one talks like that" doesn't actually get to the meat of the issue. As a more serious example, is the character who hates all magic being oddly casual when actually confronted with a mage? Of course, some inconsistencies are done on purpose, and, as I said above, context matters.

Conclusion

Going through this, I think a lot of people will find "no on talks like that" is not actually what they want to say. Rather, they likely want more context, think a conversation needs better build up, believe the dialogue feels inconsistent with the characters/world, or may outright just be a bad fit for that particular project. So before you say, "no one talks like that," consider why you feel that way and find a way to word this critique that is more productive.

[dizzyhslightlyvoided]

OK so I don't have a Playstation and soulsbornes aren't my scene, but here's my understanding of Bloodborne's lore based on a half-remembered post from years ago about how it was a deconstruction of Shadow Over Innsmouth, that one post by @cryptotheism about "how your Smash Bros main would do in Bloodborne", and a video I saw years ago comparing how Lady Maria stabs you depending on your character's gender which framed it as doing it in a more gay manner if you're playing as a woman:

The city of Yharnam is an off-brand Innsmouth. (Or, well, "Innsmouth, except someone owns the copyright", so I guess it's more of an on-brand Innsmouth.) There is a blood-borne "Old Blood" or something, which has the threat of turning you into a monster. Possibly you need to have Old Blood in you in order to be able to fight monsters at all?

If you're too evil or bloodthirsty, or just Learn Too Much Eldritch Knowledge, you'll turn into a monster and/or go mad and/or become a target of the bad guys. Animals just automatically turn into dark beasts.

If you want to fight the monsters, you need to be willing and able to kill former friends and family who got turned into monsters, even if they are still recognizable as such, without hesitation. Also you need to work alone, because allies will die a lot.

There are xenophobic NPCs who are worried about blood-purity but in like the eldritch sense. This concern is only making things worse.

Great Ones: your regulation cosmic-horror eldritch-monstrosity gods of chaos.

The Moon Presence: a particular Great One, and probably the final boss, given references in Samus and Kirby's entries in the Smash Bros post. Defeating the Moon Presence will end the "dream" and will, if not fix everything in Yharnam, then at least it will make things somewhat better.

Mensis: a smaller Great One, but still a major boss. There's a Brain of Mensis; I think I found this in a search for "Mother Brain" years ago.

Kos: Zelda's entry namedrops "... Mensis, or even worse, the adherents of Kos herself". So, probably either a cult-leader or a Great One with a cult, who is worse than Mensis in some manner.

Queen Yharnam: I have no idea who she is except that she's in charge of the Great Ones, maybe? Or maybe instead she's someone they want to control? Rosalina's entry said "Essentially on par with Queen Yharnam. Great Ones would be tripping over themselves for her" which means they either want to kidnap her or bow down to her, it's not clear which.

Hunter: probably someone who fights monsters, I think? The Smash Bros post didn't make that entirely clear, but it keeps referencing "the Hunt". Also the different versions of Link's entry quote "Hunters do not normally employ shields, ineffectual against the strength of the beasts as they tend to be." But also multiple characters' entires say that they might be "hunted", but Corrin's entry says "but this would not stop them from doing what was right" so it's probably a job with requirements, instead of just being a generic term for anyone who fights monsters.

Hunter Of Hunters: pretty sure from context that this would be a Hunter who specializes in taking down Hunters who've gone monstrous/mad and are thus greater threats/liabilities than regular monsters.

The Powder Kegs: a faction of Hunters who use guns and/or like to blow things up.

Executioners: a faction of Hunters who are, like, evil and/or religious zealots.

Vilebloods: vampires who are fashionable, or something.

Lady Maria: a lesbian.

Vicar Amelia: Bayonetta's entry begins and ends with "Would keep Vicar Amelia as a pet." "Vicar" isn't usually a title given to animals, so I was like "what" and skimmed Vicar Amelia's wiki-article, so ... she's someone who turns into a dog-like monster over the course of the game? Presumably Bayonetta's entry means her monster-form, but the other possibility is also fun.

[zhengzi]

im seeing the 'are trans men allowed to call themselves lesbians?' discourse again on tiktok and im just tired of the essentialist impulse in so many queers wrt labels and such

i have a lot in common with trans male lesbians as a gay transmasc genderqueer. 'gay' is the central label that the rest of my queerness and trans-ness revolves around. if i were to follow the underlying logic and premise that a lot of people who claim that trans men are not allowed to call themselves lesbian, i ostensibly cannot call myself 'gay' as i do not identify as a man, as the essentialist definition of gay would only assume a 'man' who loves 'man', the definition of which excludes my own gay experience which does not fit into the 'man' box.

i've been reading up a lot on histories of sexuality and i find people nowadays all too often take our modern-day sexuality labels for granted and make the assumption that they're 'naturalised' and 'essential' and as a 'metaphysical constant'. sexuality as a system of meaning that humans attribute onto sexual acts and behaviour is socially constructed, that the ways we make sense of our sexuality has not always been the same across time, place and cultures. the 'born this way' rhetoric that arise as a political rhetorical tool to combat homophobia, although done with noble intentions, has caused a lot of damage to popular understandings of what sexuality actually is and that one is not born a 'faggot' but made into one in a social/cultural context

the way i see 'lesbian' and 'gay' as terms is that in material practice, they tend to act more as signifiers of different queer cultures. i notice that cis lesbians and gays have more essentialist views of understanding their own sexuality, while trans lesbians and gays are more likely to deconstruct the underlying assumptions in 'lesbian' and 'gay', these sexuality labels do have gender baked into them as sexual orientations, gender is how you orient yourself when making meaning of sexuality when society is so focused on 'naturalising' and 'essentialising' the differences between the genders under a heteronormative and patriarchal society. but when you're fucking with genders as trans people tend to do, you do not take for granted how gender is itself such a precarious construct and the attempt to hinge sexual orientations on gender as an 'essential' force is a lost cause.

[larrythefloridaman]

I'll put Crimson here but I'm sure he's been asked already, so just in case I'll also add Recon Riley

Noone did, actually! I suppose I'll do both

GIVE ME A CHARACTER

Crimson:

How I feel about this character:

Embarrassed by the depths of my own investment in dissecting the complexities of the most annoying guy in the whole wide world. A strange sense of pride in knowing i sowed the seeds of my own downfall by inciting the initial reinterpretation of crimson's character as a shitstirrer after 20. Maddened by my own position as a lead researcher in studying this freak and how recontextualization fundamentally transforms the audience's understanding of its character and its role in the narrative, particularly enamored with how your perspective changes when one rewatches from the very beginning of the show with lategame context in mind.

so in conclusion hes fine. I guess.

All the people I ship romantically with this character:

Mostly just crimtoinette, beyond a passing joke here or there or vaguely shippy interpeetations of canon relationships (like my opinion of crimson and val's past relationship,) shes kinda the only character i can see him with in a serious capacity- well. theres also the chart. the chart is its own beast

My non-romantic OTP for this character:

Crimson and Cosmic 'my mom blasted me to smithereens' support group when

My unpopular opinion about this character:

I worry i tend to dominate conversations about Crimson and its character with my general intensity about the subject to an extent i mightve frightened off some people from discussing the it. So if most of my opinions were unpopular im not sure id notice. This being said i understand the 'out transmasc' or 'nonbinary because it doesnt care' type interpretations of crimson's gender situation but i do not agree. closet-case transfem crimson numero uno the Arc of it just Makes The Most Sense. Transition would not fix her so much as it would be an inevitable byproduct of fixing her. like lanolin or pomace. its an essay topic on the backburner because it would involve a lot of discussion on queercoding and the exploitative relationship between fascistic art policing and subversive sociopolitically confronting art- to make my point about transfem crimson as a concept arisen from the deconstruction of a queercoded 'demonic seducer/general sleaze' villain archetype in the metanarrative as a victim trapped as a villain constructed as straw by the powers that be to destroy as a performance of absolute power and control- as effectively and thoroughly as possible and i simply do not have the time nor energy. essay i havent written tl;dr what if you wanted to transition but god (the all-powerful author of your reality) said no the minute they got the hint because you'd be bad representation. because you were born to die a liar. According to them.

One thing I wish would happen / had happened with this character in canon:

Sighs so wistfully. Limbo was so cool for the (checks notes) three scenes it was directly relevant before the streams ended

Recon Riley:

How I feel about this character:

I like them! Dont have a lot to say off the top of ny dome, though. Cocky and talented in some things but definitely not others, mysterious, unscrupulous, disloyal, cool, genderfluid. The vibes are great just in general

All the people I ship romantically with this character:

Ehhhhhhhhh. I feel like i dont know enough concrete information about them to really get all that invested in making this doll kiss any other doll. genuinely all power to the making shit up for fun warriors you're powerful but im not. I need some kind of foundation to work off of to care and we truly know So Little about good ol riles beyond their place in the plot

My non-romantic OTP for this character:

I think her and jenny have a funny rapport? shrug

My unpopular opinion about this character:

Theres a pretty open ambiguity that Riley was a victim of Doctor Order who was stuck there because they had to be for one reason or another like most of her allies OR. that theyre an opportunist that just saw the writing on the wall and decided to ingratiate themselves to the winning side of the 'war' as quickly as possible. I find the latter a bit more interesting, because while its cynical and the former has precedent- well thats exactly it. We already have so many uncomplicatedly victimized former order allies that i think its a fresher take and a more interesting and unique narrative niche for them to fill to have been there because they were Kind Of A Selfish Asshole and willing to go with what Order was doing a lot of the time for personal profit's sake. Not a true believer in the cause or anything, just ruthless, and folded themselves seamlessly into cpuk's ranks with all the other former order folks trying to leave their history behind.

One thing I wish would happen / had happened with this character in canon:

For the love of god. i wanna know anything about riley ever. They dont want to be known about but too bad i need to know what their fucking deal is

[spacecatdraws]

things i have said

without the context to understand why

I told you he has hands!

Stop throwing oats at her

Holy shit, I’ve gone blind. What time is it?

It’s an endless cycle of disappointment

come on, let’s go see the nonexistent psychiatrist

harpy with a hockey stick terrorizes the local police

I will hit you with a frying pan. And you’d probably enjoy it. You freak.

i woke up with one spoon

youre a deadbeat dad to yourself

how many birds does it take to pull of a heist?

blood bubble. A bloodble.

coding is just magic

theyre so gay I had to drug one of them about it

i am putting them in situations

i ran out of green so I’m just using black

Hawaiian shirt. but it just says HAWAII!!!! on it

my dreams and my nightmares are indistinguishable from each other

i was on the run from the police for being transfem (i am AFAB)

plastic itchy :[

”make me a sandwich” I’ll make you a sandwich. And I’ll eat it in front of you. While making eye contact.

it’s either made in two minutes or costs fifty dollars on steam

im always hallucinating

the fog is back

its a parfake. fake parfait. parfake

“gender’s what’s in your pants” I’m not wearing pants. These are shorts

I’m upright and not crying

i wanna deconstruct your art and eat it like a charcuterie board

chaos incarnate

i am the patron saint of sticky notes

i like chasing people.

im gonna move all your furniture 3 inches to the left

I’m getting paid 5 bucks for this

My phone chargers commit suicide whenever I use them at all

there are hermit crabs in the monastery

eyes on me, bitch

cyanide the substance teacher

she died in a fire but she’s better now

the elevator is broken because half of it is missing

hello car

gay💥💥

fish fucker

you lost your glasses in the lake?

logs sounds like a bitch

40% gay, 60% homophobic

They hate each other? no they kissing

just the angriest pile of goop

i spilled black paint on my carpet so I cut out an eye and put it on there

i got stabbed. unintentionally.

he acquired a kid through probably legal means

what does a q look like

that’s a cool serial killer.

name him richard

i can’t drive but that won’t stop me from trying

gay panic and werewolves

if I draw him can you put him on the wall

if you ask, I’ll give you context

[maslows-pyramid-scheme]

will you tell us more about your hypothesis that postmodernism is poisoning grade/high school?

I'm still making sense of my observations, but it seems that post-modernism is entrenched in every aspect of learning to teach. Like, conceptually, several of my teachers have pushed the idea that 'truth' can only ever be personal, and that we should encourage children to see it like that (particularly in connection to teaching Indigenous students, which, in my opinion, is creationism by stealth); practically, the resources they're giving us show us how to teach content when content is subjective.

I'll give you some examples (under the cut, because this is going to be long):

Looking at language isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the focus on wording to the exclusion of everything else, or at least without a firm consideration of everything else ('development of new words and language forms,' 'requires an understanding of how language and other forms of communication work in social context, as distinct from abstract ideational meaning,' 'a key point here is that the focus is not to ask "what does the text mean?," but rather "what are the effects of this text on the reader and how does it achieve them?"'), contributes, in my opinion, to the generation of people who can't actually comprehend what they're reading. Like, if you show them a word, they know what the word means, but they can't make sense of the sentence, and the ideas that the speaker is trying to communicate - those people who seem to take everything in the worse possible context, who get angry because a person expresses a very normal opinion but uses (inoffensive) words to communicate it.

I'm sure we could also have a discussion about how post-modernism discourages action too, e.g. the example of gender from Buchbinder in the second screenshot. I thought this was a stark contrast to twentieth-century theories that education could be used for social transformation - that, as a teacher, you could not only teach how power hierarchies are maintained (like Buchbinder gets at), but what to actually do about it (which Buchbinder doesn't get into, because post-modernists are more interested in explaining what things are than how they should change).

These last two screenshots are from the practical teaching guide we were given to frame our teaching on; we're being encouraged to try and ensure that, when we teach, we try to integrate these into our lesson plans because 'they work' (I'm sure we could have a conversation about teaching fads and educational standards lol). While I understand that children should be taught to question things, I think it's contextual: I want them to question whether the industrial revolution was a huge step forward for humanity, not whether evolution is real, whether the Holocaust actually happened, or that there's no such thing as truth and that they should just deconstruct everything.

But this is just the degree, and I'm hopeful that it'll look different in a professional context (and that people in the degree will have the good common sense to know that some of these things are nonsense, or have to be done in moderation).

[burning-bubble-tea]

Just saw a vent vent art post about a trans guy saying he doesn’t like the term trans masc for honestly understandable reasons but I’m sorta over this sorta mentality of “oh if you’re against the gender binary why are queer people making a new one” cause I think that’s a interpretation that doesn’t always hold true.

As someone who does use the term trans fem, it’s not because I lump in trans women with non binary people, this isn’t some woman 2 shit that this person is perceiving, but when I use terms like trans masc and trans fem it allows space for those in the inbetween. Does it suck that we need a label to validate our experiences? Maybe but language is about communication and being able to communicate to someone that I view myself as someone who has transitioned to a more feminine aspect while not fully identifying as a trans woman gives me some room to exist while minimizing gate keeping.

Like some non binary people are non binary in ways not because they are agender, but because they inhabit multiple.

I really do understand where they are coming from and I do get why they don’t like the term but language is ever evolving and time will tell if terms like trans masc and trans fem fall out of fashion.

Also the social construction of gender I personally am fine with the idea that there can be masculinity and femininity. Like I agree with the person saying that it is unfortunate that transmasc and transfem as a label do depend on which gender you were assigned at birth but language is complicated and no word is perfect but in my idea of the deconstruction of the gender binary, there can still be things that are masculine and feminine but it shouldn’t be viewed as a positive or negative nor should it be strictly stuck as one.

I think anything can be masculine feminine or neither or both depending on the context.

The destruction of the gender binary for me is the understanding that gender is a social construct and there for can be understood and changed. It’s not women wear pink and men wear blue, it’s the understanding that it’s a social construction and therefore shouldn’t determinate how we treat others.

But besides all this pseudo intellectual bullshit I’m spewing the main thing that frustrates me about this post is I do feel comfortable calling myself trans fem and seeing another queer person say they hate those terms kinda sucks.

Like I use those terms not because I lack the imagination for a world beyond the gender binary like the post insinuates the usage of trans masc and trans fem implies, but because I don’t really vibe with the label non binary, it’s an umbrella term I’m technically under but a lot of my experiences over lap with a lot of trans women in my life. Also unfortunately we live in a world with a gender binary and thus we do need language to navigate and communicate it and unfortunately we do have to build on the foundations that are already there.

Like would I benefit from a world this vent art is imagining? Yes I could probably just call myself a trans woman and be done with it but unfortunately we don’t live in that world, so trans fem helps me exist without taking up space and spotlight on others.

But yeah, this stuff mainly just boils down to “hey that’s my label and it’s hard to not take it personally when I’ve attached a lot of emotions to the label you’re saying is bad” and I know I’m not a bad person because frustrated and tired trans man on Instagram made vent art but hey, you posted it publicly and though you turned off comments, it’s in my brain now.

Like I dunno, saying people lack imagination for using terms like trans masc and fem and saying it’s too convenient seems kinda insulting. And also if you are all about abolishing gender then we also wouldn’t use terms like man or woman and like I’m more of a live and let live when it comes to labels.

Like trans masc and trans fem are convenient terms and I’m not sorry for using them, I don’t lack imagination using it, it’s just that I understand I live in a world with social constructions and language and no one will understand me if I makeup a word without having descriptors and unfortunately or not, trans fem is the best word I’ve got to describe my gender identity.

Yeah so I get where he is coming from but sometimes you have to deal with clumsily language as we stumble forward towards queer liberation. I’m not saying you have to shut up, but I am saying you can silently not like something.

[thephantomcasebook]

An actress I really respect once said that when you are given a characters to play you shouldn't judge the character, because then you would be making them a disservice. If you have to play a prostitute then you can't judge the fact that they are able to have sex with a person they are disgusted by for 10$,but understand what led them there and who they are in the context of the story.

I feel like a couple of the HOTD actors didn't do that, judging the character without understanding who they were. And then if you add the 'woke' politics of the writers, then it makes sense how some characters were written and played.

I remember that quote, but I can't, for the life of me, remember who said it.

But I 1000% agree with you.

Just like there's been a degradation of writing over the last decade, because, all writers are taught to do now is deconstruct and tear down, not how to create. Acting is also starting to degrade in the decades due to this insipid mind virus that's affecting everything.

Back in the old days, an actor took on a role and became that role, finding a way in and exposing the humanity so that the flaws can be more pronounced and hit harder when we see both sides of this person that we can relate too, no matter the gender or color of their skin. The actor or actress didn't have to agree with them, but they strove to understand them so they could do the utmost job in brining them to life for the love of the craft and artform.

Now - and I've seen it more and more in actors and especially actresses born in the 1990's - they want to change the character fundamentally to suit their own personality or so they could be more like them. Now, rather than they embody the shoes of someone else, that character must be some extension of them. It's deeply narcissistic and reductive. More and more the character has to be tailor fit and reflect the actor or actresses experiences or beliefs.

I always bring up Lena Headey with Cersei. Don't get it twisted, I may think that Lena Headey is so incredibly stupid that they had to burn down the school to get her out of the third grade, but I also was a big fan of hers for a good chunk of my life and followed her career closely for years. And I guarantee you that Headey had nothing in common with Cersei - other than believing that she is a smart person - but she made it clear in every interview and press tour that she adored Cersei cause she understood her on a fundamental level. And as an actress she loved the scenes where she and Tyrion were being terrible toward one another because she and Dinklage had so much fun getting into these characters and playing these scenes.

The same thing goes for Michelle Dockery and Laura Carmichael in "Downton Abbey". Just like Olivia Cooke and Emma D'Arcy, Dockery and Carmichael are best friends in real life, they're as close as real life sisters. But both their characters in the show and movies, Lady Mary and Lady Edith, aren't just sisters, but rivals and enemies. And the two of them - just like Headey and Dinklage - loved playing those hateful and vicious scenes against one another, cause, once they inhabit these characters, slip in, they have a blast embodying this person they love to be and bringing out their humanity in these sparing and pissing contests between two rich aristocrat sisters.

However, when you look at Cooke and D'arcy, they want the characters of Alicent and Rhaenyra to reflect them, their relationship, their friendship, and not them becoming Alicent and Rhaenyra, taking on the two characters attributes and beliefs. Both actresses are so intolerant, so up their own ass, that rather than accept that these two women hate one another, that they come from two different worlds once they grow up into adults, they allow their bullshit bimbo feminist cultist beliefs get in the way of their own craft.

Rather than Cooke portraying Alicent as a traditionalist and pious woman that values family and church. She decided that Alicent was a secret closeted lesbian who hates herself and secretly pines for Rhaenyra and her freedoms. And all because Cooke has such a distaste, such a prejudice, against real life women who think in such a way, that she couldn't bear to not only portray them in media, but lower herself to try and understand their world view at all.

And that's why Cooke will always be a good actress but never a great actress like Dockery, Headey, Jessica Brown Findlay, and Laura Carmichael. Cause she'll never fully embody or get lost in a character enough to make them a real or tangible person because her empathy is blocked by rampant narcissisms masked as a crusading activist of the most luxury of West End, London, politics.

[dog-teeth]

hi... idk if this is stupid but any tips on telling apart gender envy and attraction? i've been questioning for years and it's really throwing me off. i don't wanna transition only to realize i wanted to be with the person instead of being them :((

this ended up being long asf cuz i love to ramble so im gonna put it under the cut

i’ve struggled a lot with that too, i started being attracted to men after transitioning more, instead of just having gender envy towards them, thanks to physical/medical/more intense social transition which made me able to interact with men while not being perceived as a woman. it was all very confusing.

generally, i don’t think pure attraction would make you?? want to transition??? like if you were just attracted to them then you would be attracted to them as your current gender, not want to change your gender to be more like them? i guess maybe that could happen but honestly i don’t rly think cis people usually work like that.

i also think you need to deconstruct your idea of what ‘transition’ means - it’s not like one singular process over a set amount of time that you go through and then suddenly at the end you realize you made a mistake and don’t identify that way. transitioning is an active choice you make every moment of every day, and the vast majority of it is internal + social, not physical, so if you end up changing your mind, you can do it just fine. i strongly doubt you would go through an entire social and medical transition without realizing that you actually just wanted to be with someone. along the way you will be able to understand which parts of gender and transition make you happy, and what feels wrong. you’ll be able to feel out how things like altering your gender presentation with clothes, pronouns, names, etc, feels to you. if it makes you feel more like yourself, you’re probably not just doing it because you’re attracted to someone.

you can (and should) also take your transition as slow as you want, deciding to transition is a big deal but also it doesn’t have any inherent repercussions, from that decision you can choose to do whatever you want with your gender. take it one little step at a time, it’s not a big huge thing that happens all at once, it’s a slow and tedious and active process that will give you plenty of time to figure yourself out along the way.

as always, my blanket advice is that thinking really hard about your gender identity and what you want and how you feel often does not help, what does help is actually experimenting with your identity/presentation/etc, in whatever way you think would be most helpful and doable, even if it’s just by yourself or with a close friend or online etc. it doesn’t have to be drastic or public.

if you’ve been questioning for years, that’s a pretty solid indicator that some part of your identity, gender, sexuality, or presentation, is not currently what will make you happiest & your most genuine self. which part, i can’t tell you, but you can figure out with experimentation.

it also can be both gender envy and attraction. i feel that way about guys sometimes. it doesn’t make either aspect less valid or important, it just means there are traits of that gender/person that i find attractive both in a partner and that i want for myself. now that i’m more comfortable in my body & presentation (shoutout to hrt), the relationship i have with gender-envy-attraction is a little different, it would take a whole essay to explain but basically i just have a type LOL.

i can’t tell if you mean that there’s one specific person who you feel gender envy / attraction towards, or if this is a more general thing for you. if you mean one person, then consider looking for other sources of gender inspiration, like other people you’d want to be like, and see how it feels, and just think about your life and experiences separate from this person.

either way, think about who you would want to be if there were no expectations or context. just if it was you alone being able to choose what gender you were born as, or how you would want to look/be if you could instantly magically make it happen. if it’s something different than how you are now, then that’s significant! for example, i know that if i was the only person on earth and no one would ever see me, i would still want to have a flat chest. and i wouldn’t be able to choose which gender i id want to be born as because i wouldn’t want to be born as either one. dealing inn hypotheticals like this can be frustrating and unhelpful, but it can also help you get to the root of your feelings by removing the practical context of your life.

as always my perspective is that you have nothing to lose and everything to gain from experimenting with your gender, and you should go for it, and if you end up realizing that it’s not for you, that’s totally fine and you can go back to being cis! no harm done! but if there’s even a chance that changing something about your gender would make you happier, you should try it out.

[pixelsandpins]

My Gender is Crab: How Fantasy and Sci-fi Helped Shaped My Non-Binary Identity

On Twitter and in casual conversation I have described my gender as the following: crab-person, one of the creatures from “Behemoth’s World” by 70’s sci-fi painter Richard Clifton-Day, a bird demon with a funny hat, the Pokemon Gengar, and “a lady, I guess, but…you know…not on purpose.” The non-binary experience is, by its nature, weird as hell in the context of a system that, at its best, describes itself as a spectrum between set points, and, at its worst, demands you fall into a discreet category of only two options. Are you neither? Are you both? Are you sat somewhere squat in the middle? And the answer is just sort of…yes? My relationship with my own non-binaryness is informed by a patchwork of neurodivergencies. At its core, though, it stems from a pervasive intellectual disconnect from existence as a human as we, collectively, understand it. Sci-fi and fantasy is both an instigating factor, and, as a writer, an exploration of that thought process.

The first time I feel like I saw a real deconstruction of the gender I was assumed at birth was in a book by Harry Harrison. In West of Eden there’s this species of hyper-intelligent matriarchal dinosaur people called the Yilané . Among the Yilané , the females run everything and the males are these little blobfish lookin’ dudes who get relegated to the breeding pen. And at twelve years old? My mind? Totally and completely blown. And this wasn’t because it was women in charge. Not really. I’d been raised on that unique brand of 90s/early aughts girl power already. Buffy, Xena, various Disney channel everygirl heroines, Powerpuff Girls, Daria, whatever the fuck Cleopatra 2525 was trying to do. I had been told that girls could do anything boys could do without sacrificing their femininity blah blah blah.

But the Yilané ?

They weren’t any of that bubblegum, spandex, high-kick pop feminism that my female cohorts vibed with so easily. They were morally complicated and intelligent and calculating and vicious. More importantly, they were the first version of “woman” I truly groked. Their whole existence wasn’t centered around either adhering to or being in defiance of some arbitrary standard of femininity. They lived unburdened by the expectations that my own horrific corporeal form had been saddled with. They were monstrous. So while I admired the Janeways and Hermiones and Dana Scullys and Zoë Washburns with which I had been presented as formidable models of womanhood, I didn’t want to be them. I wanted claws and teeth and the ability to smell blood on the wind.

“So you’re just a scaly/furry?”

Shush.

Shit, maybe?

It’s not quite like that.

I don’t/didn’t really want to be an animal necessarily (though, like, if someone offered to turn me into a dragon…who the fuck is turning that down). But when no version of womanhood, be it traditional or progressive, feels right and you can’t pinpoint why, just being a horned demon from one of the middle circles of hell seems like a way easier plan in the long term.

Over the years, without intellectually understanding that I was doing it in my writing, I started crafting sections of world and lore where the rules for sex and gender and the expression of both were different at a fundamental, biological level. Female elves became boxy and tall, almost indistinguishable from their male counterparts in androgynous elven clothing. Ariesians could only be told apart by the color of their horns. The dimorphism of drakkakens shifted from their initial designs in my early sketch books to favor, larger, imposing females. Goblins, that I finally got around to including in The Terrible Persistence of Memory, were designed as hermaphrodites. I’ve been working up the details for a band of tri-sexed species, tacking down their reproductive process, and a member of this clade appeared as the lead in The Center of the Universe.

Naxos was the first time, though, when proverbial pen was put to paper that the personal feelings about my own identity latched to a specific character. Ysa is a bull-creature. She’s been made into something weird and strange through a combination of her own will and magic that she doesn’t quite understand. And she’s me. And Ari, her romantic partner, doesn’t see Ysa in terms of any social construct. Ari doesn’t see a man or a woman or a monster. She sees Ysa. To make this as a story between women. To make and market it as a yuri game. For me, it was a radical reinterpretation of the role of “woman” I felt like I was regularly being forced into. That I couldn’t escape.

Since I put out that game in 2018, what began as a re-invention turned into what I realized had always been a rejection, one I hadn’t really figured out the parameters of, yet. One that had words I had only really just learned as an adult. That despite how much I wanted womanhood to incorporate that which I was, it just kind of….didn’t. But that it was, indeed, something I could escape. And the instant I gave myself a place, however fictional, to actually do so, I started to see myself hiding underneath.

[writing-with-olive]

im writing a book where you can either be a prince princess or witch. princes as male princesses as female and witch is someone who has potential to become evil/some1 who isn’t a damsel. mc is a cis girl + lesbian who wants be a "prince" to save ppl. the whole thing is to be a commentary on gender roles and deconstruction of fairytales i wanna include trans and nb ppl but how can i do that without it being offensive esp in a world like this

Hey anon!

So first thing, I'm going to write what I think you've worldbuilt here to make sure that I'm accurate in my understanding/if I'm not, then to see my suggestions with that context.

Prince: male, not a damsel (based on your character wanting to be a prince)

Princess: female, a damsel

Witch: genderless, has the potential to be evil, not a damsel like a princess

Okay so. Including characters respectfully. My personal opinion is that a trans-inclusive/trans-supportive world is ideal because the ratio of fictional transphobic worlds to trans-inclusive worlds is WAY too high. Also, we live in a largely transphobic world (just take a look at what the United States is doing - it's horrific) and a chance to actually have some escapism, instead of just being reminded that we're not included the same way everyone else is, is kinda nice. 

With this in mind, how you structure your worldbuilding is going to look a few different ways. (Note that these are not the limit, but just some ways I might think about worldbuilding to help give you a starting place)

Option 1: There's a certain period of time before people are seperated out into being princes, princesses, or witches. During their youth, gender is pretty fluid and open. It's only after a certain milestone that characters have to decide what they want to call themselves and then they are slotted into the appropriate social role. This would mean that it is completely natural to have trans princes/princesses/witches. This does open up the plot hole of "well then why didn't MC just say she was male so she could become a prince?" Though I imagine this can be circumvented with an explanation such as "she didn't realize"

Option 2: Just.... don't explain it. There are trans princesses and trans princes and that's just how it is. This has the benifit of not being too complicated and focusing the story on the gender roles themselves rather than the mechanics of how they work. This also opens up a ton of plotholes so.... have fun with that :D

Option 3: Given that there's witches in this, I'm assuming that there's magic, so maybe there's a way that people could tell what gender characters are based on that, as opposed to what they look like physically. This changes out some of the identity that comes with discovering that you don't quite fit into the established gender roles, but it also reinforces that people's gender isn't just what kinda package they were born with, which is a win. 

The one thing to keep in mind is that under no circumstances should you make all the trans characters (or if there's only one trans character) witches. If you have witch trans characters, fine. But you gotta have trans princes/princesses too. 

This leads us to nonbinary people. Basically the concept is that if someone's nonbinary, it means they don't fit into society's gender roles. In this case, the gender roles are pretty strict -- you're either a prince, princess, or a witch. Like with binary trans characters, we have a few options here as well (feel free to mix and match options that I give for nb/trans characters how you want it's your book).

Option 1: If it's set up like a monarchy system almost, you can have nonbinary characters being neither princes or princesses (the witch comment from above applies here as well), but rather other high-ranking positions like advisors or religious leaders or emissaries. Basically, you're not forcing them into lower ranks because they don't fit with the binary system that's been set up

Option 2: There are nonbinary princes/princesses. Basically, they've been slotted into being a prince or princess just like everyone else, but within their role as prince or princess, they're still nonbinary, meaning they might use more gender neutral language to talk about themselves, and they fit into the role as required but in every other respect, they don't. 

So I guess to sum up, my thoughts are to make your world trans-inclusive/trans-supportive as this is both nice to read as someone who is trans, and also adds to the overall commentary on gender roles, and within this, you have options to play with to make your worldbuilding support this.

Happy writing!

[zedecksiew]

“Exotic Warrior”

(Am writing this because it’s been bubbling over in my mind. This post is an exorcism of bad vibes over bad ideas that have held me hostage, the past few days.)

+

There is now criticism on Twitter arguing that the “Exotic Warrior”, one of Troika!’s d66 Backgrounds, is racist because it is coded as Orientalist / Asian.

I would like to respectfully disagree.

(There are other arguments in the initial complaint. I am commenting the “Exotic Warrior” specifically. Because by being actually East Asian -- part of the diaspora, living in Southeast Asia -- I feel I have some standing to comment.)

+

When I encountered “Exotic Warrior” in the book it stood out as a neat background and helped sell me on Troika!.

As I read it, the Background is a deft piece of work: it references the “adventurer from a foreign land” thing, but occludes said trope’s usual Orientalism -- an attempt at deconstruction.

A foreigner, in Troika!, can be anybody. This isn’t just a platitude; it’s supported by the book’s implied science-fantasy setting -- is essentially Spelljammer, but on more acid.

It is similar to Electric Bastionland / Planescape / etc in that it features a melting-pot, nobody’s-local “city at the centre of creation”-type deal. (I have Thoughts about RPG setttings that focus on metropoles, but that’s a separate post.)

+

Here’s the “Exotic Warrior” ’s text, in full:

24 EXOTIC WARRIOR No one has heard of your homeland. Your habits are peculiar, your clothes are outrageous, and in a land jaded to the outlandish and new you still somehow manage to stand out.

POSSESSIONS - A WEIRD & WONDERFUL WEAPON. - STRANGE CLOTHES. - EXCITING ACCENT. - A TEA SET or 3 POCKET GODS or ASTROLOGICAL EQUIPMENT.

ADVANCED SKILLS 6 Language - Exotic Language 3 Fighting in your Weird Weapon 2 Language - Local Language 2 Spell - Random 1 Astrology 1 Etiquette 

Honestly? None of the above reads as particularly problematic. It’s a legit, characterful beginning point for a player-character.

Sure, my Western-media-battered brain jumps to Samurai Warrior -- 

But immediately also to Sufi Missionary or Varangian Guard. And indeed comes to rest at Indeterminately White Gentleperson Naturalist -- the kind of exotic visitor Southeast Asia got, a lot, those scouts of European imperialism.

+

These readings are possible because of the illustration the entry is paired with. Here they are together:

Setting aside the surrealist stylisations:

The shape of the costume, the belt, the “skirt” -- these look like Europeanisms, to me. And the figure’s laughing abandon opposes the standard Orientalist tropes of wise inscrutability or red-faced savagery.

The choice to run “Exotic Warrior” with a decidedly non-Orientalist-coded illustration isn’t an unintentional piece of art direction.

(PS: any critique of an illustrated text that only focuses on the words is incomplete. Image is half the text of an illustrated text.)

+

The nondescript-ness of the entry plus its accompanying image is an open door. Opening this door isn’t without risk: whatever assumptions you make about your particular “Exotic Warrior” are drawn from your own biases.

+

Regarding “Etiquette” and “Astrology” and “Tea Set”?

With my biases: I don’t read these things as uniquely East-Asian. (When I first encountered “tea set” in Troika! I genuinely thought: “English tea service”, instead of: “temae”.)

The one that I did read as real-world Eastern was “Pocket Gods” -- but many human cultures had this, pocket gods are a part of Troika!’s wider fantasy setting, and “Exotic Warrior” isn’t the only Background to start with them.

+

A note on “exotification”:

The criticism of “Exotic Warrior” fundamentally seems to be: “Playing a character from the Other / that is Other-ed = BAD”.

I fundamentally disagree with this notion.

I have no lived experience of a society where being other-ed (in terms of culture, race, class, gender expression, etc) isn't an ever-present thread in the fabric of one's life -- and therefore a crucial and profound source of conflict and insight into the human condition.

(The ethnic fault-lines in Malaysian society have become so unbridgeable today primarily because it was official policy to sweep all that other-ing under the rug of “Malaysia Truly Asia”, as opposed to working through our ugly whispered prejudices towards understanding.)

We are not all the same. Cultural, geographic, and material differences exist. The mismatch in knowledge and understanding this creates? It matters.

In fact: To insist on universal cultural-knowledge parity; To push for “nobody’s born here, everybody belongs” melting-pots as the default framing; To nudge questions of difference and arrival into ghettos (to paraphrase one of the tweets I saw: “you can only explore issues surrounding the Other in a game specifically designed to do so”);

All that comes off to me as a very neo-liberal position, designed to safeguard and disguise the privileges of “mainstream” metropolitan melting-pots.

I read it as:

“Post-modern cosmopolitan societies want to be inclusive but don’t want to pay the admission price of history and discomfort, so they generally opt for erasure instead.”  

+++

Throughout this post I have been careful to speak from my particular context. Because context matters.

More context:

I like Troika!. Like, a lot. I think its creator, UK-based Daniel Sell, strives and succeeds at making thoughtful work. I consider him a friend, whom I’ve had personal (albeit Internet-bound) interactions now and again.

+

I have BJ Recio to thank for the following insight. Talking to him about “Exotic Warrior”, BJ brought up a crucial point that I’ll paraphrase here:

Roleplaying the outsider can be bad, especially when it is used as an excuse by the West to do fucked-up shit. But it is not default bad. Assuming it is default bad centres the discussion on “Will White people fuck this up? (Yes.)”

Essentially, the argument against “Playing a character from the Other / that is Other-ed = BAD" assumes two things:

(a) Western participants as default; (b) harm (because of ignorance or bad faith) as default.

+

If your context -- your Background, hah! -- prompts you to experience Troika! with those assumptions; and therefore read “Exotic Warrior” as necessarily Orientalist, and racially-charged?

Your context is your context; I’m not going to invalidate it.

If you are located in a society where the binary of White / non-White overpowers everything, I certainly understand the whys and hows of your position.

Your context matters.

+

So does mine.

+++

I think I’m reacting badly to this because I personally feel turned away by this RPG Discourse Around Representation (tm), supposedly done in the name of my East-Asian ass.

I resent the idea that “Playing a character from the Other / that is Other-ed = BAD”. It threatens to render verboten the entirety of my RPG work.

I am a SEA creator trying to explore and be true to my context. If there is one constant throughout SEAsian experience, it is difference.

Our peoples have ever encountered and glamourised and hated each other, all of us simultaneously Us and the Other:

Japanese and Malay enclaves in Ayutthaya; Mongol invaders in Java, who never left; Luzones mercenaries, employed by both the Sultan of Melaka and his Portuguese enemies; The reputation of the Ilanun / Bajak Laut; White conquistadors (aforementioned above); The entire history of diaspora Chinese identities (my identity!) in SEA, generally;

Foreigners from foreign lands -- feared, not fully understood, not fully understanding, simultaneously conquering and settling and finding modes of belonging, becoming a part of the land.

Always arriving.

+

That the background music of my geography, discordant though it may be, is somehow so harmful it may only be meaningfully depicted in the hermetic context of a “game specifically designed to explore that”?

This feels bad, and extremely unwelcoming. It feels like a shut gate instead of an open door.

I refuse to be turned away.

+++

(Hopefully I can finally stop thinking about this shit.)

[hamliet]

Girls Don’t Want Boys, Girls Want Monsters: Netflix’s The Witcher Review

Finally, the show we deserve. 

Men get all their superhero power fantasies of kicking villain ass. Finally there’s  a story that has that and includes women’s emotional power fantasies about falling in love with monsters who change. It doesn’t treat either as ridiculous or limited by gender, either, since Geralt falls for a monster too and women get to kick ass as well. 

Essentially, it’s a story about defeating monsters: often through integration with the shadow, sometimes involving love and connection, sometimes violence, but the violence is never glorified. It’s good. 

NB: I’m in the middle of reading the books (in the middle of Blood of Elves so far). I haven’t played the game since video games aren’t really a medium I enjoy. So I’ll make some comparisons since the show covered the two books I’ve read thus far, but please don’t put spoilers for the books below!

Let’s talk my favorite aspect of every story: characters. 

Renfri. 

Her story was somewhat sanitized from the books (it’s a lot more brutal what happened to Renfri) but well adapted. Both versions--the book and show--depict sincere empathy for our deconstructed Snow White. I loved her dialogue with Geralt, in which Geralt praises her for escaping the huntsman her stepmother hired to kill her, and she laughs and says that she didn’t. He let her go, but not before raping and robbing her. The story never directly answers if the prophecy was true or not; Geralt doesn’t believe it, but a lot of things Geralt doubts turn out to be true. Renfri was supposedly attacking animals as a child; however, the person reporting that is highly unlikely to be unbiased (Stregobor) so is this even true? Did Renfri become a killer because she was horribly abused and left with no other option? (That’s the option that I think seems most likely.) 

We can’t know. The Witcher isn’t interested in giving its audience palatable answers. It’s interested in provoking questions. The show gives more answers than do the books, again likely due to the medium, but it still lets these questions linger. 

Renfri’s story is not the first one in the books, but it is the first one the show adapts, and that’s a good decision imo. Her story embodies The Witcher’s themes and questions:

By acting the monster, we make monsters out of others. 

To defeat monsters, you must be a monster. 

What, then, can heal, especially in a world so broken?

Ciri.

Our deconstructed Rapunzel (yes, there are a lot of fairy tale references). As far as her story goes in its adaptation, the addition of Dara was well done. Sadly, no, Dara is not in the books, but his addition gave Ciri an arc beyond merely running in this story. 

That said, Ciri in the books is much younger than she is in the show. Which is okay, because Ciri is somewhat emblematic of the future: there’s a lot unknown about her powers, she needs to be protected from everyone trying to grab her and use her powers for themselves. She is Geralt’s destiny, and she is the future of the world of The Witcher. 

NB: I can’t discuss Ciri without shouting out to the casting director for casting Pavetta: how did they find an actress who looks so much like Ciri’s actress? It’s almost eerie. 

The episode where Geralt finds out about the Law of Surprise and his reaction to Pavetta’s pregnancy is perhaps the only story that I felt was better in the show than in the books (again, this isn’t inherently a quality thing but a medium preference). It added some much-needed hilarity (Geralt’s perfectly-timed “destiny can go f--” *Pavetta vomits* and all he can say is, “fuck”) and gave Geralt an arc. 

Geralt.

Mm. 

I liked how they handled his character and his struggles with what it means to be a Witcher and/or human. His struggles to understand himself are relatable, and fairly well set-up for future exploration. He’s a foil of Ciri, Yennefer, Jaskier, and Cahir so far, and I’m particularly intrigued by the monster theme and the foiling that is already set up thus with all of the above except Jaskier (who is no monster). Geralt was skeptical about saving the striga for her father, but managed to succeed, and I wonder if he will somehow be able to save himself from his own inner fears/monster by being a father. (Basically, I am curious as to how being Ciri’s de factor dad is going to challenge him.)

Jaskier.

Or, Dandelion, as he’s known in the books. The bard adds some much needed levity to the tale, and as @aspoonofsugar​ says, he’s pretty much Donkey from Shrek. But he is used fairly well within the story: he shows Geralt even before Ciri and Yennefer enter his life that he has a purpose beyond being a killing machine. In that sense he’s the foil of Renfri (Renfri accomplishes the same, but through violence) in that Geralt saves him and he clearly thinks highly of the Witcher. Jaskier is in some ways humanity in all its paradoxes and foibles, annoying and stupid, kind and clever, funny and truthful, deceptive and respectful. 

Cahir.

I’m a sucker for ravens as part of an aesthetic, as well as pretty, tormented bad boys. Yes, I know he’s a character I’m sure will arouse much handwringing and puritanical policing a la his other archetype brothers (Loki, Kylo Ren, Snape, etc). I don’t care. I do think the show made him much darker when compared to the books, but I still expect his arc to go in the same direction as the books. He’s a complicated, conflicted, complex character, and I’m not sorry for feeling empathy for him. 

But I am curious about his foiling with Geralt. Both are characters seeking Ciri to fulfill... something, and monstrous in a way (Cahir more for what he does, but there’s a humanity to him as well).

Yennefer.

Finally, my favorite, my baby murder daughter. 

Yennefer’s character was fascinating. I appreciated that she’s allowed to want deeply, her own wants, instead of attaching her wants to be whatever the male character desires. She wants to have children. She wants love. She wants to be beautiful. Her desires are traditionally feminine, and the show doesn’t put this down. And she also kicks ass and takes names, she fails, she’s allowed to be angry, to be mean often, to want to learn and to want to be the best. 

The show doesn’t punish Yennefer for her ambition. Neither do the books. She experiences consequences, both positive and negative, for her every choice. The show reveals her backstory right away, whereas the books don’t, but again that’s a medium thing. I think both do excellently in setting up Yennefer for our empathy. It doesn’t apologize for her or her wants or actions; it lets her arc and the story itself do the talking. 

Yennefer’s not here to be your cautionary tale or your role model. She’s just there to be her and to live. 

That is, to an extent, perhaps the best kind of role model. 

That doesn’t mean the show did everything in Yennefer’s story justice. I wasn’t thrilled with the adaptation of her first meeting with Geralt--the orgy in the background isn’t in the books and is a very bizarre decision given context. While, I loved Tissaia’s character and her foiling with Yennefer: they are too alike to ever get along, I really didn’t understand the point of Tissaia turning the other girls into slugs in episode 2. It was unsettling and not in the books. It was a heavy-handed metaphor not explained until episode 7 (about treating people as expendable slugs) that didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know about how the world and Dark!Hogwarts worked. If anything it made the school seem foolishly cackling-mustache evil instead of the true current of darkness within it: manipulation and utilitarianism. As part of effort to control things, that control itself can lead to chaos. 

I think the rest of the series set this precise dilemma of a precarious balance between self-control and manipulation/utilitarianism quite well, though (it goes hand-in-hand with the theme of a “lesser evil” to quote Renfri’s story). I’m excited to see this explored more. 

Other comments:

When comparing the show to the books as I’ve read so far, I think the show made some smart changes for adapting to a visual medium. For example, Foltest and Adda’s story was adapted as a mystery: what is the monster? Who is the father? Who is the curser? Can the monster be saved? Whereas the book doesn’t do that: you know immediately that the monster is a striga, Foltest is the father, and he wants the striga saved. The answer to who cursed Adda is never clear in the written story either, whereas the show declares it was Ostrit (the book leaves it very much up in the air as to whether it was Ostrit or Adda’s mother). However, the way this particular episode weaves Adda’s story of rebirth with Yennefer’s rebirth was beautifully done. (Foltest is a good dad. We need more good dads in stories; of course, if we had more good dads, we’d have far less stories.) (I’m jesting.) 

The dialogue is at times... well it’s not like it’s The Rise of Skywalker levels of “who wrote this???” but it’s not always stellar. Actually, I’d say the quality tends to swing wildly about between clever (episode 4) and just confusing (episode 5). But in general, I think the dialogue issue is representative of the show’s largest issue: it struggles to know when to trust its audience. When should it give details? When should it trust them? When is it spoonfeeding, and when is it just confusing? It tries to walk a fine line and stumbles a bit. It succeeds, however, with the characters as I mentioned earlier with Yennefer, Geralt, and Ciri. 

My advice for the show going forward (not that they should definitely listen to me) is to forget Game of Thrones. It’s pretty obvious that this show is a passion project made by people who love The Witcher. I really hope they lean into that aspect instead of into the GoT-replacement aspect (because there are definitely aspects of that, particularly in the mood/aesthetic, tone, and gratuitous nudity--which is not exploitative or disturbing, but it also wasn’t necessary, isn’t in the books, and so felt like pandering). 

However, the sheer love for the material still really shines  through. They made me care for the characters, they interested me in the world, and they have me hooked for season 2. The showrunners’ excitement for the story and adoration of its characters is contagious, and I hope the show lets this excitement spread.