#its certainly not representational of the actual community

[suitablysolemn]

hot take but there are some people out there who don't fall into either the category of "transition surgery saved my life" OR "i regret getting transition surgery." i know its really easy and convenient to sort trans people into one of those two boxes for your trolley problems or whatever but it's actually a lot more complicated than that. hrt is a genetic grab bag--you're gonna have people who get zero traits they wanted and zero traits they hate, or youre going to get people with a little bit of both, or youre going to get people who dont like the changes that happened to their bodies but they don't regret or want to undo those changes either. gender affirming surgery runs the risk of complications and (depending on the surgery) hormonal changes that you may or may not have wanted or been equipped to deal with--and like before, that doesnt fall neatly into either the "love it" or the "hate it" box. some people want gender affirming surgery without it being related to a gender TRANSITION--gender affirming surgery and hrt are not just for trans people! moreover, depending on your body type some surgeries may not be POSSIBLE, and that also impacts "trans dissatisfaction" in a way that detransitioning/regretting specifically surgeries does not measure.

overall, it's a big fuckin' world out there. we're a big community with a lot of varied people who have varying opinions about their bodies. you can like some parts of your transition journey but hate others; you can feel totally neutral about it; you can even not UNDERSTAND how you feel about it, and all of those things are okay. and you can feel all of those things regardless of your gender identity. you can regret having surgery but still be trans, you can want/get surgery and be cis.....like i said, it's a big world out there and two neat little boxes just doesnt account for that! and it’s also not really a great thing to use people who regret having surgery as a way to point and go, "hey those people were WRONG about their bodies and that makes them bad people that we should throw under the bus while claiming that that supports trans rights."

that's all.

[apenitentialprayer]

i know that as a catholic you just have to believe with what the church says but i really dont like the belief of the original sin, i feel like its such a horrible thing to believe about yourself and about other human beings too

There are actually ways of legitimately dissenting from less essential Church teachings in a way that leaves you in good standing with the Church; I'm not sure if Original Sin is one of those things, though, to be honest.

But, anon, I'm going to offer another perspective here, starting from a quote (perhaps ironically?) from my favorite heretic. One of the things that James Carroll believes is that Original Sin has been given a bad wrap. In Constantine's Sword, he says:

I referred to Augustine’s assertion of the idea that the human condition implies a perennial state of finitude, weakness, and sin, all of which will be overcome, even for the Church, only with the end of time. [...] Augustine is thus regarded as the father of a severe, flesh-hating, sin-obsessed theology, but that dark characterization misses the point of his insight. His honest admission of the universality of human woundedness is a precondition for both self-acceptance and the forgiveness of the other, which for Augustine always involved the operation of God’s grace, God’s gift. Only humans capable of confronting the moral tragedy of existence, matched to God’s offer of repairing grace, are capable of community, and community is the antidote to human woundedness. Augustine sensed that relationship as being at the heart of God, and he saw it as being at the heart of human hope, too. This is a profoundly humane vision.

I wish I had understood the spirit of this quote when I was in high school. I remember learning in my World History class that Islam teaches that all children are born good, and then the world makes them evil. And I remember my teacher asking how that compares with Christianity, and I raised my hand and said that Christianity teaches that all of us are born evil. Because I believed that at the time. And, really, the whole framing of that question was wrong and gave really simplistic representations of what Islam and Christianity teaches, but I don't think we're alone in having internalized that understanding, anon. And that's a shame.

I thin it's important to remember the worldview that the doctrine of Original Sin is actively defending us against; there was an idea, that gets called "Pelagianism" (the poor guy it got named after may not even have believed it), that said that humans were capable of being saved on their own, by their own power. Someone on this site recently asked what people's thoughts on Pelagianism were, so you can read my thoughts here. But to keep it short and sweet, I think Original Sin is an important doctrine because it saves you from the need to be perfect.

There are ways to treat Original Sin that I think are certainly unhealthy, and I think the doctrine can be a source of anxiety and fear. But I also think, very deeply, that Original Sin should be a reason why we treat ourselves and especially our neighbor with kindness and understanding. I can look at myself and say "What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate. […] For I do not do the good that I want, but I do the evil I do not want" (Romans 7:15, 19). And I can say that because I know I am ontologically wounded; that all of us have our weaknesses. That while we may still be in the moral wrong for committing a morally wrong action, our wills are compromised in a way that causes us to incline towards the comfortable and the easy rather than the good.

I wish I could go back in time and tell that class that Christianity does not teach that people are born evil. I wish I could go back and tell them that it teaches that we are born in a state of dis-integration, that we are wounded beings yearning for wholeness; alienated beings seeking everlasting belonging; beings lost in darkness, seeking the light. But I can say it now: the doctrine of Original Sin doesn't have to be an occasion to think you're depraved and without value, but it can be an invitation to come to terms with your own woundedness, because doing that (to use the words of Lutheran theologian Nancy Eiesland) "opens a space for the inflowing of grace and acceptance."

[greenthena]

Buck up, Hamlet!

***Trigger warning: Death and taking your own life in the context of Shakespeare***

Aziraphale likes Hamlet. Likes the play so much, that he bats his eyelashes at Crowley until the demon performs a miracle to make the mopey Prince of Denmark more popular. Well, good job, the both of you, because four hundred and some odd years later, you still can't get through repertory auditions without some bugger hoisting a skull and starting that monologue. Not that I don't appreciate Hamlet from a structural and analytical perspective. And the Prince of Denmark is a character most actors would sacrifice several toes to play. But it's dark. It's not a fun one.

So why does Aziraphale like it so much? Why's this fluffy little angel so Hell-bent on one of Shakespeare's tragedies? Join me, friendly Good Omens scholars, and let's suss some shit out.

Crowley adamantly dislikes Shakespeare's tragedies. "This isn't one of Shakespeare's gloomy ones, is it? Arghhhh. No wonder no one is here," he complains, wilting like a floppy noodle. Of course, it doesn't take much for Aziraphale to weasel the demon into miracling more people into the audience. But Crowley makes a point to say that he "still prefer(s) the funny ones" as he's leaving The Globe.

Crowley, I would argue, goes to the theatre to escape his real-life situation. He's a bloody demon who, when he's not stationed on Earth, literally goes to Hell. And it's not a nice place. Crowley's everyday life (particularly when he's not around Aziraphale) revolves around pain and suffering--whether its his or someone else's is insignificant. What matters is that regularly sees and experiences tangible, visceral representations of tragedy in his actual existence. Of course he prefers Shakespeare's funny ones! They're a reminder that the world and the human race that he's accidentally become so attached to is full of more than torment and affliction. Crowley doesn't appreciate Shakespeare's tragedies because they're an extension of his own suffering, with which he's already intimately familiar. For Crowley, attending a Shakespearean tragedy is like picking a scab. You already know you've been injured and fussing with the damned thing only makes it worse.

This is not the case for Azirapahle. As an angel, he's not allowed to have any scabs, much less pick at them. Like Crowley, he sees suffering in the world. He knows that humanity is constantly facing difficult odds, and even the most wonderful of human lives eventually ends in death. But unlike Crowley, Aziraphale works within a system in which there is no gray space--and therefore, no room for an angel, an agent of the side of righteousness, to experience doubt in the Ineffable Plan. The Heavenly model is to deal with problems by pretending they don't exist. Heaven has an image to maintain, after all. Like, the sheer amount of repression we see amongst the Heavenly Host is honestly terrifying. I'm thinking about the way in which The Metatron frames the Fall and damnation of a third of the angels. "For one Prince of Heaven to be cast into the outer darkness makes a good story. For it to happen twice, makes it look like there is some kind of institutional problem." It's so cold and removed because to process something so traumatic would not fit the image of Heaven. So it's neatly boxed up and packed away into a soundbite that better fits Heaven's corporate brand.

Aziraphale's suffering is certainly no less than Crowley's. The angel's trauma is repressed. It's cloaked in shining bright hallways of pure angelic light. It's hidden behind false words and tight smiles. It's communicated passive-aggressively by abusers who still have the angel caught in their web of control and manipulation. At least Crowley's trauma is visible. When he fell, the demon took on a new appearance that physically demonstrates his suffering. He has access to feelings of anger and frustration and he's allowed to express these things because he's a demon. He doesn't have to be good.

Since Aziraphale is not permitted to own his emotions and his trauma, he outsources them. He enjoys Shakespeare's tragedies because they give him the opportunity to achieve second-hand catharsis. He may not be able to admit that he's suffering, but he can experience Hamlet's pain vicariously.

***Reminding you of that trigger warning, folks!***

And this is where we get to the question, "To be, or not to be?" This is the moment in S1 E3 when Aziraphale interacts with Richard Burbage, and shouts out, "To be! Not to be! Come on, Hamlet, buck up!" He says this with this coy little smile, obviously trying to get a laugh out of Crowley. But it's indicative of a more serious dilemma that the angel, himself, must parse out. In Shakespeare's play, Hamlet's query is expressed as he wrestles with the choice between life and death. Essentially, it's a contemplation of suicide--a dark part of humanity that Heaven manages by eternally condemning those who would risk it. However there's another way to read this question, not as life and death, but as agency and the lack thereof. We think of "to be" as the choice for life and "not to be" as the option for suicide. But the only way in which Hamlet can express his agency is by taking control of the one thing that truly belongs to him: his own life. So when asking this question of an eternal being, what exactly does it mean, "To be?" What does it mean for Aziraphale to express agency in his immortal existence?

In Western thought, we tend to divide things into binaries: right and wrong, black and white, good and evil...to be or not to be. Back in the Garden if Eden, Crowley first introduced Adam and Eve to the idea that they had a choice. The serpent presented two options, obey or disobey God's authority. Though I think a better way of looking at it would be to say, passively accept your role or have agency in your fate. This is Crowley's method. He never pushes temptations upon you. He just wants to make sure you know all your options.

Like Hamlet, Aziraphale is presented with the choice of, "To be or not to be?" He can sign on the dotted line and follow Heaven's authority or he can be an angel with agency, an angel that goes along with Heaven as far as he can. And though Aziraphale still struggles with how exactly free will pertains to angels, Crowley shows him time and time again that he has options--he can make his own choices. From the very first interaction between the angel and the demon on the wall of Eden, Crowley (ever the optimist) knows there is hope for some meaningful connection with Aziraphale, because the angel makes a choice for himself: he gives away his sword. And from that moment, Crowley realizes that this angel might be just enough of a bastard to be worth knowing.

It's no wonder Aziraphale gets attached to the tragedy of Hamlet. It allows him to observe and process the darker and more difficult emotions that he, as an angel, struggles to manage. And perhaps more importantly, the Prince of Denmark's famous soliloquy mirrors of Crowley's method of temptation, wherein the demon simply reminds him that he has a choice and that, even as an angel, he can find ways to express his agency.

[anamericangirl]

As a Furry AND a Warhammer 40k fan, there is tragedy in both walks when it comes to the encroachment of LGBT.

For 40k it's been less profound but still VERY noticeable. Factions like the Adeptus Mechanicus, for example, are constantly being dragged into the Identity Politics Mud by midwit tourists who just discovered the hobby and can't think of any other lens to observe the media through. I remember somebody who painted her Tyrannids - TYRANNIDS - Giant Insect-Lizard Beast aliens that, ironically, invade planets to assimilate everything into their biomass in an all-consuming hive that leaves planets nothing but rock by the time they leave - in Trans Pride Colors because she herself is Trans and wanted to express her gender.

I get that it's her plastic, but it's so creatively bankrupt and narcissistic how these people take the communities and twist them to no longer be about the media itself but "How I can project myself into it."

It's one thing to have an OC in the universe that just so happens to be male/female/trans/gay/etc, but it's another when the first thing you say about them has to do with their special pairing of genitals and what they do with them.

As for the Furries, because so many of them fall into that spectrum (I'll admit I do too but I reject being called "LGBT"), the "Community" has largely been consumed by it. I went to my first Furry Convention and half of it was about Pride, which, if anything, felt even more arbitrary in its sheer propagation in the community.

Going to a furry convention and saying "I'm Gay" and expecting that to be your unique feature when you're surrounded by Gay Furries is ridiculous - but they encourage it anyway! HALF of the panels were about LGBT and PRIDE. They just jump into the collective without a second thought because it gives them validation kudos and backpats without ever talking about the thought process behind their Sona or what media they enjoy - heck, it's at the forefront of so many of them to wear Pronoun Tags or have Pride Pins or just outright put a pride symbol ON their fursona to express how "Important it is to them."

But WHY is it important? Is it really important or are you compensating for the reactionaries in your life by BEING a reactionary and quadrupling down on it to try and seek validation?

It's so redundant and takes away so much from any real "Community" as it just becomes a monotonous sludge of rainbow flags.

I feel you dude it sucks when your hobby or anything you enjoy becomes all about lgbt activism and just focuses on diversity and pride more than anything else.

I never delved into the furry community but with the way it’s portrayed it pretty much comes across as another letter in the alphabet soup because it focuses so strongly on who’s gay and what you want to identify as more than it is about the actual hobby, which sucks for people aren’t invested in it for those reasons.

I remember going to a Broadway convention a while back because I’ve always loved Broadway musicals and while a big portion of Broadway lovers are lgbt it certainly is not about gender and sexuality but if feels like it is now. Everyone had pride pins and there were so many panels on diversity and sexuality and being an lgbt musical fan and representation and it was like um hello can this just be about musicals again? Why we are we focusing so much on one group of fans? This is something we can all come together on and appreciate together and instead you’re making it about you yet again.

[genderkoolaid]

I don't know if you know blue eye Samurai, but I hate how people talk about the protagonist.

I'm a non binary Trans man, and I actually identify a lot with Mizu (the protagonist), but I go here on Tumblr and I see a lot of posts that say: "I know everyone can see Mizu however they like, but I want everyone to know that the right interpretation is that she is a woman pretending to be a man... but everyone can think whatever they want, not forgetting that she is a woman of course."

And it's a bit annoying because when I see explanations of why is "wrong" to see Mizu as a Trans man, I see people going "Why can't there be representation of gender non conforming women!?" And "she wouldn't pretend to be a man if it wasn't for the society she lives in!"

The last one makes me especially angry, because of how many Trans men get erased from history with that same argument.

I don't know, I think it makes me mad because that fandom feels like a micro cosmos of the anti Trans masculinity a lot of Trans men have to face.

And it's not like I think it's wrong to see Mizu as a woman, but when everyone goes "of course she is a woman, why would she want to be a man for anything other than necessity?" I don't know how to feel.

I'm gonna steal my own words from that post about jeanne d'arc:

And the best part is, we can say all of this and also see her as part of women's history! Because women's history, too, does not have to be exclusively about woman-born or woman-identified women. It can be about a larger cultural experience. And Jeanne d'Arc suffered because of transphobia which is always fundamentally misogynistic. I would argue it even makes sense to say her death involved transmisogyny in a very literal sense. The thing about transfeminism is that it can free us from the need to view personal identification with the role of "woman" as vital to feminism. Being a woman, in whatever sense, is certainly not unrelated to feminism, but one can be a feminist and have any kind of personal or communal relationship with womanhood. Anyone can be inspired by the story of Jeanne d'Arc and her bold defiance of both misogyny and transphobia, no matter how she may have personally understood her gender.

People have this idea where if a character or historical figure (or even currently living person) is anything but a woman, then any kind of Feminist Story falls apart. Especially when it comes to misogyny! People act like someone being a trans man means all their experiences with misogyny are like. gone? Or the story is now, essentially, about a cis man being mistaken for a woman, and thus women are Not Allowed to feel any connection at all.

All of this on top of the fun hypocrisy that is "we can't say this person/character is a trans man because they wouldn't have that concept, but we can say they are a cis woman because those are both the only options and ciswomanhood is a natural and universal concept we can apply regardless of any other context :)"

& with Mizu its like. you literally can see her as a GNC woman. people calling him a trans guy or transmasc or genderqueer or anything else are not taking away your experience of her as a GNC woman. Transmasculinity is not just Negative Womanhood, the idea that transmasculinity is something which saps away representation/power/dignity/identity/value from (cis) women is like ATM 101.

But the whole way people treat trans men and misogyny really annoys me, I guess because the assumption is that for women, having to dress as a man to get respect inspires anger at one's position in society, but trans men are incapable of having any complex feelings about that. Like trans men must fully enjoy not being able to have sex with others, or go to a doctor, and having to live in fear of being outed and facing the brunt of transphobia and misogyny, and trans men also couldn't possibly be angry about misogyny that they experienced, and also nonbinary people don't exist and no transmasculine person could possibly be anything but fully comfortable being seen as a cis man all the time. Sure, some trans men are perfectly happy passing as cis men, but like. there is more than one trans man. & ignoring all other transmasc experiences besides The One is a form of erasure, it just passes as something else because technically you are acknowledging A transmasc existence.

[lyinginbedmon]

Oh lordy is there bad things going down across the VTuber space right now so I’m gonna try and unpack them for ease of comprehension.

Real quick: A VTuber is essentially just a regular livestreamer but instead of a facecam they have a custom model (usually made of layered images but also often a full 3D object) that tracks their face and such. Big tiddy anime girl representation to say the least but it’s a very creative space.

Next: Silvervale, Silver for short. Silver is one such big tiddy anime (wolf) girl, who is part of a corporate group of VTubers called VShojo. I probably don’t need to describe much more for the purposes of this post.

Hogwarts Legacy is a video game based in the bigotry-entrenched universe of the Harry Potter franchise by notorious face-of-transphobia Joanne K. Rowling. Since its announcement in 2018, trans individuals and groups have quite rightly highlighted numerous ethical and moral problems with the game ranging from the inherent bigotry of the setting, to the involvement of literal far-right YouTubers in its development, to just the basic stuff like its success greenlighting further instalments all while Rowling pockets royalties to (expressly) further fund her anti-trans projects (which includes her writing Literally being read into record to quash things like the Equality Act).

The general advice, which would be true regardless of your actual thoughts on the game or franchise, was to just not play it. That way Rowling makes less money, fewer future games are made, and nobody gets hurt as a result. You end your day $60 better off that you can spend on some other big game that isn’t basically radioactive.

To say the Video Gamers did not take that advice well would be an understatement, but things get really ugly when a streamer who otherwise professes to creating a calm and friendly atmosphere, who makes claims to being an ally, gives in and plays the Wizard Game. I’m not going to say that people haven’t been harassed for playing it, almost certainly someone has, but I just don’t have the data to be certain that it goes much further than just posting “trans rights” in chat.

Enter Silvervale. Despite half a decade of advance warning that she shouldn’t play this game, she played it anyway. Live on camera. The community she’d fostered for years didn’t take this well either, and the stream ended early amid purported harassment from the chat. Silver wasn’t the first VTuber to play the Wizard Game, but she was one of the first English-speaking ones.

Things could have just quietly ended there, but Silver then returned to streaming with more of the game and a statement that she had been “harassed” by “freaks and degenerates” on Twitter. Not her best choice of words, but the damage was done.

Because of the 5-year leadup to the Wizard Game releasing, the right-wing mob had already noticed the controversy around it and had made Huge investments into buying and promoting the game as well as spewing vitriol against anyone who even slightly suggested that doing so was in poor taste. They naturally then flocked to Silver’s defense and, following her unfortunate description of “marginalised people making their discomfort known as they had declared they would Years in advance” using language straight from 1930s Germany, started directly attacking any streamer who voiced their intent not to play the game however detailed their reasoning.

As a brief aside, there’s some confusion over how Silver’s chat moderation is set up, seemingly blocking such phrases as “trans rights are human rights”. Some say it’s an overzealous automod, others that her moderators are actually blocking the phrases, it’s unclear and not hugely worth focusing on here. But I mention it because it’s one of the common points made as people state their side on this issue.

This has essentially made Silver the face of transphobic bigotry in the VTuber community, whether or not she actually considers herself aligned with such bigots. Multiple smaller and independent trans VTubers have completely stopped streaming because of the bile being spewed at them by people with the likes of #IStandWithSilver in their bios. The overlaps between accounts on social media posting in her defense and numerous far-right hate movements is as undeniable as it is unpleasant to catalogue.

And boy that’s just the foundation of this whole sorry affair.

Another VTuber who is part of the same company as Silver, VShojo, is Apricot (more commonly called Froot). Froot not only decided to vocally not play the Wizard Game, but to post a tweet saying that she would personally donate to UK trans children’s charity Mermaids for every like the tweet received. She added that her brother is trans and she supports him immensely.

So the bigots that leapt to Silver’s defense very predictably started calling Froot a paedophile and child groomer, which is more or less what they label every pro-trans individual ever these days. Froot had to lock replies on her charity post and her post about her brother as a result, though the tweets remain up.

Most recently, a third peer in VShojo called Ironmouse came to Silver’s defense specifically in opposition to the alleged harassment she received which, again, anyone could have seen coming in the last 5 years by googling the Steam page for this game.

And honestly, at this point, whatever actually happened to Silver in that first stream is completely irrelevant because she’s become the rallying cry of people who actively want to exterminate the entire trans community from cradle to grave and literally beyond. And so much of it could be resolved or at least get the wind out of its sails if she took 5 minutes to just apologise for and disavow everything that happened in her name after she decided to keep playing the Wizard Game.

But, and I say this with no disrespect to Silver, I’m not holding my breath.

[thorne1435]

(1st off, i am a trans man) personally, it makes me slightly uncomfortable when other trans men center their own experiences. don’t get me wrong, we have a right to talk about our issues, but i can’t help but feel like there’s a victim complex going on when some guys say that TERFs are “just as dangerous” to trans men or that baeddelism is a relevant issue (while brushing the misogyny and toxic masculinity in the ftm community under the rug). the fact that you made a post about trans unity and the first ask you got was about how trans men aren’t supported enough by trans women? but like, is that true? is it not ALSO an issue that trans women aren’t supported enough by trans men?

Okay, I hear you, and I acknowledge that I (unfortunately) have fairly limited experience with trans men but I don't know if I like the idea of discounting what they have to say as "a victim complex."

They just want to be heard. And I think they have a right to be upset, given how little representation trans men are given in media. I never saw any discussions on transmasc issues until I came to Tumblr. Never saw it on YouTube or Reddit. Online leftist circles--and even online trans circles!--don't talk about trans men! So, y'know what? If they're being a little melodramatic about their issues, maybe it'll off-set the lack of any knowledge of their issues in the first place.

And also, I think toxic masculinity and misogyny are sort of part of being a man, right now? Which certainly isn't to say it's inherent to men, but society does encourage it. That's what I think should change about being a man. This goes back to societal misandry, I think. Toxic Masculinity is just a manifestation of societal forces that encourage men to behave in unhuman ways, and I think it would be immature of me to expect trans men to perfectly avoid that, in their pursuit of masculinity.

Gender is a performance. We are all looking for the role that makes us most comfortable, but the baggage attached to the roles isn't something you can side-step so easily. Cis people have an advantage on this front, in that they are capable of proving their masculinity or femininity via means other than pure performance. Society *expects* them to be men or women and that means they can gesticulate towards genitalia whenever they're called into question. (They don't always do that, and it's sort of transphobic when they do, but the ones who are comfortable with themselves might say something like that, all the same)

A trans man will uphold toxic masculinity the same way that a trans woman will submit herself to misogyny: it is in pursuit of the perfect encapsulation of the role. Unless we feel like we adequately perform the role inherently, we are inclined to tolerate--and ergo embody, to an extent--the negativity present in the roles we desire.

I believe that lowering the standards for who can be seen as valid in masculinity will alleviate quite a bit of misogyny, whether that misogyny be among transmascs or cis men. So, in saying that, I hope I also illustrate why I'm quick to jump to their defense while also tacking on my ideas about societal misandry and its toll on men.

On the subject of whether or not transfems actually don't support transmascs...I guess I wouldn't really know. I'm not in trans communities because I don't live in a place where that kind of community could show up. I imagine this problem is being blown out of proportion a little bit, but the ask I think you're talking about did say that it was sort of a Tumblr thing? And internet discourse is just...fuckin...so unbelievably shitty. So I'm not too worried about it.

I mean, I'm not going to immediately assume any transfem I meet is inherently misandristic or otherwise bigoted towards transmascs, but I'm still gonna go to bat for transmascs if they get shit-talked, y'know?

[mariacallous]

WASHINGTON — Democratic governors around the country are vowing to fight President-elect Donald Trump’s plans to round up and deport millions of undocumented immigrants.

But most aren’t prepared for what could be coming, legal experts who envision brutal crackdowns say, and the vast majority of Democrat-led states lack meaningful safeguards to prevent the transfer of undocumented people to federal immigration enforcement authorities.

Trump is moving quickly to set up a team to carry out mass deportations. He’s named his “border czar,” Tom Homan, who led Immigration and Customs Enforcement during Trump’s first term in office. Homan is promising a “historic deportation operation” and already telling critics to “get the hell out of the way.” Stephen Miller, the white nationalist architect of many of Trump’s first-term immigration policies, will also have a hand in the rollout as a top White House official.

The mass deportation plans, which could harm the U.S. economy, restart inflation, separate parents from their children and even result in the deportation of American citizens, are clearly among Trump’s top priorities, even if their scale and targets remain hazy at best.

Democratic governors are lining up to say they’ll defy any orders to participate in this, suggesting they’ll seriously complicate Trump’s efforts to deport as many as 11 million people who are in the country without permanent legal status.

“Absolutely not,” Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey said last week on MSNBC, when asked if her state’s police would cooperate with the Trump administration’s planned deportations.

“The key here is that every tool in the toolbox is going to be used to protect our citizens, to protect our residents and protect our states, and certainly to hold the line on democracy and the rule of law as a basic principle,” Healey said.

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy said he’s “willing to try anything” to stop Trump’s sweeping plans, including mass deportations, that are “contrary to our values.”

“If it’s contrary to our values, we’ll fight to the death,” Murphy told reporters last week. “If there is an opportunity for common ground, we’ll seize that as fast as anybody.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker was just as forceful: “You come for my people, you come through me,” he told reporters last week, referring to minority communities in his state who experienced the “chaos, retribution and disarray” of Trump in his first term in office.

This is some tough talk. But what can Democratic governors actually do to stop a massive federal deportation operation — one that Jason Houser, a former chief of staff at ICE under the Biden administration, said he expects to play out like a “shock and awe” campaign?

The short answer is, it depends on each state and its unique set of laws. And the reality is that many states, even those led by Democrats, are not ready.

In a Thursday call with reporters, immigration experts laid out how they expect Trump’s deportation operation to work: ICE could conduct militarized worksite raids, targeting vulnerable populations in particular (e.g. immigrants at remote work sites far from access to legal representation, like meat-packing factories). Local law enforcement could racially profile people in their own communities, casting all immigrants as criminals. And officers could intentionally make a show of the brutality of their efforts to inspire fear among immigrants so they’ll self-deport.

“Let’s not sugarcoat the dragnet, the indiscriminate nature of what’s about to happen,” said Naureen Shah, deputy director of government affairs at the American Civil Liberties Union.

She cautioned people not to let Trump’s rhetoric of primarily deporting criminals to ”skew our understanding of who now has to live in fear that they will be picked up, just because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time — and what that means for millions of people and millions of mixed-status households in the country, who have to worry that their husband or their father is not going to come home whenever they leave the house.”

Houser, who worked at ICE from 2021 to 2023 and was previously a high-ranking official at the Department of Homeland Security, said he expects the White House to push ICE to be as punitive as possible.

“They will militarize the execution of arrests to strike the most fear in migrant communities,” he said, adding, “The goal is to show the brutality.”

Democratic governors have a few options to push back on this in their states. They could, for example, issue an executive order directing state personnel not to voluntarily provide any information that could be used for federal immigration enforcement.

The problem, though, is that ICE could reach out directly to sheriffs and ask for information on a particular undocumented immigrant or for help in setting up a traffic perimeter to check people’s driver licenses, and the sheriff could decide to cooperate. In some Democrat-led states, sheriffs may not realize they’re not allowed to do this.

“What we want to make sure is that state governments and city governments, where it’s possible, are providing training and legal advice and support to their frontline employees who are going to be receiving this request,” said Shah. “There is quite a lot of latitude there when you’re talking about — are you going to voluntarily push your assets and your information, access to your databases, access to your jails, all of that, to ICE and to other federal agencies?”

Lots of cities in Democrat-led states are so-called “sanctuary cities,” which provide some legal protections to undocumented immigrants. But these policies are not as protective as they’d need to be to block a mass deportation operation. Specifically, they don’t meaningfully limit cooperation between state and local authorities and the federal government.

The governors in the strongest position to counter Trump’s mass deportations are those with state laws explicitly barring local and state law enforcement from coordinating with the federal government to identify, detain and deport undocumented immigrants.

Of the country’s 23 states led by Democratic governors, just two — Oregon and Illinois — have comprehensive state laws that do this.

In these two states, and only in these states, it is illegal for law enforcement to help ICE with deportations at all.

A few other Democrat-led states have strong immigrant protections on the books, even if they could be stronger. California, New Jersey and Washington fall into this category.

California, for example, a state with 1.8 million undocumented immigrants, has Senate Bill 54, passed in 2017. It bars local and state law enforcement from using their resources for federal immigration enforcement. The policy makes an exception for violent offenders, but beyond that, any law enforcement agencies that assist ICE with deportations would be breaking state law.

“The federal government certainly has its own authority and can act within it, but they often — almost always — heavily rely on local and state cooperation, which need not be given,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta told HuffPost.

Bonta noted that California’s law has already been upheld in federal court, in 2018, when the Trump administration tried to halt it. He expects Democratic governors and state attorneys general to be monitoring the coming Trump administration to see if it tries to break laws.

“They did it all the time,” Bonta said of Trump’s first administration, citing Trump’s failed effort to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which protects eligible young adults who were brought to the U.S. as children from deportation. He also cited Trump’s failed effort to expand the public-charge rule, which would have denied permanent resident status to immigrants who receive public benefits like food assistance or Medicaid.

“They tried to attack our SB 54,” he added. “We won every time.”

But California, even with its relatively strong protections, may “still affirmatively transfer many immigrants directly from state and local officials to immigration detention,” according to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.

The only other sanctuary states are Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland and Vermont, though their protections are weaker.

This is why immigration rights and civil rights advocates are sounding the alarm for Democratic governors to get moving — now — by signing executive orders or pushing through new laws to protect immigrants in their states.

In New York, for example, which is home to roughly 835,000 undocumented immigrants, there is no state law preventing law enforcement from cooperating with ICE. The New York-based Immigrant Defense Project is urging legislators to pass a bill that would do just that, the New York for All Act, immediately when the state legislature convenes in January.

The group is also pressuring New York Gov. Kathy Hochul to publicly support the bill, especially after she declared after last week’s election results that she is “committing to safeguarding the rights, freedoms and values we hold dear — no matter what lies ahead.”

Hochul’s office did not respond to a request for comment on whether she would cooperate with the Trump administration if it asked for help with deportations.

For the moment, New York offers undocumented immigrants a disjointed mix of local ordinances that offer protections in some places and no safeguards in others.

“I live in Queens,” said Yasmine Farhang, director of advocacy for the Immigrant Defense Project. “I can tell a neighbor that they can feel safe interacting with a local agency in our neighborhood … and then they can drive 15 minutes east into Nassau County, and I can’t tell them that.”

Not surprisingly, New York City does have local laws in place to protect immigrants. An estimated 476,000 undocumented immigrants live in the city. Democratic Mayor Eric Adams has vowed to keep them safe, even as he’s been critical of the influx of migrants, claiming the surge “will destroy New York City.”

“In keeping with those laws, we will not be providing any information about the undocumented to the federal government,” said an Adams spokesperson. “But we are willing to sit down with anyone who is serious about actually fixing our broken immigration system and coming up with a real solution that tackles the border crisis.”

Homan has signaled he’s got his eye on New York City, and suggested he’s prepared to flood the city with ICE agents if local officials don’t help him identify and detain undocumented people.

“If we can’t get assistance from New York City, we may have to double the number of agents we send to New York City, because we’re going to do the job,” he vowed Friday. “If sanctuary cities don’t want to help us, then get the hell out of the way, because we’re coming.”

Homan does have the authority to send more ICE agents into the city. They just won’t get much help from anyone once they get there. And if state legislators pass the New York for All Act, local and state law enforcement officials would be breaking the law if they helped ICE.

“There’s nothing that local and state governments can do to keep ICE out of our states,” said Farhang. “But what we can do is make their jobs a hell of a lot harder and mitigate the harm.”

Other states in the country have no laws shielding migrants from ICE. Some — particularly strongly Republican states like Texas and Florida — have laws explicitly requiring local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE in transferring undocumented immigrants.

The Trump administration will likely rely heavily on sheriffs and local police for carrying out mass deportations, predicted Jessica Pishko, an attorney specializing in criminal law and the author of “The Highest Law in the Land,” which examines the power of the nation’s sheriffs.

County sheriffs in particular will play a key role in whether Trump can ramp up deportations because, simply put, they run the jails, said Pishko.

It is “very probable” ICE will look to sheriffs, she said, given that most undocumented immigrants being deported right now are coming straight out of county jails after being arrested for things like driving without a driver’s license, where they are flagged to ICE as being undocumented.

“It’s easy because if someone is getting released from jail, ICE can just pull the van up and pick them up,” she said. “That’s the bulk of immigration enforcement that’s being done on the local level. You can get deported before you’re tried.”

Pishko went further to suggest that sheriffs, by virtue of being elected and accountable only to their immediate communities, may operate independently from what state officials direct them to do.

She offered an alarming, if extreme, scenario of how the next four years could play out: The vast majority of the nation’s more than 3,000 sheriffs go along with Trump’s mass deportation plans, restrictive state laws be damned, because by area, the vast majority of counties voted for Trump — and the vast majority of sheriffs are conservative white men who support Trump, too.

“The problem is how many counties voted for Trump. Probably more than 80%,” Pishko said. “So in all those counties, sheriffs are in counties where people voted for Trump, and it’s pretty likely they will cooperate with ICE.”

Bonta scoffed at the idea of Trump-aligned sheriffs doing this anywhere in California.

“That is 1000% illegal,” said the state attorney general. “There’s nothing magic about being independently elected. They all have to follow the law.”

Pritzker, the Illinois governor, similarly rejected the idea that sheriffs in his state have the power to ignore sanctuary laws and assist ICE anyway. His state’s law, the gold-standard Trust Act, restricts local and state law enforcement’s engagement with federal immigration enforcement. It specifically bars local and state law enforcement from stopping, arresting or detaining someone solely due to their immigration status.

“You talk about mass deportation as if we’re going to — or the federal government is going to — round up, as has been threatened, just anybody who can’t prove their citizenship,” Pritzker told HuffPost on a Tuesday call with reporters. “That wouldn’t be the case, and sheriffs do not have that power independently.”

With a laugh, the Illinois governor said there is “one particular sheriff’s organization” that likes to falsely claim sheriffs are independent of all other legal authorities. It’s not clear which group he meant, but so-called constitutional sheriffs have often tried to make that claim.

“Nobody has won any cases showing that the sheriffs actually have that power,” he added. “Nevertheless, they like to meet with one another and convince each other that they do.”

Some Democratic governors are already taking steps to add protections for immigrants in their states before Trump takes office. Pritzker and Colorado Gov. Jared Polis this week announced they are the co-chairs of a new nonpartisan group, Governors Safeguarding Democracy. Its aim is to connect governors with think tanks and legal experts to ensure their states are doing everything they can to protect residents’ democratic rights.

The group isn’t explicitly focused on countering Trump’s plans for mass deportations, but that purpose is clearly implied. Its stated goal, according to its press release, is to combat “the dangers of authoritarianism and the undermining of democratic institutions.”

Meanwhile, California Gov. Gavin Newsom last week convened a special session of the state legislature to boost the state’s legal options for protecting immigrant families′ rights and other “California values.”

“The freedoms we hold dear in California are under attack—and we won’t sit idle,” Newsom said in a statement. “California faced this challenge before, and we know how to respond.”

Newsom, Polis and Pritzker are potential 2028 presidential contenders, and their latest actions certainly lend themselves to a future campaign against Trump.

But even if politics are in play, that doesn’t mean the residents of these states aren’t legitimately scared by Trump’s plans and looking to Democratic leaders for help.

And even in states with anti-immigrant laws on the books, like Arizona, some local law enforcement officials who otherwise support Trump may not want anything to do with mass deportations.

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) recently told HuffPost, before the election, that he had just been talking to a conservative border sheriff in Arizona about some of Trump’s plans, including mass deportations. This particular sheriff, who he wouldn’t identify, was not a fan.

“He said, ‘It ain’t gonna happen in my community,’” recalled Kelly.

“He is possibly, publicly, a Trump supporter,” he said. “But he also understands he’s got responsibilities and understands the law.”

[princess-nobody]

Avatar Rant: Two Avatar takes that bother me

(Pssst! This was originally posted on reddit, but I liked it so much I decided to post it onto my this account! Here's a link to the original if you'd rather read it there!)

So, I saw a semi-viral tweet a while back that bothered me because it not only felt like a complete misunderstanding of the point of Avatar as a film franchise, but also just a very childish view of how societies and different communities function. I can't find it though (I didn't interact with it and it has since been buried) so I apologize for not being able to give the best context.

It was your typical RDA sympathizing humanity first take (makes sense, the account that tweeted it was a walking red flag) that claimed that the na'vi were stupid for not accepting human advancement and technology, that humanity should always put its preservation first, and that the RDA were simply prioritizing the well being of their people whilst the na'vi wanted them gone. I want to start by addressing the latter take(s).

The first and second movies make it very clear that the RDA are NOT prioritizing the survival of Earth or humanity. They are a money hungry organization that want to monetize pandoran resources to their dying people in hopes to squeeze out whatever little money they have left. The people of Earth are said to be protesting them for that very reason, every solution to their planet's problems that they have discovered is insanely expensive and inaccessible to anyone below the upper class one percent. The RDA don't care about humanity, they care about profit, which is the exact reason why their actions are so callous in the films.

There are certainly humans that want to preserve humanity, but I truly cannot wrap my head around how you can watch either film and come to the conclusion that it is the RDA that wants the best for humanity. Avatar is not a "human bad" movie, it is a "corporate greed bad" movie, which is reflective of real life environmental issues. The individual is green, the individual recycles and doesn't litter, the individual cleans their local rivers and sea shores. However, the powerplants continue to polute our air, the corporations continue to flood our oceans with plastic, the rich continue to cut corners and burn the air with private jets.

I truly believe the reading of Avatar as an anti-humanity movie is what has lead to people thinking the RDA are the "good guys". It is because they actually believe the RDA are supposed to represent humanity and their will to keep surviving (and that James Cameron is portraying them as wrong for that), when it is clear they are a representation of the corporate greed that leads to environmental damage and the destruction of humanity.

As for the belief that the na'vi are hostile and somehow wrong for not caring to "advance" in the way humanity did, that is just flat out wrong. When it came to the respectful, peaceful humans such as Grace and her team, the na'vi were incredibly welcoming. I mean, Grace built an entire school for them and taught them human language and other human academics, so clearly they aren't against learning from humans. Again, Avatar is clear about the fact that humans as a collective aren't bad, corporate greed is.

However, why should the na'vi "advance" when there is no need to? Innovation is built on the back of necessity, and in a world where there is no need for certain technological advancements, why should the na'vi chase it? Why do they need phones and tablets and video games and McDonalds? They are living just fine without it. This idea that every society needs to be "modernized", even when they function just fine without said modernization has always driven me up a wall.

This entitlement from the western world is what leads colonial brained weirdos to try and go to indigenous islands and force religion or their world view upon them, because they believe that if a society doesn't function like the "modern" world, it is wrong. The na'vi don't need currency, or modern tech, or modern trends or fast food. They aren't perfect, but they also aren't in a desperate situation that would call for innovation or some sort of technological evolution. They are fine, they don't need nor even want it, and it is strange to believe humanity is in their right to force it upon them.

I'll stop this here because it's getting too long, I would love to hear your thoughts. Last time I made a post in this vein I got some really interesting responses, I couldn't reply to all but I'll try and reblog if that means anything!

[vroomvroomwee]

Alright, I've seen plenty of comments about how the special is overdoing it, or the rep is being forced, or it was cringy, and honest to god I'm gonna rip my fucking hair out. I didn't think this needed mentioning, but apparently, it does. All the people who are saying these things, and I mean specifically those who are queer, have seriously missed the fucking point of the episode.

It. Is. Supposed. To. Be. Centered. Around. Trans. Acceptance.

Say it with me. It is supposed to be about transgender identities. Now I know we want to watch our favourite silly alien run around and explore different planets, but it seems to me most of the people who are saying these things are forgetting what cinema is supposed to be about. Because cinematography at its core is ART. And what does art do? It expresses that which cannot be communicated with words. Art is the tool you use when you want to shout at the world that won't listen. Art is the weapon in your hand that you use to explode all your feelings and emotions. Art, always, at its core has a message.

Some movies do it subtly, making us dig deeper to find the hidden meaning. Some do it bluntly and expose the audience to the harsh, terrible, gruesome reality that we live in. Both are valid choices in filming and are commonly used in practice. This episode of Doctor Who chose the latter.

And rightfully so. If people who think the show is unnecessarily forcing rep or have nothing better to do than whine and be disappointed, then they clearly haven't been paying attention to what's happening in this world. Right now, we NEED bluntness. We need someone to stand on the rooftops and scream their heart out at the injustice and hate that trans people are facing.

And to come after one of the few pieces of media that actually tries and actually wants trans people to feel included and loved and safe is distasteful, shallow and nasty. Why is our own community trying to tear down those who are trying to help??

This is a show who's been queer since the very beginning, and STILL people could not see it. We can't blame it for resorting to directness. Is the show perfect? Probably not, but it comes pretty darn close and certainly not like any other show or movie has EVER done before. Is it going to be outdated in a few decades and we're all gonna laugh at it? People can laugh if they want, but you know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna cherish it.

I'm gonna keep it as close to my heart as I possibly can because it will have been the reason it remains unshattered. I'm going to love it for the rest of my life because it loved me when no one else wanted to, when no one else cared about me or treated me as a human being. I will never stop loving it because its bravery will have paved the way for other trans and non-binary representation.

It. Is. Meant. To. Send. A. Message.

[bastetwastaken]

Character intro: Aviditas/ Avi

"The desires of the heart are powerful, they can lead to both ecstasy and ruin. Lucky for you, I’m an expert in both."

His head rolled to the side as he was overcome with fatigue, but instead of finding an empty room, his eyes fell on a figure sat perched on the back of his sofa. He couldn't work out what it was exactly… some sort of bird…human…goat thing. Maybe he was hallucinating in his final moments. He frowned, trying to focus on the creature he thought he could see but his vision was blurry. "Aw, not gone yet, hm?" The strange figure spoke as it crossed its arms, dark feathered wings fluttering behind it. "That's okay, I can wait." That captivating voice certainly sounded human, but he couldn't understand why whoever was here had so many extra non-human parts. He squinted at it, lifting his head slowly for a better look. The things wings spread out behind it, framing a beautiful human looking figure perfectly. Wait, was this an angel? Had it come to take him to whatever came next? His lips parted and he tried to speak but it hurt his throat and all that came out was a harsh whisper. "What are you?" A smooth chuckle reached his ears and he found himself fixated on the creature before him. It tilted its head and said nothing as for a moment, it simply…watched him. "A Demon, of course." The other said with a smile, unsettlingly sharp teeth on full display. "I was here to finish you off, but it looks like you've done my job for me, I owe you one." A wink. "Come find me in Hell when you get settled in, hm? I'll show you a good time as a thank you~"

The need to know basics:

Age: Around 4786

Pronouns: Any pronouns, demons have no gender so Avi will simply conform to human perceptions of gender subject to his needs.

Sexuality: Yes. Personality: - Talkative - Flirty - Outgoing - Charismatic - Excitable Occupation: - Incubus/succubus. - Entertainer at an adult club on earth

Habits/Mannerisms: - Very lose morals (if he even knows what morals are) - Carries a small notebook with them which contains strange symbols and he writes in it periodically, especially when he hears something interesting. - Often blunt, but not in a harsh way just in the way that he sees things in a simplified way mostly. - Can get very excitable over new interesting things. - Draws people to him. - Able to talk his way out of almost anything.

Background: - Aviditas is a Latin name which means longing, desire, lust. It was given to him just after his creation. - Avi was never human, instead he is a hell born Incubus. He’s never been alive, or known an existence before that he has now. - Life in hell for them isn’t exactly easy. They are expected to do whatever their master says, without question, and he has done this for a long time. - Before a human changes the way he see's the world, he's never had many aspirations and always accepted the way things are as how they should be, but once his mind is opened, he's not sure he can ever go back to blind obediance...

Avi’s demonology comes from the representation of demons in both Christianity and Hebrew text.

Demons are essentially angels who failed to follow gods instructions, they’re not always inherently evil, more independent actors that aren’t so different from a human in terms of actual morality. However, some demons have their own agenda and can be tempted by primal desires, whilst others are directly influenced by the demons in charge in Hell and actively serve those demons' agendas.

There are demons who worship god, demons who are genuinely good-they’re just very quiet about it.

Avi speaks, reads and writes Enochian, (an occult constructed language which is spoken by angels and demons and other celestial entities, thought to be the first language of christ.) but since his job relies on communication he can also speak any human language as if it’s his own. It’s kind of like the Allspeak of the gods in Norse mythology. He does struggle to read though, often relying on text to speech to use modern technology, and he cannot write any human language. He’s never needed to learn how. Anyone not of angelic/demonic origin won’t be able to understand Enochian, it’s just not able to be perceived by the human mind. It will be possible to see the symbols though if Avi writes them out.

So he’s a demon, but what can Avi actually do?

Only certain kinds of demons can possess people. Avi cannot possess a person or an animal, but he can take their form and mimic them perfectly if he knows enough about them.

For Avi's power to fully work, he has to create a moment of weakness in the target. This is often easy for him to do through temptation. Once the person accepts him, invites him in, or falls for his charm then he is able to use his power on them.

Avis power will make even the lightest of touches feel intense to someone, everything with him will feel so much better than it ever has done with any other person. This is so he can create a stronger desire in someone and therefore have more Lust to feed on.

He can hypnotise his prey to make sure they don’t fully realise what he is. At any point he can blur the lines a little and make the person think he’s just a regular human who’s very good at what he’s doing. This is why he isn’t worried about showing his demonic features even in human form although generally if he’s out in public or doing his human job, he will keep his horns and wings hidden but he likes those things about himself so is reluctant to do so.

Avi can create obsession in a person, it’s a kind of defence mechanism and survival trait. He can make someone willing to protect him, fight for him, keep him safe from other threats to the point where they will willingly die for him. He can make them act impulsively, take risks they might not have done before and even change their personality entirely.

He can create obsession by visiting a person frequently, being intimate with them often and imprinting on them so they feel unable to live without him. He makes them feel like they desperately need him around, and this suits him fine when he needs to secure longer term food or has to hide from something. It will not be clear to the person under his spell what’s going on, but his spell can be broken by his own choice or by force if the right methods are used. (Avi will not be able to do this to a person who’s heart already belongs to another). Obsession can also occur accidentally if Avi is not careful to detach himself from a person.

Avi can sometimes become attached to a human. He tries not to do this, but if it does happen then Avi will become the irrational one. He’ll swear to protect the person, risk his own life to do so and may also stop feeding off others in favour of spending time with the person. - It’s more like an addiction for Avi though than actual feelings, he just follows his instinct which tells him he needs that person and can’t let them go.

Demons have mates, but Avi has not yet found one. He doubts he ever will find one, but this also means that he can accidentally imprint on humans he feeds on and bond with them, although the bonding part has to be consensual. It would be possible for a human to become Avi’s mate, but that would probably have its own issues due to the fact Avi is immortal and if a demon loses their mate, they cease to exist.

Avi can heal himself easily and can even heal others of simple things if he likes them enough. He can also take pain away with his touch and closeness. He has a very high pain tolerance too, it takes a lot to really hurt him.

His saliva acts as an aphrodisiac.

He can sense the true nature of a soul if he chooses to (although he'll likely only do this when it suits his purpose cause it takes effort)

------

Avi is one of the main characters of my fantasy romance between a demon and the human they accidentally saved from death.

The above image was created with Picrew’s “♡ doshi's oc avatar maker ♡“ Link is in the image

[neon-moon-beam]

Not Again: Ableism Post-Teal Mask Edition

Hey, how about NOT being ableist towards Carmine and Kieran?

We've already dealt with N and Submas experiencing this since Gen 5's initial run, we've dealt with Volo and then Nemona, and definitely more but those are the big ones.

Lately there seems to be this tendency of people to want to diagnose every character and you don't actually need to give every single character an armchair diagnosis right out the gate. While representation is important and some characters have enough in their characterization to suggest an illness or disability, or even seem outright coded, not every character is, or needs to be. If a character strongly resonates with your experience with an illness or disability, that's one thing; many autistic people feel seen and validated by Submas, for example. But if you're grasping at straws or stretching a character's actions or situations to make them "fit" a diagnosis, it often comes across more as pathologizing characters rather than humanizing them. It's important to not only think about why you want to portray a character this way, but whether or not it fits with their characterization and if you're using it to show an accurate portrayal, or if you're just using it to excuse/dismiss their hurtful actions, or even demonize the character.

Spoilers for the Teal Mask DLC ahead. CW for ableism.

There's a huge difference between say, Submas who are so heavily autistic-coded you'd have a harder time arguing they aren't, and someone like Kieran who shows rejection sensitivity that may or may not be a symptom of something else, or Carmine, who appears explosive and a cruel bully, but it turns out her anger comes from places of worry as well as being angry about innocent people and Pokemon being wronged. Her decision to not tell Kieran they met Ogerpon was because she knew how much Ogerpon meant to him and how bad he would feel knowing he missed her. People have been quick to decide she has low or no empathy, when the game literally shows her having a lot of it! We also don't know Carmine and Kieran's whole stories yet. We're going to see them at Blueberry Academy next (and Kieran does tell the player that Carmine does everything for him there, which is a reason he wants to get stronger). We don't know why they're going to school there, if they have friends there or a community or if they’re outcast and bullied, or where their parents are. Their attitudes, actions, or even potential symptoms may be situational. Carmine certainly appears to be acting out to the threat of her hometown being overrun by tourists (and considering how tourism tends to impact places and its locals IRL, can you blame her?) Kieran has the conflicting situation of his sister looking out for him at school for reasons we haven’t seen yet, while also verbally cutting him down. He also identified with Ogerpon even before the player arrived at Kitakami, and maybe even projected onto her for a reason. There’s a potential for a lot to be going on here without either of them needing an instant armchair diagnosis before their story arcs are complete.

A character desperate for friends doesn't necessary indicate a personality disorder, especially when their backstory is that they were left out, bullied, or even considered an outsider to a degree in the town they grew up in. Someone like Nemona or Kieran wanting to have friends after experiencing a lot of rejection and isolation doesn't instantly mean they have a personality disorder, and even if the story ended up indicating that they did, that does not give anyone the excuse to write them as "scary" or "yandere". Personality disorders are complex in potential causes and how they manifest, and using them as shorthand to write a character being a "yandere" or abusive is ableist.

And once again, it is time to bring up the subject of “feral” or “unhinged”. Whether or not Carmine has anger issues that can be given a diagnosis or Kieran has a personality disorder or anything else that can be diagnosed doesn’t matter here. Making characters “scary and unhinged” for experiencing basic human emotions is…dehumanizing. When you decide Carmine should snap and go around hurting people, you actually sound just like the people in Kitakami who are ostracizing her and whispering behind her back, making her feel like she has no place in her own community. And the same with Kieran. The last scene of the storyline in Kitakami has him vowing to defeat the player. It comes off as a bit creepy, but it doesn’t mean he’s supposed to have been a creep all along or is turning into one; from a developer/storytelling perspective, it’s literally just creating suspense for the Indigo Disk story. While Kieran is shown to be rejection sensitive, jealous, self-isolating, and at times inconsiderate (Carmine had to remind him that Ogerpon’s feelings on who she should travel with mattered too), he’s also a kid. We don’t have an exact age, but my impression was he might be a bit younger than the player. Carmine does mention him having “teen angst” but it could be a joke as she herself is a teen claiming to be over it, and it could be one of those “older kid jokes about younger kid as though older kid is an elderly person” type of jokes. But if he is a teen, he’s a younger one, and he still has a lot to learn about managing his emotions and expressing himself constructively. Nobody is always mature about that at 13 (heck, there are adults who lack emotional maturity altogether). He shouldn’t be expected to react maturely every time to things that upset him, and he shouldn’t be pathologized or considered “unhinged” every time he doesn’t. Depicting him as “unhinged” also detracts from his positive traits that we see in conjunction with, or even in spite of his negative ones. He’s jealous of the player character’s strength and skill, but he doesn’t actually resent them, despite becoming obsessed with the idea of defeating them. Ogerpon was bonding more with the player, but he still decided to help with the situation with the masks and the Lousy Three. He’s jealous that Ogerpon wanted to go with the player, but he’s still happy for both of them. It’s much more likely that we’ll see him mature as a person and recognize his own strengths independent of Carmine and the player at the end of the Indigo Disk then see him become a “madman consumed by jealousy and pursuit of power”, because Pokemon doesn’t really tell stories like that, and certainly not with non-villain characters! And if Carmine and Kieran end up fitting a diagnosis for an illness or disability, continuing to depict them as “unhinged” based on those traits is very ableist. I and others have said it in regards to Submas so many times, but it’s true for other characters too.

And this is by no means an exhaustive list of examples of the ways people are being ableist after the Teal Mask DLC has released.

With all that said, a headcanon diagnosis doesn’t excuse a character’s actions that have hurt others, and neither does a character who’s acting out is situational. Carmine still lashes out at Kieran and hurts him, even when her intentions are to protect him. Kieran still ended up causing the revival of the Lousy Three and put the player and Ogrepon in an uncomfortable situation, and will likely put the player in an uncomfortable situation at Blueberry Academy. In the end, they’re characters being portrayed with virtues and flaws, and that humanizes them much more than slapping on a diagnosis and absolving them of every hurtful action, and certainly much more than slapping a diagnosis on them and in turn using it to demonize them. And if you’re really interested in writing characters with mental illnesses and/or disabilities, and especially if it’s not based on your own experiences, you need to do some actual research, not just watch a few short videos listing symptoms by a non-professional on the video app du jour. If you’re not sure where to look, Wikipedia articles cite their sources at the bottom of the article; you can read the page you’re interested in, but please check out the cited sources too!

Sadly, this is at least the third time in just under three years that people have immediately started depicting characters introduced, or reintroduced in Pokemon, in ways that have ended up becoming ableist. It’s disappointing and disheartening to see, and to be honest, it gets tiring for those of us talking about the issue to keep talking about it. Many of the people making the ableist depictions aren’t personally affected by the issues they misrepresent, and they can just post their art or fic, and continue on their way. But for those of us who have the illnesses and/or disabilities being misrepresented, even misrepresented as entertainment, we can’t just log off and go on our way. The reality is a series, characters, or even fandom that could be our break from everyday life, and should be our refuge, instead has a fandom that  just plays out our everyday difficulties for laughs, brings up our trauma as an excuse to write a character as “haha unhinged! ooh feral!”, treats characters the way so many of us were treated by bullies, by parents and teachers who didn’t understand, and ends up alienating us from a space that should be ours, a space some of us helped build, only to have to leave as others made it unfriendly to us. It gets so tiring to have to avoid content that should be enjoyable but isn’t, to have friends ask, “Is this really how others see me?” when yet another autistic-coded character is portrayed as unhinged and creepy, or to have them tell you how yet another fic or art dehumanized them via their favorite characters, to watch people describe a character the way your peers once described you as they made fun of or ostracized you for your neurodivergence. It’s tiring to have other fans of the same series make a space alienating, inaccessible, or even antagonistic towards you, instead of fostering community.

Come on people, please do better.

Thank you for reading my post and your consideration. And if you think other people would benefit from reading this, please give it a reblog. Likes don't do anything as tumblr has no real algorithm.

[imsiriuslyreading]

alright so i finished reading the oldest recipe for parsnip soup and its got me thinking so much honestly.

first up, as always, the wonderful writer that is eyra has absolutely outdone themselves once again and wrangled that magic of theirs in that way that only they can do. If you haven't read it yet, please please do. you will fall so far in love i cannot possibly warn you sufficiently.

anyway its got me thinking a couple things:

we are so so bloody lucky in the fanfic community/fandom to have access to stories like this. they're beautiful, relatable and so bloody thought-provoking. they often, respectfully, shit all over so many of the published books i read that i have to put them down and do a little emotional support lap.

2. the second thing is that any time i read a representation of neurodiverse people, i pay such close attention to how the people around them treat that character. so like, their friends or their family or people in shops and strangers on the street. and as someone who has a little touch of the spicy brain, but more importantly, is friends with many, many wonderful people who sit in this colourful category, it strikes me how much it hits when these characters are treated in a way that is kind, and effortless. Like, it's actually not hard, y'know? I hear stories of how my friends are often treated by other friends of theirs and I just think, it's actually not a difficult thing to accommodate you. and not infantilize you. and yet...

I had a friend recently tell me how well i can read them for what their needs are in a variety of situations, and how grateful they are for that. and I just feel like... the bar is in hell. because it's not difficult. its literally not rocket science. its certainly not something i have to ponder over.

so when I read something like this fic in particular, where James is so cognizant of Sirius and the sort of actions and conversations that will help him thrive, it just fucking hits different. it feels effortless and unimportant. because... well, it should be.

same as how remus' friends treat him in kill your darlings by messermoon.

it's so simple, but it's so incredibly easy to be aware, and to be inclusive.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Andrew Doyle asks: Remember when the pride flag made sense?

Remember when the pride flag made sense?

It was designed by an American Artist called Gilbert Baker in 1978. It was originally an eight-stripe rainbow but was soon refined into the six-striped version that was the norm for many decades.

At a time when gay people couldn't hold hands with their partners on the street, this flag served a useful purpose. It meant that you could easily find gay pubs or other places where no one had to pretend to be something they weren't. The rainbow symbol was a simple and effective concept that conveyed positivity and unity.

And then some activists came along and said hang on a minute, why are there no black or brown stripes in the rainbow flag? See, for some reason they were under the impression that the gay flag was a literal representation of the range of skin colors that are acceptable in the community. And so we got this.

Okay then, I mean, well, there weren't any white stripes in the original one either. But most people understood that it was symbolic with that we were all included already, irrespective of our race.

But then after this, trans activists came along and said, why aren't we in there? So we got this one. And this was the chevron with the pink white and blue, which was based on the trans flag.

But surely this eyesore couldn't get any worse, could it? Well, it could, because activists were then concerned that it was excluding intersex people, so they added this symbol.

Okay, it's getting a bit out of control now. But then last year, some bright spark added a red umbrella to represent sex workers.

Now, if you thought this was getting out of hand, last year then we had Microsoft. They designed a new version to incorporate all the other multiple sexualities and genders that have been invented over the past few years. Let's have a look at that.

I mean, what the hell is it? It looks like a space ship going at warp speed through a Care Bear's bum hole.

Identity politics in its current form is an ever expanding beast. Pride used to be just one day. Then it was a month. And now Pride events have been scheduled all the way from March through to September. As one sign in a shoe shop pointed out Pride never stops. If only it would.

The initialism as well that's expanded too. First we had LGB, and then it became LGBT, then LGBTQ, then LGBTQIA. The Canadian government currently favors 2SLGBTQIA+, although even its prime minister finds that a bit of a mouthful.

Similarly, Pride started out as an important protest against injustice. When the original Pride March took place in London in 1972, homosexuality had only been legal for five years, and the prospect of gay marriage or even an equal age of consent, seemed impossible. Only 2000 people turned up to these protests.

But by contrast, the Pride parade in London in 2022 attracted over a million. And of course, most of those people aren't even gay. It's become a family day out, a huge party.

And what's so wrong with that, you might ask. And that's a fair question. If people are celebrating and having a good time, that's great. Except that's not necessarily what's going. Increasingly, gay people no longer feel welcome at Pride. I spoke to a representative from a lesbian group on this show last year who had been moved along by police when trying to protest at Pride. But isn't Pride meant to be a protest, not a party? What's going on?

The answer is that pride has been hijacked not once but twice.

First by avaricious multi-billion dollar corporations who are able to pose as virtuous by posting the pride flag. Only, they don't do it in the branches in countries where homosexuality is still illegal. After all, you wouldn't want to fly the flag anywhere which might actually make a difference.

I'm old enough to remember that corporations were certainly not celebrating Pride quite so openly before section 28 was repealed in 2003, or before the age of consent was equalized in 2001, or before the decriminalization of homosexuality in Scotland in 1980. So, these corporations' commitment to LGBT rights apparently only manifests itself when it's likely to make them a profit.

And then there's the second hijacking. See, whereas the original Pride was about agitating for equal rights for gay people, it's now been taken over by activists who are obsessed with group identity and who believe that gender is more important than sex.

That's why the British library, to celebrate the advent of pride month this week, posted a thread on Twitter about the sex life of fish, and how some species have been known to change from male to female.

I mean, what's that got to do with Pride? Why have Librarians seemingly forgotten that human beings aren't the same as fish? Now, they've since deleted those tweets, because well, you know they're bonkers. And although we might laugh at that kind of nonsense, the ideology it promotes is actually rather sinister, particularly for gay people.

See, in her book, "Time to Think" by Hannah Barnes, she found that between 80 and 90% of adolescents referred to the Tavistock pediatric gender clinic were same-sex attracted. Studies have long confirmed a correlation between gender non-conformity in youth, and homosexuality in later life. At the Tavistock, staff used to joke that "soon there would be no gay people left." Somehow the medicalization and sterilization of gay people has been reframed as progressive.

Even Stonewall, the UK's foremost LGBT charity has redefined the word "homosexual" on its website and promotional materials to mean "same gender attracted." Its CEO, Nancy Kelly, has claimed that women who exclude trans people from their dating pool are akin to sexual racists. There's been an intense resurgence of old homophobic tropes online from gender ideologues that believe that "genital preferences are transphobic" and that lesbians who don't include men in their dating pool must be suffering from trauma.

Gay rights were secured by recognizing that a minority of people are instinctively attracted to members of their own sex. And the new ideology of gender identity rejects this notion entirely, and actively shames gay people for their orientation.

So, when you see this flag, try to understand that many gay people consider it to be a symbol of opposition to gay rights, Women who are concerned about their rights consider it a symbol of misogyny, because it promotes an ideology that denies the reality of sex-based oppression, and yet most people, gay people included, haven't even noticed this transition from the pro-gay rainbow flag to this anti-gay imposter.

And that's because it all happened so quickly, and activists are playing on good intentions of a public who don't want to be seen to be on the wrong side of history. Well, I would suggest that upholding the rights of women and gay people and protecting gender non-conforming children and opposing the hypocrisy of corporations is the truly progressive approach.

Anyone who spends any time on social media would have seen that homophobia is clearly on the rise. It's coming from the reactionary elements of the right, who are now holding gay people responsible for sexualized drag shows for children, and the proliferation of sexually explicit books in school libraries. But of course, they've fallen for the trick. This isn't gay people. That's gender ideologues who've convinced everyone that the LGBTQIA+ movement is one big happy family, when it isn't.

And we know this because homophobia is also on the rise among gender ideologues themselves, who frequently go online to tell gay people to kill themselves. Some of them have said that they celebrate AIDS as a good thing. And this isn't just a few mad activists, there are thousands of examples of this if you've got the stomach to look them up.

So whether it's coming from those who consider themselves right wing or left-wing, anti-gay sentiments are back in fashion. And the best way to combat this is to remind everyone that that Progress Pride flag, and the corporate orgy that accompanies it, is not in the interests of gay people.

And if it's too late to reclaim the original Pride flag, we can at least ditch the new one.

[aevitium]

is elysia a lesbian: discuss

This is actually (genuinely, sincerely) something I really really really love to talk about. For those of you who aren't familiar, allow me to show you some Real and Canon words out of Miss Pink Elf's mouth:

And that is... not at all it LOL.

I would like to start this conversation, however, with an acknowledgment. Whether the intention on Hoyoverse's end is representation or fanservice, Hi3 has undoubtedly secured itself as a yuriful piece of media. Elysia aside, it boasts a number of very canon wlw ships, and holds a lot of importance to many of its community members that identify as such. It meant a lot to me in my youth for similar reasons, and for all casual purposes: yes, Elysia likes girls. I think I would have to turn in my writing license if I disagreed.

However this is an RP group, and so "casual purposes" don't entirely cut it. Love is something so deeply ingrained into this character that the discussion of romance/sexuality just isn't enough. I think one of the biggest pieces to understanding Elysia is to understand, first, what love means to her.

It's quite well known that Elysia is not human. Her entire existence, despite being wholly dedicated to humanity, is not comparable to theirs. She has played human, has come as close as she possibly could to being one, but fundamentally she never has been. To comprehend what love means to her, first you have to separate it from the typical, human understanding of the term. Elysia does not love any one thing, she does not fall in love, she is love. An affection for a single person is not solely theirs, it is humanity's. You, a single person, are just as loved by her as any other.

Sorry. Feels like I'm back in bible school LMFAO.

Anyway. There is something so delightful to me about picking apart why Elysia takes up such a flirtatious nature. I boil it down to, rather simply, an imitation of what she has seen other humans equate to love. It's something she takes to so joyously, and so liberally, yet never reads as overbearing or weird or with too much intention.

It is genuinely hard for me to imagine Elysia in a Titled Relationship the way human society functions. She just... doesn't love like that. It's too small a thing to encompass the sheer gravity of all her affections. Desires for human affections and the like are just not something she could ever have a natural inclination for, because she isn't human. Anything Elysia pursues is intentional, stemming not from a natural interest but an artificial one spurred by her desire to be human.

Does that make sense? Maybe.

All of this is to say that the answer is Yes*(?). Elysia likes girls, she flirts with them, she certainly finds them pleasing to look at (think in the way that a person would enjoy looking at art, do you feel me) but she isn't. A Lesbian. Because she's not... anything. She's just too swag for human labels. Tho she is undeniably way less interested in men (if at all)

So I guess the jury's still kinda out LOL

[world-cinema-research]

Blazing Saddles (1974) essay

Blazing Saddles is a beloved film that is audacious and hilarious and includes biting social commentary. The film covers the improbable journey of Sheriff Bart, a black railroad worker turned sherif. He faces racism and corruption in hilarious ways throughout the movie. This film without a doubt pushed the boundaries of satire as well as comedy as a whole. In this essay we will delve into the style, historical significance, critical reception, and the blend of the conventional and unconventional.

Blazing Saddles (1974) Original Trailer - Gene Wilder Movie (youtube.com)

The first thing that I will be covering is the critical reception of the film. This film polarized critics with its bold and irreverent approach to comedy. Many thought that it was a phenomenal piece of satire that pushed the boundaries on topics such as racism, others condemned it due to its political incorrectness and dark humor. In the review by Roger Ebert, he states ""Blazing Saddles" is like that. It's a crazed grabbag of a movie that does everything to keep us laughing except hit us over the head with a rubber chicken. Mostly, it succeeds". The New York Times criticized its reliance on "easy and obvious targets" for its humor.

The actual content of the film includes endless satire and gags that last the duration of the film. The writers of the film navigate through the topics of racism, sexism, and many other societal taboos in a way that many would say that is untasteful. In terms of style, the film is a Mel Brooks classic, pushing boundaries at every opportunity and challenging the viewers' expectations at every turn. In addition to the film's unrelenting gags, it also tacks a whirlwind of important social taboos such as racism, sexism, and many cultural stereotypes. The film covers these sensitive topics through its wit and humor, often blurring the line between hilarious comedy and hurtful truths, brutally exposing the hypocrisies and injustices of society. The film happily defies expectations and challenges its viewers to question many of their views about comedy as well as about the world around them.

The film, having been released in 1974, occurred at the same time as several significant historical events and cultural movements. One of the most significant of these events to the film was the civil rights movement. Because of the fact that Blazing Saddles takes aim at racism so heavily, it caused it to be a very important film at the time.

Another event that was happening at the time that was extremely significant for the film was the increasing awareness of the LGBT community. This is another topic that the film digs into heavily and pokes fun at, and in turn, brings awareness to.

Something that has come up multiple times in my research of the film is the fact that this film would be impossible to create in today's landscape. The films approach to satire would almost certainly face almost insurmountable challenges today, especially regarding its unapologetic use of racial and ethnic humor. Even at the time of its release it faced backlash, and if it was released today, that backlash would be increased tenfold. The norms of today's film industry prioritize inclusivity and representation which is something that is simply not present in this film. Although the film's intentions are quite clearly satirical, I don't believe that there is any way that this film would have even made it out of the board room where it was being pitched.

It is not possible to pigeonhole the film "Blazing Saddles" into simply one category when it comes to conventional versus unconventional. This is because the film seamlessly blends together many different aspects of both a conventional and unconventional film. Although the film does adhere to some of the classic tropes it also defies them with its irreverent humor and boundary pushing satire. It is very difficult to call a film with such offensive and groundbreaking humor as conventional, and yet it is also difficult to identify a film with such a loaded cast and popular director as unconventional.

In conclusion, "Blazing Saddles" stands as a testament to the irreverent genius of Mel Brooks, as well as his fearlessness in his exploration of the limits of film comedy. Despite all of the polarization due to the film, it still remains a beloved classic due to how funny it remains, even after all these years. Through its willingness to push boundaries, this film defies easy categorization into things like conventional or unconventional. I think that this film should be looked back on as an enduring masterpiece of comedy and social commentary.