#like please god. you are not oppressed for being a man. no man is inherently oppressed for being a man ITS WHY ITS CALLED PATRIARCHY!!!!!!! | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

the-hem · 9 months ago

Text

Jesus is Baptized. Why? From Mark 1:9-13.

Before we discuss why Jesus needed to be baptized, we must first define who is the Father in Heaven, the Son of Man, and the Holy Spirit. Failure to understand what these things mean completely obliterates the point of practiving the faith.

The Spirit of God is called Ha Shem in Hebrew. Ha Shem means "He who knows all that can be known in creation." The Father is the Rab, the one who dictates the law to the masses through the Scripture.

Without the discipline of the law, both the kind that puts our noses to the grindstone and the sciences inherent to the stone itself, the Self will not produce the Water of Life, the Son of God. Whetting oneself against this stone is the only way to achieve the Holy Ghost.

The baptism of the Son of God within the Water and the unity with the Holy Ghost is the summation of these three things that can, if one is aware and understands, culminates in Sentience.

Sentience is the the ability to make a coherent Argument against savage man and instead engage in the promotion of his sophisticated urban counterpart.

The passage begins "in those days." Days are structured periods of evolution. The scripture says it was time for Mashiach, the Hebrew word for "reliable system of self government." The word "devotion of mankind to itself" explains Mashiach.

If we define the other Hebrew terms in verse 9 we will discover why Mashiach happened in Christ's time and why it must happen again in ours:

Jesus= the cry for freedom.

The verb ישע (yasha') means to be unrestricted and thus to be free and thus to be saved (from restriction, from oppression and thus from ultimate demise). A doer of this verb is a savior. Nouns ישועה (yeshua), ישע (yesha') and תשועה (teshua) mean salvation. Adjective שוע (shoa') means (financially) independent, freed in an economic sense.

Verb שוע (shawa') means to cry out (for salvation). Nouns שוע (shua'), שוע (shoa') and שועה (shawa) mean a cry (for salvation).

Nazareth= the consecrated place that provides shelter after a diaspora. We have a bit of that happening right now and not one place is willing to identify itself as a refuge.

Galilee= the coming of an age ruled by nobility; a certain intersection between history and the inevitability that people always want to be safe and free regardless of when or what caused their diaspora.

John= Galilee is not performed through force but through Grace.

The verb חנן (hanan) means to be gracious or to favor. Nouns חן (hen), חנינה (hanina), תחנה (tehinna) and תחנון (tahanun) mean favor or grace. Adverb חנם (hinnam) means freely or gratis, and adjective חנון (hannun) means gracious.

The Jordan=the Descender; a person acquainted with the Superior Being that deigns to help those in need of Nazareth and Galilee.

So in this tale, Jesus enters into the Spirit of the Jordan in order to begin a new dictation of the Law.

9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.

10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove.

11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son;[a] with you I am well pleased.”

12 The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness.

13 And he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. And he was with the wild animals, and the angels were ministering to him.

Why did Jesus have to go into the desert after He received the new Law?

The Values in Gematria follow:

v. 9: In those Days. The Value in Gematria is 6599, והטט‎‎‎‎, and the tat, "what is missing."

v. 10: He came up out of the water. The Value in Gematria is 7636, ז‎וגו‎ ‎, "a couple."

v. 11: And a voice came from heaven. The Value in Gematria is 6747, וזדז‎ ‎, and zadez, "This is understanding."

v. 12: The Spirit immediately drove him out. The Value in Gematria is 3865, גחוה‎ , ghuha, "the embodiment of the counsel."

v. 13: And He was in the wilderness for forty days. The Value in Gematria is 9816, טחאו‎‎‎‎, tchao, "pray."

The ancients associated light (and thus illumination and insight) with water. The pair mentioned above are knowing and understanding. We pray to transform what we visualize out of fantasy into reality.

Prayer represents daily and continual preparation of the mind in order to turn spiritual thoughts into the greater things they represent. When these rites are executed merely out of religious piety, they are wholly worthless and rather ridiculous.

If we read the five stages of Baptism what we get is an amazing synthesis of this idea:

"When civilization falters, what is missing is the understanding of the prayers of the people."

Do any of you mukluks think the people of this world are praying for sea level rise, bombs or missiles to come dropping out of the sky, starvation, unemployment, loneliness or homelessness? Or for all this noise?

God knows what is happening to us, and through the Baptism of the Christ is telling us what to do about it: We are being cruel and unfeeling and need to heed the cries of the people for liberation from war and suffering. The human race is losing its way. If we follow the sounds of those who are in mourning, the Lord says we will find it again.

0 notes

borgchip · 2 years ago

Text

Hggbhgg... gender... techy characters & gender... Voyager and gender. We love to see it. I wish there was more of it . Thinking abt Seven & the doctor's experience with gender is always really interesting to me, because I think like...they're in a way very similar, but also very different (at least in my headcanon obviously). And like. It's really fascinating. Forgive me if I go on abt this for a minute (Under the cut, if you wanna read it (please do read it it's really good I promise-))

I think seven has absolutely no attachment to gender. Like. she accepts that she's a woman, and she isn't UNCOMFORTABLE with that, but 'being a woman' means nothing to her. Personality wise she has not acted in any kind of gendered way at all to me, if her character was male I don't think she herself would really be any different. Even when she's in that like cutesy dressed up look in Someone To Watch Over Me, she still walks and carries herself like a fuckin terminator fjdjfj. Plus, she calls her male date "beautiful", which kind of implies she isn't even aware of certain gendered terms (Which, why would she be, she was barely a child when she was assimilated). Seven is just going about her time completely in spite of her sex, it's Voyager and people around her pushing this box of hyper femininity onto her. I mean... It's been said before...the doctor made her outfit for gods sake.

I love posts talking about Seven getting top surgery because I honestly think she would enjoy that, it's realistic to her character to me. Not because she has any kind of dysphoria, but boobs can be heavy and inconvenient, and maybe she's even kinda tired of people staring at her chest. The whole thing about Sevens character that frustrates me is how much she is incessantly forced into conforming to everything, not even being asked if it's what she wants or not. It's just kind of assumed that it's the best thing for her, as untruthful as that may be. I think the idea of her taking back autonomy of her own body and just doing whatever the hell she wants is really empowering, especially in conjunction with her entire backstory. Being "liberated" from the borg, all the same, no individuality. I feel sometimes like Seven's story (at least in Voyager) falls flat because it feels like she's going from one oppressive system to another, with one just being a lot more over the top.

As for the doctor... In his original state, I feel like he could've been anything?

He as a hologram doesn't even HAVE a sex, nor an assigned gender. Not really. His physical characteristics/presentation are just an addendum to his program, something to make him easier to talk to and interact with. His physical "self" can be changed with the flick of a switch, and his program, originally, had absolutely no use for gender roles. His entire designation of personhood was just to be a doctor. To heal the sick, help the injured. The fact that his creator was a man and used himself to model the doc's appearance was just chance. mentality wise, he was a blank slate.

From what I can remember….early seasons Doctor also did not show any inherently socially gendered traits. He was rude and kind of arrogant, but not much in a toxic masculine "i need to prove myself" type of way (and now I have learned he also gets much of that from his creators lol). It isn't until the doctor starts interacting with people more, until his world opens up past healing that he starts showing the like…weird sexism adjacent behavior. Which... I don't think that is a coincidence.

One of my biggest ideas about the doctor has always been that that sexism and hard/fast heterosexuality he always displays is learned behavior. The doctor is VERY impressionable, that's abundantly clear if you're paying attention to it. I swear to god, watch ANY scene where he and a character are arguing about something, he always caves within...5 seconds. TOPS. A lot of the doctor's growth comes from him wanting to be taken seriously, then to be appreciated, and finally in maybe season 3 when he really starts openly wanting to be human. He wants people to see him the exact same as anybody else, he wants to experience life like any person would, but he's always getting pushback for it.

I think, honestly, just based on his personality and interests, the doctor would be open to and really enjoy exploring other expressions of gender. The roles, the looks, the social aspect, the sense of self. Exploration in a "seeking the bounds of the entire human experience" sort of thing. If Voyager wasn't filmed in the 90s, and the fictional society was a lot more progressive, "the doctor spends a day exploring their womanhood, manhood, and everything else in between, and gets very carried away/learns a lesson about personhood during" does NOT sound like an out there plotline to me. I think the reason the doctor DISPLAYS so much conservativity is because he is going solely based on everything he sees around him. What he reads in books, what he observes of the crew, what he's researched himself. From everything on the ship, to him, heterosexuality seems like the "norm", and men act this way and women act that way, and obviously there's nothing WRONG if you don't, but that's just how it is!

Seven is the victim of gender roles + heteronormativity because she's Forced to conform, whereas the doctor Wants to conform. He craves to be acknowledged and validated as a True Human Person, and will do anything and act any way (within his morals) to be accepted as such. And in a lot of ways I don't know if he even knows he's doing it. It's all just...internalized crap. Which is where I think him not realizing he's attracted to guys from also but that's a different subject...

"We gave this emh a soul" "you've socialized a perfectly good hologram is what you did, look at it it's mildly homophobic" And that's why I find this so interesting, like. They have such similar experiences and yet end up taking that in totally different directions. That's something I think Voyager does do very very well, is parallels. and it has a lot of them. Seven and the Doctor both sort of have a "baseline" of gender nonconformity specifically because of their experiences. In Seven's case, she wasn't really given the time to conform or even learn about society's expectations of her, which is probably explanation for her "unique" behaviors, and why she still clings to Borg ideals and procedures despite not being a drone anymore. It's rlly the only kind of "society" she's ever known.

Obviously I don't wanna imply there's any connection between like "weird/alien" traits and gender nonconformity. But... the reason I find nonbinary robots/etc so compelling is because to me, they give a view into what could be if people were born completely without any social roles, gender assignment, pronouns etc etc. Tech characters to me exist in this sort of bubble outside of society, where unless something is specifically programmed into them, they get sort of an outside view of it in a very clinical way and are able to form their own feelings about it in a way completely pure and unique to them (If they're lucky they'll have no outside influence for it at all, just learning what is fully themselves). That's really interesting to me. I think seven and the doctor exemplify that kind of idea really well. But, also how it could go wrong yaknow. Both in-universe and writing wise :/

I can still dream of more complicated explorations of sexuality/gender in my star trek episodes if they won't give it to me themselves fgkrthrth

#This is so long ghaahhbdfg it's just stream of conciousness #emh #seven of nine #voyager #Literally Jay's trans doctor / gnc seven manifesto #but I'm very passionate #@bumblingbabooshka made me think about this again

20 notes · View notes

wolf-queer-discourse · 3 years ago

Text

Adventures in Aphobia #1

So I was scrolling through Tumblr the other day (a regrettable mistake as always), and I had the great pleasure of seeing this joyous post.

*deep breath*

Not gonna lie, posts like this make me real pissed. Pissed because the person who posted this exists in a space where they feel comfortable enough to post this online. Pissed because these posts are so common and often face little backlash. And pissed because there’s nothing better than allosexuals condescendingly explaining to asexual people why they’re dirty attention whores who invent their own oppression. Ace people deserve to be defended against this horseshit. Young people see these posts, and it’s extremely damaging to have your identity be nothing more than fuel for people in discourse to mock you and demand you bled in order for them to notice your pain.

Anger aside, many people do not see why this post is wrong, so why is it? Let’s unpack this clusterfuck of bigotry:

“would love to see substantive evidence of systematic “aphobia” that isn’t actually just misogyny, toxic masculinity, or rpe culture.”

God damn, we are not mincing our words here XD. A few things: systematic in bold, which tells you if you do not make a blood sacrifice on the altar of queer pain you will not be taken seriously. Potential nitpick, but systemic and systematic are not the same thing. I believe systemic is the word they’re looking for. Systematic implies a lot more intentionality that can be hard to prove. Systemic merely means that systems, in their current state, do aphobic things, which they absolutely do.

“Aphobia” in quotes is absolutely rich. Not only will this person refuse to acknowledge systemic aphobia, which is only one type, but this poster casts clear doubt upon the mere concept of aphobia in and of itself. We love to see it.

There’s a lot to unpack here. The statement, as clearly condescending as intended, is sort of correct, though it doesn’t mean a whole lot. Systemic oppression is about the systems in a society (government, healthcare, etc) discriminating against people. Systemic oppression is not bigotry faced on a person-to-person level. In short, systematic oppression is something a person experiences in their overall life, while personal discrimination is experienced on a personal level by people who are not singularly in control of the systems. This post boils down the negative comments ace people face into being called “weird”, which is an understatement for sure, but calling a gay person weird isn’t systemic oppression either.

It’s still bad and discriminatory.

This is such a snotty way to dismiss aphobia as some mere, insignificant comment with no meaning as if it doesn’t reinforce society’s painful aphobic views in the same way casual homophobic comments reinforce heteronormativity and society’s hostility toward gay people.

Ace people face discrimination in healthcare, most notably, which is systemic discrimination, but the systemic discrimination of asexuals really ought to be its own post if I’m to nosedive into it. Even if ace people faced no systemic discrimination, it wouldn’t make this point anymore correct. Discrimination is a perfectly valid reason to feel disregarded by society, and often only ace people are denied the right to feel this way and are instead gaslit into admitting what they face is no big deal and they’re just making it up for attention.

The experience of being pressured to have sex when you’re allo vs ace is very different. The vast majority of allo people do not plan to be celibate their whole lives. Many ace people do not want to have sex, ever. “Waiting for sex” in much of western society and in Christianity is seen as pure and honorable. Yet being asexual and never wanting sex is seen as a deviant disorder and people are accused of robbing their partner of sex forever.

There’s really a specific flavor of sexual pressure that is unique to ace people. Sex being to “fix” someone or because they “just need to try it”.

In this respect, aphobic sexual pressure is better compared to that faced by gay people and lesbians. Lesbians especially often can face this same struggle, men pressuring them to have sex because they think lesbians just need to “try it” or to “fix them”. I can imagine this poster would have no issue acknowledging lesbophobia being the root of lesbians coerced into sex with men, yet she does not give ace people the same.

Imagine if someone said (and knowing our fucked world, someone probably has): “Lesbophobia doesn’t exist. It’s just misogyny. Straight women are coerced into sex too!”

It’d be pathetic bullshit. Toxic masculinity, misogyny and many other issues can all tangle into combined messes with other forms of bigotry. Lesbophobia is an experience that deserves to be recognized apart from misogyny, even if the two are linked. Please stop erasing ace people’s experiences with this when it’s not the same thing.

Honestly, though, this post, as trashy as it is, if anything, is perhaps, really asking: Is there any type of aphobic experience that’s inherently exclusive to ace people?

I still wager to go say, yes, yes there is, but I must make an important point first:

Most experiences of queer discrimination are not limited to queer people.

Homophobia and transphobia are both experienced by cishets in certain instances. Feminine straight men can be victims of homophobic harassment. This does not disprove the fact that it’s homophobia just because a straight man is the victim of it. A tall cis woman with broad shoulders and a lower voice may be the victim of transphobic remarks or comments. The basis of these comments is rooted in transphobia, however, so the fact that the victim is cis does not erase the transphobia.

People who argue that experiences ace people complain about can be experienced by allosexuals are not poking a legitimate hole in doing this. Certain experiences related to aphobia can and are experienced by allosexuals. If you do not acknowledge this, then homophobia and transphobia aren’t real because cishet people have sometimes experienced them.

Despite cishets sometimes experiencing queerphobia, most of us acknowledge that their experience of that bigotry, however unfortunate, is not the same as that experienced by actual queer people. It’d be quite homophobic for a feminine straight man to claim he knew just as much about the gay experience as an actual gay man. Similarly, when allosexual people relate experiences that were rooted in aphobia, it’s overstepping a line when they claim asexual discrimination isn’t real because they experienced elements of it too.

Cishet (cishet including allosexuals) people do not experience their doctors telling them their sexuality might be a disorder or caused by trauma. Allo queer people can experience this with their sexualities too.

“using sex appeal to sell products is misogyny, it is not engineered to gross sex-repulsed people, it is meant to objectify women.”

This is a strawman thinner than my last nerve. Uh, what? What ace people are you seeing that literally think sex appeal was engineered to gross-out sex-repulsed people?? I don’t think this is a core argument??

Yes, sex-repulsed ace people sometimes complain about sex appeal in media being uncomfortable. But that’s it. Every time an ace person shares a discomfort of theirs doesn’t mean it’s the entire basis of their oppression. For the love of God, let ace people discuss their experiences without being blow-torched over not being oppressed enough with an individual discomfort.

BONUS ROUND

(This was in the tags)

“Completely vilifies celibate individuals”

...no…? What…? Huh…?

The most charitable interpretation of this vague accusation is that the poster means celibate people face aphobia as well, due to not wanting to have sex. I have no idea how this “vilifies” anyone, but that aside, as said before: people who are not queer can face aphobia. Also worth noting that society treats celibate people way better than ace people, which is really another example of aphobia. Celibate people can be told they’re missing out (which could be at very least related to aphobic ideals), but they’re rarely called broken. Celibacy is seen more as a respected, controlled ideal in allo people, but when ace people want to do it, they’re just mentally ill.

Anyway, the post was aphobic trash, and it needs to be debunked more often. Mocking ace people online is not a good look anymore, guys. Don't be ugly.

#discourse #queer discourse #LGBT discourse #Adventures in Aphobia #ace discourse #asexual discourse #aphobia #ace discrimination #asexual #asexuality #LGBT #queer #ace #rant #aphobes have no shame but they should #imagine having a brain smoother than a banana peel

94 notes · View notes

thehealingsystem · 11 months ago

Text

was just going to comment but I figured this deserved a more in depth response. so now I ask users of tumblr to STOP MAKING POLLS LIKE THIS

for warning there is rampant aphobia in the notes, as expected but really fucking sad because I thought most of our community moved past this shit. but apparently not

asexual and aromanticism is inherently part of the lgbtq+ community. no ifs ands or buts. not on the condition of being queer in some other way, not on the condition of how much oppression they experience. and from reading the comments, people need some reminders

gatekeeping who is "lgbt enough" based on how badly a group is oppressed is bullshit. first off, a bunch of you obviously haven't read into any discussions or research on aspec folks and the experiences they've had with this. because I can assure you that we ALSO are on the receiving end of the harm from heteronormative views of society and having our orientations questioned, criticized, and rejected. just because you refuse to even LOOK at what aspecs are saying about their own lives and don't experience that yourself doesn't mean you can completely deny that we aren't oppressed.

and to be fair, I am queer in other ways and being aspec isn't the most important part of my identity for me BECAUSE I've been a lot more hurt for those other parts, such as being lesbian or being trans. but I obviously don't speak for the entire community

but secondly, it's not the best thing in the world to base whether or not someone is allowed in the Exclusive Minority Group around how badly they've been hurt. this has been done to hell and back and has shown to only be harmful. transmedicalism bases itself off of this, and I see it in a lot of transmeds to this day. that they're hurt and suffering due to being trans, therefore anyone else who is trans has to be hurt and suffering too or else they're not REALLY trans. Not REALLY a part of the group. Because if they're not oppressed enough obviously they don't belong here right? literally the logic people are putting in the comments right now

And by god, people NEED to get normal about alloaros. if a guy doesn't experience romantic attraction and is just sexually attracted to women, that is it. he cannot choose his orientation. he can't change anything about who or who he isn't attracted to

seriously there's replies saying with their full chest that he's just trying to distance himself from women while still being sexually active with them in order to use it as a scapegoat for his misogyny. which also shows that we still see asexual and aromanticism as an ACTION rather than an actual valid orientation. what the hell do you want this hypothetical man to do??? suddenly gain romantic feelings??? pft

so many have problems with split attraction for so many reasons that go straight into basic plain old queerphobia. towards non-aspec sam and aspec sam alike. that the labels aren't valid and we would just use something else, to that no one can actually have attraction like that because romantic and sexual attraction are always the same definitely (/sar), our labels are useless and there's no point in them, we're trying to invade some sort of community, that we're literal predators and trying to make people attracted to us, the list goes on and on

please stop giving these people a platform to spout their queerphobia. I've seen so many polls like this asking questions of whether they think xyz identity is valid, and while I may have let loose with the contradictory identities one bc it was mostly positive and I just wanted to express pride in it, there's so many that go all wrong, asked in bad faith meant to bring out hateful discourse

this is a poll with 15980+ votes so far with 4746+ voting no. are you kidding me. aphobia? in our year 2023, nearly 2024? literally just stop already

#there's some stuff I cut out of this #like how this was framed to focus on the manhood part adding onto my point of axis of oppression being used here #it could've been totally fine as just “are cishet aros lgbt” as if asking if it was a women would've been different #or...people saw it differently BECAUSE it was a man. istg alloaros are not predators or invading or misogynists objectifying women #it's JUST the way they experience attraction and ACES/AROS ARE QUEER. idc if it “isn't enough” you don't get to decide that!#obviously I don't know ops intentions but this is what came of it so.........#there's so much stupidity in the replies and could be fixed with bare minimum research #aphobia #amatonormativity #tw discourse #tw queerphobia #asexual #aromantic #aspec #queer #lgbtq #editing this op has said this is a joke poll but tbh it's not funny and what I said still stands because people are taking this seriously

4K notes · View notes

system-of-a-feather · 4 years ago

Note

Have you considered that the whole Super straight/bi/lesbian/gay thing came about specifically because y'all are so quick to call people transphobic? I don't understand why supporters of trans rights are so interested in whether or not people are willing to date trans people.

Like, if that's your biggest problem, you're doing well. Genuinely, what is this oppression trans ppl face if the biggest concern is getting a date? And if someone doesn't want to date a trans person, why, WHY would y'all wanna pressure them into it? What does that do for you? Isn't it dangerous for the trans person to pursue the issue once they've been turned down? Why are you encouraging them to be in a place of danger? Who cares if some people don't want to date trans people? If they're as oppressed as y'all say, that is literally the least of their concern.

I absolutely fully agree with that. It absolutely isn’t an okay thing to do and people aren’t transphobic for not wanting to date or be with a trans person. I have absolutely nothing against that.

What *does* bother me is how people go about using the “trans people are mad that we won’t date them” to straw man that most people that say that follow it up with saying “trans men aren’t real men” or combine it with “I only want to date real and natural men” which is inherently transphobic.

I fully support anyone who is just not interested in dating trans people. That’s fine, and I really don’t care. We are a blog of people who have been traumatized, abused, and sexually abused and forced upon. We would never put that upon anyone else. Our blog is first and foremost about trauma and consent and harassments is absolute big “N-O”s for us

If the majority of the people who said they didn’t want to date trans people didn’t start using “real” women and men lines, then I would have no issue with being “super straight” or “super lesbian”.

Similarly to you assuming everyone who is against it cares about if you can get a date or not and is upset about it, we are forced to assume everyone who thinks it is about that is going to use and talk like a transphobe / TERF and de-legitimize their gender identity. Most of the shit talking and memes in the Super Straight tags are dissing “new” gender labels like nonbinary or whatever and trans identities and all that, so don’t act as if this is all about predatory trans behavior and not about people being disgustingly transphobic.

If your tag and movement was solely about addressing toxic behavior in the trans community that is predatory, I would be standing with you and in support, but instead a large majority of the people in your “movement” take it as an opportunity to diss, disrespect, and let blatant transphobic / TERF rhetoric spew disgustingly on your floor and I just can’t stand for that.

As for the Trans community, our largest issue **isnt** getting a fucking date. It has never fucking been getting a date and if you really think that is the largest issue, god are you blind and deaf.

I think the largest issue would be the overall stigma hatred and disgust many people in society hold towards people who are trans. There are also all the people who regularly threaten violence and state that they would kick the head in of anyone who they saw if they were trans or saw “a man in a dress.” There are people thinking people who are trans are secretly just pedophiles that want to fondle children. There are people who murder people for being trans. There are people who just regularly bully and make fun of people or completely cut ties with people because they are trans. There are people assaulting - physically and sexually - people who are trans just for being trans.

“In 2009, 17 percent of all reported violent hate crimes against LGBTQ people were directed against those who identified themselves as transgender, with most (11 percent of all hate crimes) identifying as transgender women.8 The remainder identified as transgender men, genderqueer, gender questioning, or intersex.” - x

“People may assume that being visibly transgender or having a transgender history is a direct cause of sexual assault. There is some truth to this: A number of murders of transgender people (particularly transgender women of color) have taken place when new sexual partners "discover" their sexual partners were assigned male at birth and/or have a penis. “ - x

I promise you, almost any of the bigotry and exclusion that people who are lesbian, bi, and/or gay experience, people who are trans also experience, but they also get it from people who are lesbian, bi, and gay.

If you want to have a discussion about the predatory nature of some people who use being trans as a means to attack and pressure people into sex or a relationship, we would be more than glad to sit down and talk about that. It is a huge problem and a disgusting one.

If you are trans and you get rejected and then use your trans identity to try to pity and victim cry yourself a date or sex, then you are scum and worse than any transphobe out there. You don’t deserve to look at this blog or group yourself with us. Don’t be a fucking predator.

If you are one of those people, lick my boot and cry because fuck you.

I’m not against “supers” because I think they have a right to your body. I’m against “supers” because they parade behind “I don’t like the predatory behavior!!” to be transphobic.

I understand that if some of your have been pressured into shit like this, it might be a trauma response and I understand that. I’m not actually mad at you for that because I very much understand how that works. We have been there before and have generalized horribly, but please do know a large majority of the community is not just about sexuality and who they will date. We aren’t predators. We are just people and most of us just will handle rejection like a normal god damn person. Please don’t generalize us with abusers because of a negative experience you or someone you know might have experienced.

A lot of people who are trans are far more busy and concerned with how having to choose between who they actually are and living in a constant lie to themselves and others, and being their true self and risking to upturn their entire life, loose many acquaintances, and naturally have a target on your back if you aren’t living in an area that is considerably tolerant and even then its still a risk. I don’t know where you got that getting a date is the largest issue about being trans because it never was and never is.

Please, take some time to really try to listen to us and our experiences and please don’t immediately group all trans people in with abusive people. A lot of us really don’t care about getting in people’s pants and most of it is really just about trying to live and be ourselves.

I understand the experiences are horrible and anyone who puts that pressure is horrible, but don’t let that be an excuse to spread rhetoric and hate on a group that already has an insanely high suicide rate.

People aren’t killing themselves because they aren’t getting dates. They are killing themselves because being trans is hard and insanely difficult. Dating someone is a speck of sand in a desert.

Please don’t use that straw man on us and please don’t use it to paint all trans people as bad and worthy of hate.

Thank you.

-Ray (Gatekeeper)

#discourse #discourse tw #alter: ray #lgbt #tra #trans rights #superstriaght #superlesbian #superstraight tw #long post #longpost

49 notes · View notes

searchingforproofsthatimwrong · 4 years ago

Text

THE JAMMIEDODGER VIDEO ABOUT JK ROWLING (as recommended by a very polite anon)

so I go point by point after the cut but in short: they should read more feminist theory, they are lying, they are not as coherent as they think they are but they make some points, notably about the rapid onset gender disphoria that’ll need to check in more depth later on.Most of their sources were unfortunatly either on points I already knew or already agreed with. Also that woman ( the “cis” one not Jammy), should really stop thinking being born a woman is somehow a privilege.

So the video starts by saying three things I agree with :

1) Biological sex is definitely real

2) Women’s right and girls’ right need to be protected

3) JK Rowling is entitled to like support and write whatever she wants

So far so good. Except it then goes on to say that TRA agree with that. Now maybe most do but at least some don’t. Don’t lie to me, Jammie Dodger.

They then go on to misrepresent what our problem with “cis” is. Are they going to spend that entire video about trans people at destination of the non educated on that subject without ONCE defining what a trans person is? They are aren’t they ?

“TRANSPEOPLE AGREE THAT BIOLOGICAL SEX EXISTS!!”

see earlier but given the number of people who are saying “sex is a social construct” and “sex is a spectrum” and “a neovagina is just like a vagina”, you may at least put a “most” in your statement here. Anyway this is not the problem we have, we wouldn’t even discuss this if it weren’t for the brain dead morons who argue with us about it.

“my biological sex -the one I was assigned at birth- was female”

is Jammie here telling me he knows biology exists but his sex WAS female ? It still IS female. You’re a female. Moreover you cannot say I know biology exists and I was assigned a sex. The entire “assigned sex” is a refutal of biology by implying doctors choose a sex for you. This is stupid.

Strawman. They are saying radfems have no argument against “gender identity is a real thing”. The lies. Gender identity is not a real thing it’s just gender stereotypes and gender is a tool of oppression for women, it’s sexist garbage. I also notice they don’t define gender identity, this is starting to be a pattern, this video is aimed to normies but the only thing they defined so far is terf.

They did 5 fucking minutes on “transpeople know that biological sex exists” I am already exhausted.

Oh my bad they defined “gender identity” as “the gender you know you are”. THANKS A BUNCH THIS IS SO HELPFUL . Define gender please I beg of you.

“They know they are a man but their bodies don’t match”

okay so you agree that man and woman are words that depends on your body right? Since it can “match”, they are not gender then ? Nevermind he then says that man is their gender identity. This is not making sense.

Ooooooh the floating head analogy never heard that one before, this is a stupid one because gendies also argue that their gender is innate (unless Jammie here specifically says he doesn’t think that I’ll act as if he agrees with that statement) so the good question would be if you were born as a floating head and never even had a body would you still be a woman? And my answer here as well as plenty of people I suspect is “men and women don’t make sense if we’re born as floating heads what are you on about?”

“transwomen needs women’s right too”

I know you think that is self evident but I’ll ask what exactly are the women’s right transwomen need. Abortion? Affordable periods product ? The right to have places free of male? oh wait. They are male so they can never have that can they ?

“so feminism also needs to believe in gender identity”

because if we don’t our feminism is only for females and we exclude males. Notice how they didn’t continue their logic by saying how THIS feminism excludes transmen and nonbinary? Because it does, but guess who actually need the women’s right of abortion for exemple?

“transmen don’t need women’s rights”

I FUCKING CANNOT YOU STILL NEED IT WTF ARE YOU ON ABOUT. OK I need them to define women’s right asap

“well JK Rowling said she supports trans rights”

funny how you can understand how those words are not a proof that she in fact does but you still started your video by “we support women’s rights !!!”

“adding [to Harry Potter] content that was LGBT+ friendly”

she added things that were gay friendly. I don’t remember her adding trans characters.

“transphobic” = saying men can’t become women. Whoah. The hatred.

“the lack of belief [in gender identity] is what she wants protected”

yes and ? Atheism, the lack of belief in a god, is protected. Gender identity existence only proof is some people saying it does exists, it is not a scientific reality in any way shape or form.

“His biological sex was previously female”

BUT WE KNOW WHAT BIOLOGICAL SEX IS WE SWEAR; Damn they spend 7 minutes on “transpeople know biological sex exists” and then keep acting like they fucking don’t.

After that they point blank say that gender identity is more important than sex, having someone who passes as an exemple. What about transpeople who don’t pass? How much you bet this will never be discussed in this video.

Anyway they follow that with that :

Which is true but defining what a woman is does affect women actually (I know weird right) so it’s completely irrelevant to the discussion here.

“When a large group of transpeople are telling you something is wrong please listen to them”

please afford women the same courtesy. We are a large group of women saying males are not the fucking authority on what womanhood is but we are told to shut up. Listen.

“we cannot take the behavior of the minority [online abuse] and group it onto the majority”

I agree with that statement but the majority still didn’t condemn the abuse. Honestly the people in this video did -just before saying HOWEVER but hey – but it is pretty rare to see TRA actually confronting the people who abused JK Rowling online, they cheered them on more than anything.

It is very telling how they spend more time in this video saying people collecting screenshots of the abuse JK Rowling suffered were “not cool” than the TRA giving them a bad name by actually abusing JK Rowling. They even say Jammy was also insulted online so TERF and TRA are as bad as each other right ?? Being called delusional or idiot is not the same as death threats sorry Jammy. (I doubt the “freak” one was from a terf tbh but even then, this is not even comparable) I mean didn’t you get at least one person saying they were going to kill you ? Because I did, and I have ,like, 200 followers. I find very weird that the woman here said “I received sexual assaults threats and this is as a cis woman!” as if women weren’t the primary target of sexual assaults threats. Yeah it’s the misogyny. What’s new. You really should stop thinking you are somehow priviledged even when you are being sexually threatened ffs. What gender ideology does to a mf.

“neither of these sides are innocent”

oh come on, you cannot possibly means that the men who gave you sexual threats were terfs, this is ridiculous, you are just trying to excuse and diminish what people did to JK as per fucking usual.

“persistent low level harassment”

it hasn’t stayed low level tho. Stop trying to say you and JK are receiving the same abuse it’s embarrassing.

JK Rowling’s essay having real life effects on policies for exemple has an element of thruth ,even tho we disagree on wether or not this can be a good thing but your are deluding yourself if you think people assaulting transpeople are the sort of people whose views are in any way influenced by feminists. This is laughable. Also please stop with the guilt tripping, we are not responsible of the mental health of transpeople, we are not their therapists, sorry.

I love how they implied that the guy who forced GNC kids to behave as their assigned gender would somehow give a letter of thanks to a feminist. This is implying “terfs” want the same things as this maniac which is just a straight up lie, terfs absolutely adore GNC people and are mostly GNC themselves.

“What rights of women are actually being eroded by the inclusion of transwomen ?” I am glad you asked !! Well apart from the freedom of speech since “terfs” are losing their jobs and being deplatformed because of this, we have the inherent dangers of replacing sex by gender in what the law protects : https://www.aclu.org/blog/speakeasy/firing-mom-because-shes-breastfeeding-sex-discrimination this is a link to a story about a woman who was said being fired for breastfeeding was not sex discrimination because men can lactate. Do you see the problem ? Moreover there is quotas for women in politics etc….Women fought for their quotas and now males can have them, who do you think an employer would prefer someone who probably will be pregnant at one point or someone who never will ? and let’s not forget the right for women to have women only places :Women in prison are raped by the trans identified males in it .

“I cannot think of a single right that is removed from me”

good for you maybe you should have actually researched radfems talking point before doing this video ? Your ignorance is not a good argument.

“transwomen can use the women changing room because they are women”

you keep saying that but apart from “they feel like women” you didn’t explain how they are women. This is the basis of this entire video and you never explained. Also allowing any person who say they are women into the women’s changing room does not only allow transwomen does it ? It also allows lying freaks.

“You can protect cis women’s rights and transrights simulteanously” HOWWWWWWWWWWW, please tell me how to keep female only spaces (women’s right) while saying TWAW (transrights apparently according to them).

“transwomen can be the victims and cis women can do the voyeurism”

true but did you forget we actually live in the real world and in that one males are much more likely to be sexually harassing people than women ? It is a brazen form of lying to tell women that since theoretically other women can also be creeps they don’t have to worry about males. Get a grip. Live in the real world for a change.

“It doesn’t reference transwomen but men pretending to be women”

apart from “they feel it” you still haven’t told us what the difference is. You are aware nothing from an outside perspective distinguishes the two right ??

“there is no evidence of men pretending to be trans to enter female only spaces” and how would you know they are pretending ? This is the same problem again and again, if you define transwomen as men who feel like women then there is absolutely no way of verifying someone really is trans. And that’s a lie anyway since we do actually have proof of that happening?? There was that video making the room on radblr a while ago of a clear male pissing in the women’s bathroom saying (lying) that he was trans.

Yeah actually radical feminists would accept transmen in their bathrooms, but it’s not an easy question with an easy answer to know how to check they really are transmen. Although notice how they are again only talking about transpeople that passes ? I would feel safer with Jammy in my toilets than Hannah Mouncey for exemple :

That is so obvioulsy a man in a dress.

“ If a transman with a beard and penis and balls can go into a women’s toilet and that is deemed okay because of his biological sex what is to stop a cis man from doing the same”

I am sorry but are you saying a transwoman cannot have a beard and penis and balls ?????????? This is incredibly transphobic of you, you said that gender identity Is just feeling like a gender, how exactly does that mean transwomen cannot have beard ? If you want to know, radfem are arguing for a third toilet for transpeople, that’s our solution. What is yours ?

Ok the next part is racist I’ll skip that thanks

On accusation of TERFery intimidating people and organizations “we haven’t seen these” again, your ignorance is not an argument, I am posting these on Tumblr where cryptoterfs arer numerous. Why do you think that is ?

Are they seriously saying Nike and addidas “accepted” transpeople because they “realized it was the right thing to do” ?????? Those companies employs slaves IN WHAT WORLD DO YOU LIVE IN??

“trying to make transpeople look crazy”

the clownfish things were said online by real transpeople. We don’t need to invent thing to make transpeople look crazy, if there is large enough group some people belonging in that group will say stupid shit .

“We support these rights”

when speaking about women victims of abuse. This is a lie, the Vancouver rape shelter relief is often targeted by transactivists, recently a gofundme for it was cancelled because of transactivists, they are quite litteraly stealing money from raped women. This is not a small, inconsequential part of transactivism.

“The trans-inclusionist views expand the meaning of women to include transwomen”

It doesn’t expend shit actually since it excludes transmen and non-binary. If anything it reduces it.

They go on to say that transwomen deserves protection as women because of their murder rate. It doesn’t explain how being seen as women will help them here and anyway it’s a bold lie considering their murder rate is actually quite low. They also fail to consider how depriving transmen and nonbinaries of those same women’s right might be a problem.

Again they make the distinction between transwomen and men pretending to be transwomen without a way to identify which is which. This is starting to get repetitive and tedious. The problem is not that all transwomen are predators is that there is no way to see a difference until the predators acts, until a woman gets hurt, so accepting transwomen is accepting predators and saying transwomen feelings are more important that the women being hurt because of this. I disagree. The tiny tiny percentage of transpeople doing bad things is actually the same percentage as men doing bad things. If your argument could be used to say women only spaces shouldn’t exist at all because not all men are dangerous maybe you should reconsider your argument because I will not reconsider women’s right to have female only spaces.

“If you push transwomen out of female only spaces you push transmen in”

Yes. I don’t even see where the problem is here. Now why don’t we analyse the fact that if you push transwomen into female only spaces you push transmen out of them ? I don’t think transmen belongs in men’s prisons, do you ?

“Transpeople don’t dispute biology and don’t impact how female only diseases are treated”

eat shit. They do impact this, every woman trying to say “female biology” get shit thrown at her faster than you can blink, stop lying to me Jammy. Do you think I would get called a bleeder, a fetus carrier, a motherfucking birthing body if transactivism wasn’t trying to erase sex ? Don’t you think the sentence “men can have periods” is not eroding biology ? Fuck off

Back to JK, Jammy is saying her disabling comment on her blog was not conductive to a conversation, I have to salute the straight face he says it with because do you really think a nice educated conversation would have taken place on JK Rowling’s essay ? They flooded her children’s book tag with porn for fuck sake.

“Thre is no explosion in young women who wishes to transition” sources ? Because it does seem to be true :https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jsm.12817

“the detransitionners rate is actually really low” hard to know but most people who transitioned did it not so long ago since transgender is a recent trend, we will have to wait and see to have a more robust number. But maybe they are right on that one, this is not going to be the one argument that changes my views unfortunately.

“Does that mean we should stop people from getting plastic surgery then ?”

lol you don’t know the radfem stance on plastic surgery do you ?

“There is more significant transphobia than homophobia”

sources ? Because transition is used as converstion therapy in Iran so it is at least untrue in one country.

“If transmen transition to escape womanhood why is there transwomen ?”

You really didn’t research this did you ? the radfem answer is that transwomen are either gay men who have gender disphoria OR AGP (autogynephiles) read this if you want to learn more about it: https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-elephant-in-the-room

“why would people who have male privileges choose to give that up”

you are assuming they lose their male privileges but I will need sources on that because most transwomen do not pass and are treated more as special men than as women.

“We have already shown you that transphobia is far more rife and damaging than homophobia”

did I miss that part ? When ? You just said that ? Without backing it up ?

“anti trans narratives constantly contradict itself”

No we do not, we are feminist so we OF COURSE we analyse men and women differently, this is an issue of gender which radical feminism posit as an hierarchy, trying to explain transwomen and transmen with the same arguments is doomed to fail because they were not equal in their relation to gender to begin with. Do you think black people trying to pass as white do it for the same reasons white people try to have more black features ? Of course not.

“What am I a lesbian or a homophobe ?”

You are both, you are a lesbian in denial with a deep case of internalized misogyny and homophobia. You know yo can be both sexist and a woman right ? Well it’s the same here.

I heard “Simone de Beauvoir” and I knew they were going to be really fucking stupid with that “One is not born a woman but rather becomes a woman” quote and THERE IT IS! Please read the book. She is not saying male can become women if they try hard enough, she is saying basically the same thing JK Rowling’s quote said which is that “womanhood” as it is forced on women is alien and not natural and the point is that we should not accept it, it’s a feminist quote on femininity and I am so sick of men using it to say that they are women.

Transactivists acting as if sex recognition patterns don’t exists is exhausting so I won’t comment on “nobody checks if you have XX chromosomes before passing you over for a promotion” other than to say : passing over for promotions happens a lot when women are pregnant and after giving birth stop acting as if misogyny is unrelated to our reproduction capacities it is fucking insulting.

“transwomen will support [fights against tampon tax and FGM] too”

FGM was a bad choice here considering transactivists tried to stop a bill against FGM . I will need sources here actually since I never seen a transwoman fighting for women’s right in my life.

Ok I let a lot passes here because I’m tired but we are 48:40 in the video and fuck you “intersectional feminism” is not about males. It was for black women. It is not reductionist to say women are people with a vagina, this is just a definition, and one that applies to 50% of the population at that, there is litteraly no definition of woman that includes more people than that.

Imagine thinking “women are people with vagina” is reductionist but not calling women “vulva owners”. Please , I am begging for coherence.

“transwomen who experience greater abuse than cisgender women will ever experience” .

This is revolting. I don’t have any other words. I am glad this is the end of the video because I would have stopped immediately if this was at the start. What abuse transwomen can experience than ciswomen cannot ? Because I would have thought forced pregnancy was horrific but maybe this doesn’t compare to being misgendered?

“most people are comfortable with transwomen going into women’s bathrooms” https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39147/bsa34_moral_issues_final.pdf

It says 13% of women are at least uncomfortable with sharing bathroom with transwomen, why are we ignoring their wishes? Because 0.1% of the population wants to ? Whatever, the really interesting thing in this study is that for this question they defined “transwomen” as someone who has gone through all the steps to become a woman aka someone with surgery. I find extremely misleading that this is used for bathroom bills which defines transwomen as male identifying as women. Do you think the numbers would be the same if they specified the transwoman in question still has a penis ? Which is the case for most transwomen btw?

#anon #jammiedodgers #transgender #op is a terf #this took wayyy to long don't read this

25 notes · View notes

kendrixtermina · 4 years ago

Text

The “Genocidal Edelgard” Shallowtake

I was not going to make a post about this because it’s most likely futile and not going to convince anyone nor do I believe in dinifying the purity police with attention, but maybe it will let some ppl know that they dont have to let themselves be shamed for liking the wrong video game character

Whatever might have been the case in the distant past when Nemesis was around, by the “present day” the Nabateans are not at all some commonly oppressed stereotyped minority - the setting is chock full of characters that fit that bill a lot better like Dedue or Cyril. Characters that are ordinary humans not magic dragons.

And even that is more founded on general purpose xenophobia than from the specific, relatively new early modernity construct of racism. (the dedue situation probably comes the closest)

Sure, Seteth and Flays have to hide from their old enemy the Agarthans, I see how some might find that relatable etc. but most of the population isn’t aware that they exist at all. They hold high status positions, are worshipped by the local religion and Rhea all but rules the entire continent (and says so herself to Byleth in that speech about how she was just “ruling this wayward country in your stead”, “you” being Sothis) - though that is mostly Rhea’s doing of which Seteth and Flayn are relatively innocent.

The interviews pretty much confirmed that the Nabateans constituted the local aristocracy and that many humans genuinely saw the Elites as liberators - though there was definitely also an element of ppl going around killing random Nabateans to gain superpowers, not to speak of Nemesis’ very obvious very unambiguous mass murder. Not wanting to be ruled over by foreign powers is understandable, though obviously killing them all down to the last civilian was just flat out evil - its certainly not a simple situation, we can all agtree Nemesis & the Agarthans were evil but there is no clear defined good guy.

There are historical conflicts you could compare this to, perhaps some conflicts in Africa or the middle eastwhere different groups took turns being the ruling class after the latest war, but it’s not at all like the modern USA or early modernity colonialism, and forcing every real or, in this case, imagined scenario inherently dependent of fantasy elements, into this one framework from the present or near past isn’t conductive to understanding at all.

And in the present day, by the time Edelgard is alive, we are talking about three specific people that she has good reason to dislike individually. Not any sort of group at all.

She calls Rhea a cruel beast because that’s all she’s ever seen Rhea to be. She’s the shadow tyrant who rules her world, who created the crappy world Edelgard grew up in. It’s no different Cubans thiking badly of the castros after suffering through famines - or, no need for such extreme examples really, ppl call their least favorite politicians monsters all the time.

She’s wrong to assume that Seteth & Flayn are wholly on board with this, but on the other hand, it’s not at all a far-fetched assumption to make: They hold high positions in the church though they ostensimbly just appreared out of nowhere one day. Do you have to be an evil bigot to assume that the brother and right hand man to the tyrannical god-queen is condoning & supporting her actions?

The truth is of course that underneath her pseudo-parental facade Rhea is sort of a scared girl, very lonely, very afraid, and ashamed, in a shallow, childish way, for “breaking the rules” just because they are rules. She says she can’t trust anyone, that she feels lonely & isolated... and while no one can blame her for distrusting humans after the slaughter of her people, but the reason she can’t trust Seteth is that she’s keeping her bad deeds secret from him. He wasn’t there the whole time, he just showed up a few decades earlier.

She sees herself only as filling out for Sothis and doesn’t quite grasp that she’s in charge, very much a follower personality bent on stasis & regularity.

Is Edelgard obliged to try & unravel the complex psychology of the tyrant who rules her home to correctly deduce why she would deceive even her own family? By all intents and purposes, Edelgard is the one getting rid of an oppressive government that doesn’t let ordinary humans let a say at all. A government where ppl of others faiths and nationalities are typically oppressed unless they work directly for the church.

It’s like having a disdain for, say, Ivanka Trump. She holds a high position in her father’s administration despite having no obvious qualifications, she appears to be profiting & making bank from her father’s atrocities, she certainly hasn’t done anything to stop him or disavow him the way that, say, her cousin Mary did - if you suffered under Trump’s regime you’d be very justified in assuming that Invanka is probably a bad person.

Flayn only looks young (She might not if we saw her in other clothes). I mean, Kronya could badly impersonate a schoolgirl. At the very least they’ve supported the regime by refusing to question their own side and they show some however benevolent belief that it is their duty to “guide” the people. Leaving her to the Agarthans is certainly questionable, but no more so than doing it with Rhea herself, under the assumption that she’s guilty and that it’s a sacrifice that will prevent larger chaos. The agarthans had their plan long before they created Edelgard as we know her, and she couldn’t stop their plots all on her own.

You could say that it’s callous, distasteful or a deal breaker - as the death knight is her direct subordinate & she makes a personal appearance in mask, I would argue that she definitely knew & sanctioned the kidnapping - but she’s no more callous towards Flayn than towards anybody else.

Of course, that doesn’t mean they’re evil, or that they deserve to die.... and Edelgard would agree with me. She doing all this to prevent death – flipping the lever on the trolley problem so it crushes one person instead of five so to speak. She always gives her enemies the chance to surrender, unwilling allies the chance to leave, and jails enemies whenever leaving them alive wouldn‘t lead to further death… even the ones she has the most personal reason to hate, like the PM.

As servants of the church who have chosed to back her enemies, she’ll certainly kill them if she has to, but not any more than any other enemy. At no point anywhere in the story does she say anything like that they need to die on principle. Nowhere at all. Indeed there is much evidence to the contrary.

The church paints her as being completely against the religion or even wanting to set herself up as a satanic godess cause it‘s good politics & they don‘t get what she‘s doing – to an extent her own credibility & messaging is compromised by her secretive and at times unscrupulous actions, no one said she was perfect. In truth all she wants is to have the church out of politics, you know, what we have in nearly every modern country outside the vatican and saudi arabia.

You can absolutely let Flayn & Seteth go on CF and there is no word, no fuss about it anywhere. No „make sure to kill em all“ which would certainly be there if the narrative wanted to portray Edelgard that way. It requires the mediation of Byleth as someone they would talk to & not immediately assume the worst of, but, they see the church as the embodymet of all that is good & fighting its enemies as their sacred duty so of course it wouldn‘t be possible for just anyone to talk them down. It‘s framed as Flayn letting Byleth go cause they saved her life once, even if we know from behind the screen that she wasn‘t going to survive a fight to the death against the player-controlled faction.

Heck, even when it comes to Rhea, the one most guilty that Edelgard has the most reason to loathe, she‘s ultimately surprisingly gracious. She gives her the option to surrender – and this is not a lie, she discusses this with Byleth in a lecture question, and seriously ponders the possibility. Here Byleth gets a range of options like „stab her in the back“ and „keep the church under imperial control“ but you know which one nets you the support points? „Strip her of her authority so she can‘t interfere in politics“. She wasn‘t gonna mess with the religious folks & their religion at all, just make it so it‘s separate from government. Rhea could even keep being pope, if she could be satisfied without having complete supreme authority (and ripping her precious artifact out of Byleth‘s chest) – even when she puts her down she‘s not 100% without pity, telling her that „Your duty is done“ (the translators mucked this up)

Couldn‘t be any further from „lets kill them all on principle“.

What really annoys me is how ppl go and twist everything Edelgard says out of context to ascribe a motive to her that just isn’t there.

Common examples:

„If you have Flayn or Seteth fight her she‘ll say they need to die because they‘re nabateans“

Actually what she says is this: „You are a child of the godess. You must not have power over the people!“ Not getting to be privileges rulers anymore =/= being opressed. Stay out of politics =/= Diediedie. Also, this is from the VW/SS boss fight, where they have literally come to get her in her own capital.

„Linhard & Leonie don‘t tell her & hubert about Indech, probably cause he expects that she‘ll go & kill him„

What he actually says is: „Lake Teutates is a place that concerns the saints of the Church of Seiros. It may become bothersome should the two of them find out...“

„It may be bothersome“ as in, „we might get in trouble“, for doing the possibly very inadvisable thing of waltzing into what could possibly be an enemy location to satisfy personal curiosity. If it‘s something related to her agenda she might take over and Linny wouldn‘t get to investigate as he pleases – at very most you might construe it as Linny fearing that they‘ll be accused of consorting with the enemy, but „bothersome“ suggest possible annoyance not imminent murder.

The whole scene ends with Linhard telling Byleth to fill her in later. Doesn‘t sound at all like he expects her to go back with a harpoon.

„She said Claude isn‘t fit to be a ruler cause he‘s a foreigner“

What she actually says: „I understand your ideals are not so far removed from my own. But without knowledge of Fodlan‘s history, I cannot entrust its rule to you“

Now without the additional contexts that Claude won‘t get until after the fight, it might easily feel a bit like the former with the raw spots he‘d have from his backstory, but what she means is that he‘s ignorant of the Agarthan threat – which he is. Edelgard is all for making peace with Almyra and sees fostering isolationism & prejudice as one of the many faults of the church.

Once Claude basically kills Edelgard for information, he winds up having to take care of the storm she had been holding back. But to his credit, he DID „finish the job“ and get the info. But he didn‘t have it at that point.

And I don‘t mean any of this in the least bit as a diss of Claude - He is the smartest character, so there would be no plot if he got easy access to the info. At this point, they both think they can probably do better, and more importantly, both their backstories have made them so that they won‘t let down their guard far enough to cooperate in this scenario.

That‘s also why the outcome in CF is contingent on Byleth‘s choice. - You‘d sort of have to trust that he will also act so as to minimize casualties.

Very disingenious since many players wouldn‘t necessarily trigger these dialogues.

I guess because Adrestia got a vaguely central-european aesthetic (partially; all the countries are hodgepodge mashups and there’s more than enough spanish or ancient roman vibes there) and central europe existed only for those 12 years of tyranny I guess, even though many other places have had similar BS happening, including the US that delights in making craptons of movies about their faraway victory because their governments haven’t added much of value to the planet as of late. -.-

Faerghus (vaguely french/ russian - not at all places where nothing bad happened ever) has actually annexed some territory from their northern neighbors in the recent past, not to speak of the whole Duscur atrocity - but no one seems to go around laying that at Dimitri’s feet, because it would be nonsensical - he was a child at the time and as an individual he is super against it and champions a policy of reconcilliation if he gets to rule. after all, there wouldn’t be much of a plot if the characters inherited three perfect faultless problem free countries.

Edelgard, too, is completely against the previous administration under Duke Aegir (which was in charge during the Bridgid war). She deposed him and is plotting to do the same with Arundel once she can politically afford to do so. For all that one can understand why she would chose the other path (depending on how much she knows about what Edelgard’s doing and why) it makes all the sense in the world for Petra to support her on CF or if not recruited, because again, she got rid of that previous administration.

#edelgard #edelgard von hresvelg #fe3h #fire emblem: three houses #fire emblem three houses

59 notes · View notes

velvetvexations · 17 days ago

Text

I'm a trans woman and I have a lot of problems with this on a level that it's going to be very hard to avoid dripping with hostility over so please be patient with me.

why would you choose to frame your pre-transition experiences as that of a woman?

Everyone's gender journey is different and this used to be understood by people in this godforsaken community.

"Do (binary) trans men understand what it's like to be a woman?" My answer? No.

Of course they do.

How can I justify that when we have, since birth, been raised as women? Well, because we also have, since birth, been trans men.

No one has been any gender from birth because

I desperately need you people to understand this

GENDER ISN'T REAL

Gender is a social construct. It isn't a thing that exists within you, it's a way you express yourself. It does not determine anything about your experiences on it's own because it only exists in relation to other people. If you were the last person on Earth you would for all intents and purposes be agender because it would no longer have any meaning.

Why? Because a woman does not react to "being a woman" with the dysphoria, dissociation, and profound sense of wrongness that you do.

Believe it or not a lot of cis women don't, in fact, like what being treated like a woman means to a lot of people. They invented this thing called "feminism" to get around it and define new avenues of expression for themselves that was not defined by "being a woman."

But it's even wilder to say that trans men don't experience misogyny because they don't like it?

Boys learn to fear becoming a faggot as a group, but the boy who is a faggot will internalize those messages in a completely different way to the boys who only need learn to assert the heterosexual identity already inherent in them through violence.

Have you seriously never heard of bigots turning out to be faggots themselves?

Because I can't speak for you, I'll use myself as an example

"I can't speak for you, which is why I'm going to."

I was giddy to finally be able to admit to being a man, and suddenly all that messaging that "slid off my back" was a useful tool in my arsenal. Much like cis gay men feel compelled to assert their disgust for vaginas and women after a life of being compelled towards heterosexuality, I felt disgust and aversion to discussions of womanhood as an identity.

So you hated women for awhile, good for you, please stop projecting it onto everyone else. Like, holy fuck, this is so psychologically revealing.

I would agree that, if you sincerely identify in some capacity as a woman, you are surely impacted by misogyny in a way I am not. However, why are you coming to the defense of binary trans men like me? Less charitably, why are you projecting a female identity on us?

Please think for a moment about how you classify "I also think these people are telling the truth when they say they suffer this oppression" as a defense of some kinna sin.

I do not believe that when a trans woman endeavors to talk about transmisogyny, your counterargument about your own experiences of misogyny is useful.

Solidarity as people who suffer misogyny is not a counterargument. As a trans woman I've found a lot of transmasc's discussion of misogyny fascinating and helpful for relating to my own experiences.

I ESPECIALLY do not believe that it is in any way valid to say that you are less misogynist, less prone to being misogynist, or-- god forbid-- INCAPABLE of misogyny because you were raised as a girl.

Obviously not, practically no one is saying this but the TERFiest TERFs. Even the TIRFs that depress me by sometimes posting in the transandrophobia tag and making everyone else look worse by association don't believe anyone AFAB is incapable of perpetuating misogyny.

I also don't believe your misogyny is equivalent to that of a woman's internalized misogyny in form or impact.

Even a genuinely misogynistic trans man does not have the impact of women trying and in recent years succeeding at reversing abortion rights. This is a ridiculous statement.

For as much as many in this movement downplay privilege as merely "conditional," those conditions do exist.

A boymoding trans woman could benefit from male privilege but presumably you recognize it would be transmisogynistic to ever level that at trans women as some kinna gotcha. Something being "conditional" does in fact matter, we don't use edge cases as the rule for a reason.

Attacking the women in your community for not being soft enough, nice enough, patient enough, rather than fighting the powers that be.

Not happening.

Get out of this pipeline before it's too late.

Please stop projecting the fact that you used to be an MRA. That is a you problem.

Lately I've been dipping my toe into the mess that is transandrophobia discourse, and in the process I've been presented with one question in many forms:

"Do trans men experience misogyny?"

My initial answer was "these terms are all theoretical frameworks for a vast range of human experiences, why would you choose to frame your pre-transition experiences as that of a woman?" This makes sense to me, but clearly isn't satisfactory to many of the people sending me anons. As much as I might want to use my own life as a case study, I can't very well tell these people in my asks box "no, you've never experienced something that could be categorized as misogyny." Still, the question bothers me.

I think that's because the question obfuscates the actual debate. It's clear to me the question we are debating is not one of "experience" but "authority." That is:

"Do (binary) trans men understand what it's like to be a woman?"

My answer? No.

How can I justify that when we have, since birth, been raised as women? Well, because we also have, since birth, been trans men. If we cast aside the idea of transness as a modern social construct or anything other than an innate and biological reality, this has to be true. Even before you ever came out to yourself, you were transgender. Transphobia has dictated every moment of your life. Your idea of what "womanhood" is is not at all the same as a woman's, be it cis or trans. Why? Because a woman does not react to "being a woman" with the dysphoria, dissociation, and profound sense of wrongness that you do. [If you do not experience these things, a cis or trans woman, at the very least, does not identify as a binary trans man.] A woman sincerely identifies as a woman, and identity plays a pivotal role in how we absorb societal messaging.

Let's take homophobia as an example. While any queer person has probably experienced targeted episodes of bigotry, the majority of bigotry we experience must necessarily be broad and social. Boys learn to fear becoming a faggot as a group, but the boy who is a faggot will internalize those messages in a completely different way to the boys who only need learn to assert the heterosexual identity already inherent in them through violence. All of them are suffering to some extent, but their experiences are not at all equivalent. This is despite the fact that they've all absorbed the same message, maybe even at the same moment, through the same events. Still, we don't say that a straight boy knows what it is like to be a gay boy. Similarly, cis women do not know what it is like to be a trans man despite being fed the same transphobic messaging in a superficially identical context. It isn't a stretch to say the same can apply to misogyny.

Because I can't speak for you, I'll use myself as an example for a moment. I'll give my bonafides: I am a gender-nonconforming, T4T queer, white, binary trans man. I am on T, and I have recently come out to my family. I do not pass. My career as a comic writer is tied to my identity as a trans man. I can confidently say I have never been impacted by misogyny the same way as my friends who actually identify as women. This manifested early on as finding it easy to shrug off the messaging that I needed to be X or Y way to be a woman. In fact, most gender roles slid off my back expressly because breaking them gave me euphoria. I was punished in many ways for this, but being this sort of cis woman did help me somewhat. It's easy to be "one of the guys" in a social climbing sense if you really do feel more comfortable as a man. It also helped me disregard misogyny aimed at me or others because it seemed like an shallow form of bigotry. It was something you could shrug off, but it was important for building "unity" among women. I thought this must be the case for all women, that we all viewed misogyny as a sort of "surface level" bigotry. However, for whatever conditional status I gained in this role, there was a clear message that if I did "become" a man, every non-conformist trait about me would just become a grotesque and parodic masculinity.

That was the threat that was crushing me, destroying my identity and self esteem. That was what I knew intimately through systemic, verbal, physical, and sexual abuse. I could express my nonconformity as a cis woman, but if I took it so far as to transition to male? I would be a pathetic traitor, a social outcast. I truly believe that throughout my life people were able to see that I was not just a failed woman, but an emasculated man.

I do partly feel that the sticking point for many is the idea that the sexual abuse suffered by trans men is inherent to womanhood, and therefore inexplicable if trans men are men from birth. While this disregards the long history of sexual abuse of young boys, especially minority boys, I do see the emotional core. I'll offer that the sexual abuse I suffered was intrinsically linked to my emmasculation, my boyishness, despite the fact that I was not out to myself or anyone else. I believe many trans men have suffered being the proxy for cis women's desire for retribution against cis men, or for cis men and women's desire for an eternally nubile young boy. I also believe they have suffered corrective assault that attempts to push them back into womanhood, which in itself is an experience unique to transness rather than actual womanhood.

I'll note quickly that many, many trans men cannot relate to the idea of feeling confident and above it all when it comes to womanhood. Many of you probably tried desperately to conform, working every moment to convince yourself you were a woman and to perfectly inhabit that identity. I definitely experienced this as well (though for me it was specifically attempting to conform to butchness) but I can concede many of you experienced it more than I did. I still believe that this desperate play-acting is also not equivalent to true womanhood. It is a uniquely transgender experience, one that shares much more in common with trans women desperately attempting to conform to manhood than with true womanhood.

One key theme running through the above paragraphs is the idea that "womanhood" is synonymous with "suffering." A trans man must know what it is like to be a woman because he suffers like one. It should be noted that actual womanhood is not a long stretch of suffering. It often involves joy, euphoria, sisterhood, a general love and happiness at being a woman. It wasn't until I admitted to myself I had never been a woman that I was able to see how the women in my life were not women out of obligation, but because they simply were. The idea that you are a woman because you suffer is more alligned with radfem theory than any reality of womanhood.

When I admitted my identity to myself I was truly faced with the ways that my ability to stand up to misogyny did not equate to being anti-misogynist. I was giddy to finally be able to admit to being a man, and suddenly all that messaging that "slid off my back" was a useful tool in my arsenal. Much like cis gay men feel compelled to assert their disgust for vaginas and women after a life of being compelled towards heterosexuality, I felt disgust and aversion to discussions of womanhood as an identity. I didn't even want to engage with female fictional characters. I viewed other people's sincere expressions of their own womanhood as a coded dismissal of my identity. Like many people before and after, I made women into the rhetorical device that had oppressed me. Not patriarchy, not transphobia, but womanhood and women broadly. It wasn't explicit bigotry, but the effects were the same. I had to unlearn this with the help of my bigender partner, who felt unsettled and hurt by the way I could so easily turn "woman" into nothing but a theoretical category which represented my personal suffering.

This brings me to another point: I sometimes receive messages from nonbinary trans mascs telling me that it's absurd to think they don't understand womanhood and identify with misogyny in a deeper way. I would agree that, if you sincerely identify in some capacity as a woman, you are surely impacted by misogyny in a way I am not. However, why are you coming to the defense of binary trans men like me? Less charitably, why are you projecting a female identity on us? Perhaps my experience frustrates you so deeply because we simply do not have the same experience at all. Perhaps we are not all that united by our agab, by our supposed female socialization.

So, no. I do not believe that binary trans men know what it's like to be women. I don't believe we are authorities on womanhood. I do not believe that when a trans woman endeavors to talk about transmisogyny, your counterargument about your own experiences of misogyny is useful. I ESPECIALLY do not believe that it is in any way valid to say that you are less misogynist, less prone to being misogynist, or-- god forbid-- INCAPABLE of misogyny because you were raised as a girl. I also don't believe your misogyny is equivalent to that of a woman's internalized misogyny in form or impact.

For as much as many in this movement downplay privilege as merely "conditional," those conditions do exist. They do place you firmly in the context of the rest of the world. Zoom out and look at the history of oppressed men, and you'll find the same reactionary movement repeated over and over. Attacking the women in your community for not being soft enough, nice enough, patient enough, rather than fighting the powers that be. Why do I believe your identity is more alligned with cis manhood than any form of womanhood? Because this song and dance has been done a hundred times before by men of every stripe. Transphobia is real, and your life experience has been uniquely defined by it since birth. This is a thing to rally around, to fight against, but you all have fallen for a (trans)misogynistic phantasm in your efforts at self-actualization. You are not the first, and you will not be the last. Get out of this pipeline before it's too late.

#transandrophobia #discourse

499 notes · View notes

raisinchallah · 4 years ago

Text

not to be extremely controversial on jumblr or anything but i really do think the entire like line of thinking i see here a lot in various flavors of extremity of christianity being inherently antisemitic in a way that in some way damns it as a religion or various levels of it has stolen from judaism and thats also like unforgivably bad well... i just think are wildly unproductive and downright concerning ways of thinking about religion as a whole because it inherently places judaism as a somehow more ethical and “better” religion in comparison and doesnt actually address the ways that dominant religions can wield power and the way religion is a common tool of nationalism or i think actually engage with like the modern institution of christianity as well as like.... the fact its a truly massive religion with far more variation than i think u can begin to consider like idk where people are getting this feeling of religious superiority for judaism as somehow a more original or ethical or better religion when you are approaching it from a historical viewpoint that obviously it borrowed from and emerged from other religions around it like i literally just gotta point and laugh at this point when people talk about christianity stealing jewish theological texts like man... youre like a thousand years late here but i think in general its frankly mental and far more worrisome when people genuinely seem to act like christianity is unique as far as being utilized for truly terrible things like it sure does have a grander impact on the world than judaism its far far larger but like please can we look at the call coming from within the house judaism is at this very moment being used in violent and horrible ways there is always a complicated dynamic of any religious majority in any country and like idk its genuinely mental to me sometimes the way people wanna just frame it as like there is something theologically wrong with christianity when frankly a lot of stuff is more like... political rather than the contents of religious books and im like can we have the tiniest modicum of self reflection you would not like it if we put various jewish texts and literal modern interpretations under a similar microscope and like i swear if people learned about various oppressed christian minorities i really do wonder if their fucking heads would explode like idk this makes very little sense but i swear i really do feel insane how people try to frame judaism online sometimes like lets not let our heads get too big here my god this is really a totally nonsensical ramble and like i know people may interpret it as me being like christians did nothing wrong but its more i am concerned about the version of a religion we are constructing to make ourselves seem more ethical as like a way to dodge self reflection or actual understanding of the complicated historical and political forces that have shaped these realities over time.....

11 notes · View notes

azzy-the-christian-furry · 4 years ago

Note

Genuine question, how do you think you can’t be ethical as a communist? Can you even define what communism is, or are you basing your opinions on this nuanced political ideology on Red Scare propoganda?

Im also curious how you think billionaires can be ethical in practice. It is impossible to hold a billion dollars and also be a good person. Especially since their money was made through the exploitation of the working class, and often through child labor/slavery abroad.

Just because what they’re doing is technically legal doesnt mean they’re not horrible human beings. Maybe you’re misinformed, or maybe you just like licking corperate boots. Either way, you’re demonstrably wrong.

1- Communism inherently requires the theft of people’s stuff. Dissent is crushed. It has also been responsible for the largest genocides in history and oppression, aamong other things. The system itself is designed that way. Karl Marx was incredibly racist and anti-Semitic, so it’s no surprise his system usually ends up with a lot of dead Jews and black/Latino people. That’s ignoring the forced labor. Frankly, the genocide is worse than the forced labor. Communism, unlike capitalism, doesn’t permit much in the way of job choice. “Oh, you’re a poet? That’s great! Please face wall.” You’re a baker? Get back in the mine, comrade #76298. You have a family? I think you mean WE have a family. Your kid isn’t yours. That child belongs to the State. 100,000,000+ dead ain’t propaganda, friend. You’ll never find someone fleeing the US on a boat made of old doors going to communist countries to escape the horrors of capitalism. No, when that happens, we’ll probably have a far left fascist implementing a socialist dictatorship.

2- There is no moral difference between selling your first cheeseburger as a small business and selling your billionth cheeseburger as a large corporation. If people agree to a wage and work for the wage, that isn’t exploitation. Especially when the company offers programs that will allow for you to make higher wages.

Sure, you’ve got far left big tech companies like Google and Microsoft that actually DO unethical things (censorship and spying), but paying someone $7.25 (what they agreed to) for putting fries in a cup ain’t it, Chief. Yeah, there are cases of corruption in food industry. It’s not inherent the way it is in communism (food isn’t inherent to communism either). Most issues of capitalism are that of overabundance. The issues of communism are that of scarcity. Both have issues with corruption, due to the inherently corrupted nature of mankind. Only one system gives you a chance at seeking justice (and it isn’t communism).

Story time:

I worked at a pizza place as my most recent job. Started out 7.25. Within six months or so, moved up to 7.75 by clicking easily memorized things on a computer. A good while after that, to increase incentive to work there, the owners bumped everyone up to $8, and me to $8.50. Shortly after THAT, I took up a management position (which had been offered to me). Took about two months for them to increase me to $9.50 as promised, something that was said to happen as soon as I started management. Around 2 months after that happened, I got fired for reporting some crazy chick for threatening me+following me around the store harassing me.

I have perspective on things. You’ve got plenty more morality in a more capitalistic society than that of a communistic one. People generally have CHOICE in capitalistic societies.

The issue comes when money owns you rather than you owning money. Look at Job. You’ve got one of the richest men of his day. He was honest, morally correct, and his corruption? None to speak of. God Himself said, “hey, my man Job down there? I’ll put stock in him. He’s my guy” (obviously paraphrased).

#azzy does a politic #an ask!

8 notes · View notes

elencelebrindal · 4 years ago

Note

Question if all of Saint Seiya took place on Real Life? What would be the consequences of the heroes and Villians? And how the public would respond to them?

Buckle up, this is a long answer. I wrote this with a terrible neck pain and slight headache though, so I apologize for eventual mistakes (grammar, form, whatever) I made.

Right off the bat, I can tell you: the public would not be pleased with it. Realistically speaking, who would ever want people capable of flicking their finger and cause a nuclear-like explosion living next door? Let’s see this in perspective. The most (physically) powerful bomb ever recorded, the Tsar Bomba, was so strong it was able to reach a distance up to 900 km (obviously that distance only partially broke some glass or windows, not really destroyed anything). And this is among the most powerful man-made artifacts. A Saint could easily surpass that level of power. There’s Saints that have a cosmo so strong it could easily destroy a star. A star. Put three of them together, now. They are capable of unleashing as much power as the Big Bang. Imagine what would happen to the entire freaking universe (or something along those lines) if that technique goes wrong. Imagine what a Saint could do if they suddenly go crazy and want to destroy humanity, or the entire planet. They could easily do that.

And now, count how many of these warriors are out there. Count how many of them could pull off a mass-destruction strike with ease.

Take into consideration all the natural disasters that happen when deities get angry. Take into consideration all the Holy Wars against Hades, and the absolute destruction the planet endures every time there’s a battle between these warriors. And if you don’t want to look at the more “physical” state of things, take a look at how the Saints train. Those are children that are thrown onto the battlefield to learn how to live just so they can die in battle once they’re older. Think about all the whiplash something like this could cause if the public gets to know it. Gets to know their training places or their training regimes.

Not only that, to an outsider eye the society of these warriors could appear as incredibly violent and oppressive. If they don’t know what’s going on, why those rules are there and why they need to be applied like that, people will be angry about it. Maybe a small amount of people, but there’s still going to be problems surfacing here and there. Let’s not forget: killing is normal for them. Saints, Marina, Specters, there’s not a single one of this armies that thinks killing is inherently wrong. Bloodshed is so normal for them that no one outside their society can understand what the hell is going on in their minds. Sure, there’s the odd one every now and then (Shun is a perfect example), but it’s not like they’re saying “I’m against it, so I’m not doing it”. They’re still doing it, but with much more resentment. And, this is probably one of the most itchy spots of the system, talking about how the Saints tackle the fact they have women in their lines there is going to be so much anger. I can already hear the protests against the mandatory masks (ironic as of now, I know) for women. There’s not enough understanding to be able to avoid that kind of problems. Sure, you might say “but it’s always been like that, so the public should’t react so badly”, but here’s the thing: people don’t care about history and traditions if they don’t understand it. And yeah, the entire mask ordeal might or might not seem right, but civilians are not going to get the reasoning behind it. It’s the same thing that happens in real life, with people assuming left and right, people straight up offending or not caring, and just a few good human beings taking their time to learn.

In a perfect imaginary world, where Saint Seiya exists with all its fair share of heroes and villains, everything would go like in the anime. People just excited to watch them fight, not really caring about the consequences. In a real world, however, this is never going to happen.

On a more complex level, think about all the politic stuff that’s going to happen. You want Athena being the head of your independent land? Sure, but there’s a ton of responsibilities coming with that. And if Athena happens to also be the head of a very influential and large company, things get even more difficult to manage. Just try to imagine the unending chaos Poseidon must have caused when he took control of Julian’s body and left everything to go underwater. Imagine the sheer terror people feel every time there’s a flood, or an earthquake, or an explosion, because they never know if that’s natural or not. Imagine how traumatic is for someone who lives right next to the place where these warriors fight continuous battles, all the shockwaves coming to their door. Because yes, there’s going to be actual consequences to those battles. Animation is fun because there’s no need to show what a Galaxian Explosion would actually do to the Gemini Saint’s surroundings, but real life? Yeah, that’s a detonation of pure physical and cosmic power, there’s no way people are not experiencing it even kilometres away. And that’s probably the lamest example I could find.

Think about some villain choosing to destroy a city. How many people would die, there? How many people would be forced to watch, helpless, as they hope for someone to come and save them? And when that help comes, what’s going to do if not destroy everything even more? Damage is damage, whether it’s a hero or a villain causing it. Lives are going to be ended and/or ruined in those fights. And those fights happen again and again, because the story always repeats itself. Shiryu’s horrified reaction at Deathmask’s carelessness would be the reaction of every single person that witnesses or hears about the sheer amount of destruction and loss that would be recorded at the end. Emotional and physical scarring don’t go away easily.

We can also go a little bit the psychological route, here. Would you actively trust to live on the same planet as someone who’s able to raise a single finger and kill you? No weapons needed. Would you actively feel safe knowing there’s people around you that can move at the speed of light, able to literally rip you to shreds with ease or just do anything they want because nothing can stop them? What do you have? Only the reassurance that all those people are good and fight for humanity. Nothing else. You just have to believe those insanely strong warriors are not going to kill you just because they can. That they are not going to take advantage of their abilities. People don’t work like that.

I, myself, don’t work like that. If I knew that in this moment, on this planet, there’s someone out there capable of pointing their finger at me and kill me, I would not simply trust them to be good. Moreover, there’s history of good guys betraying to become bad guys. An amazing warranty, I’d say.

The consequences of these heroes and villains existing in real life would be absolutely catastrophic. No one wants to live in constant fear of some deity getting bored and deciding to start a war. No one wants to live knowing disaster is always around the corner. Humanity already fears itself, there’s no need to make it worse.

Would you trust a Saint that’s able to freeze you in a block of eternal ice, or another one that’s capable of raising his hand and using it like a sword? Would you trust someone that could send you to another dimension? Someone able to shatter the ground with a simple punch? No one’s going to fully feel safe around people having so much power. Laws and prohibitions? Those are nothing to a person that could kill you by snapping their fingers. The governments of the entire world trying to keep them in check would be nothing but a fly under a giant electrified fly-swatter. Said governments would also be trying to reason literal gods. Can you imagine sitting down at a table and being presented with a god? A god you have to convince to keep their warriors under control? To be at peace with the rest of the world? Yeah, me neither.

In short, at least in my opinion, realistic fiction is the closest thing you can have without causing mayhem.

#saint seiya #i cavalieri dello zodiaco #los caballeros del zodiaco #os cavaleiros do zodiaco #ask me anything #saint seiya in real life is NOT a good idea

19 notes · View notes

kissedaconstellation · 10 months ago

Note

(this is long and rambly but if you're going to read it at all, please for the love of god read the whole thing, i want to make a point + no hate to op im just autistic and i get passionate about little details. this is a fun topic to talk about for me !! :3 )

this post is insane for so many reasons but let me start with this:

to preface - men can be lesbians, obviously. we're all gender abolitionists here, we all know the binary is fake and oppressive. be who you want, identity how you want, fuck whichever consenting adult you'd like. i'll talk about the important stuff in a second.

where i take issue with this post is the idea that Trans men can be lesbians and cis men can't, reason being that they are INHERENTLY different.

op is right in the fact that the binary was not made with trans people in mind. the binary was not made with a LOT of things in mind. women wearing pants? never heard of it. stay at home dads??? what is this, fantasy land?

but the binary was Made. it was socially constructed, a very very very long time ago. it is not inherent; it is very subjective and things change.

in a lot of countries, women wearing pants is more common than them wearing dresses. stay at home dads are becoming more and more socially accepted, and even praised. the binary has shifted.

even the trans experience has not always been one that is out of the binary. so many cultures HAVE made space for trans identities in their gender roles. as an indigenous person, if i existed at the same time as my more distant ancestors, my experience would NOT have been out of the binary, because the binary didn't exist in the same way.

right now, trans people do not fit within the binary. but a lot of them would like to. a lot of trans people choose to be stealth, to present in a binary way, and identity as "binary trans man" or "binary trans woman."

(i hope that, one day, the binary won't exist at all. but it's a process, and before that happens, it will probably include trans people for a little bit. just my prediction. point is -)

the binary isn't Inherent. nothing that is socially constructed is inherent. it will change over time, and it may not exist a thousand years from now. right now, trans people are, categorically, non-binary. but not Inherently.

so who's to say that we are Inherently different? that trans men are inherently different from cis men?because of our bodies? because of literally what's in our pants? you fr have to be joking, that's an INSANE thing to say

i am a trans man who likes women in a gay way. very wlw but he/him. i present VERY feminine. i look like a woman and i get treated as a woman by everyone that i haven't come out to. sometimes, i feel pretty fuckin feminine. i get "omg i look so girl rn ehehehe" gender euphoria a lot.

i do not relate very much to trans men who pass, trans men who get treated as men by the people in their day to day life and live the male social role. we are both trans, but we are VERY different, in very important ways. nothing about us is inherently the same, except for our bodies (even then, im pre- any type of surgery, so our bodies could be VERY different).

i DO, however, relate to a lot of feminine cis men. i came out very young and i immediately went stealth, so i lived the male social role during a very developmentally crucial period of my life. i was kind of forced to live that role, since it was the only way id be accepted for my male identity. if i acted or presented feminine, id be seen as less of a man.

this is an experience that a lot of feminine men have, both trans and cis. it's a non-binary experience that we both share.

i relate to the experience of having to discover your non-traditional femininity and only being able to connect to it as an adult because of queer-phobia. not every trans man does. some cis men do.

i relate to the experience of growing out my hair to feel more like myself, experimenting with hair clips and braids, trying out jewelry. i relate to the experience of being told that i'm not a real man because i enjoy these things. i relate to having to compromise on presenting how i want to and being treated how i deserve. not every trans man does. some cis men do.

and TO BE HONEST !!! i relate to liking women in a gay way. not every trans man does. some cis men might. who's to say they do or do not? who's to say what gay even is, man, it's all socially constructed. it's all language choices, and language/definitions change over time.

and what tf even is gender, if not a vague amalgamation of our experiences, inner identities, outer presentation, and a little bit of god knows what? gender is a lot of things, and none of those things are inherent.

"a trans man identifying as a lesbian is not the same as a cis man identifying as a lesbian" why? because of our bodies? because of our shape? sure as hell isn't anything inherent, because of everything previously stated.

just say you don't like cis people and don't want to relate to them, that's fine, that's totally allowed. but don't pretend it's because there's just something about us that will never allow us to be the same.

TLDR, because this is a long one: cis people can be non-binary. any man can be a lesbian. labels are fake and do what you want + ratio + it's not that deep man

why do you identify with "lesbian" if you say you're a man. A man can't be a lesbian, i don't understand it.

The whole lesbian concept excludes men bc it has nothing to do with men. Lesbian is women loving women, and if you identify as a man, i don't understand how you can identify w the lesbian community as well.

like this isba genuine question, I'd like to listen to your explanation bc im genuinely confused!

trans men, and any trans person really, cannot exist on the same binary cisgender people exist on. the binary was not made with trans people in mind, to be trans and to change your sex (which isnt limited to bottom surgery btw), would be inherently nonbinary, simply because the binary does not accommodate for trans people

beyond that, trans men dont have the same rights privileges and power that a cis man would have. meaning that while a trans man IS a man, he is not a cis man, and thus cannot experience male privilege, or the systemic power that comes with being a cis man

so we can conclude from that two things. one, trans people are inherently nonbinary. while not every trans person identified as nonbinary, the act of transitioning, socially and medically, is an inherently nonbinary act. i personally choose to identify as nonbinary to deal with the distress of people forcing me into the cis man category when i am fundementally different from them. now that we have concluded that the act of transitioning is nonbinary, let me address that: trans men have always been included in lesbianism. the communities are not seperate. the historical definition of lesbian has included gender diverse people as well as women, and trans men are still gender diverse

beyond that; a trans man identifying as a lesbian is not the same as a cis man identifying as a lesbian. the ideas that trans men are men and that trans men are NOT cis men can both be true. trans men who are attracted to women have more societally in common with lesbians (especially genderqueer lesbians) than cishet men. yes, trans men identify as straight all the time. however, if a trans man wants to identify as a lesbian, who are we to deny him? he isnt a cis man, hes not a threat to lesbianism or to the queer community.

faq:

"wouldnt identifying as a lesbian and a trans man be invalidating?"

a: different trans men have different opinions for themselves and their gender. some trans men choose to identify as straight/heterosexual, some trans men choose to identify as lesbians. it just depends on the person, however, if a trans man truly felt invalidated by the lesbian label, he just wouldn't use it. you dont get to assign rules on how a trans man chooses to identify, and you don't know him better than he knows himself

"what IS a lesbian then?"

a: the historical defintion of a lesbian is any gender diverse individual who likes women and/or gender diverse people. however, every lesbian can tell you something different. i know lesbians who only date binary women. i know lesbians who are exclusively t4t. i know lesbians who are femme4butch and date trans men who are butches. someones personal definition of their own lesbianism doesnt invalidate yours, and vice versa

"whats next, a CIS man identifying as a lesbian to cause trouble?"

a: and what if the world was made of pudding? trans men are not cis men, and to believe such is wishful thinking at best, and ultimately distressing to trans people. beyond that, i raise a counterargument of, what if we let trans people use the bathroom of their preferred gender? what would happen if a cis person used the opposite genders bathroom to cause trouble? the fact of the matter is, punishing trans people who are trying to live for the hypothetical cis person doing something wrong is transphobic and also stupid

"evan, i dont WANT to date a male lesbian/lesbian on t! what does this mean for my lesbianism?"

a: absolutely nothing! date who you want! you actually dont have to be attracted to every single person who is a lesbian! i know im not! youre allowed your preferences. i do know for a fact that some lesbians, especially under the trans/genderqueer umbrella are really into trans male lesbians and lesbians on t, but that does NOT mean that you have to be! once again, nobody elses personal definition of lesbianism can invalidate YOUR personal definition of lesbianism. im ALL ABOUT doing what you want!

#it's actually not that deep and none of this matters . i just love talking about gender it's my favorite thing #i have so many of these tangents #ask my girlfriend she's had to listen to them all #queer discourse in the year of our lord 2024 #never thought i'd be here #trans #queer #gender #nonbinary #he him lesbian #politics #gender abolition

116 notes · View notes