#okay but why. its not a biological thing. like why do men act like women are destined from birth to not be into cars

[skitskatdacat63]

Jesus christ reading reddit threads about women in formula racing actually makes my blood boil

[sexisdisgusting]

okay so hear me out, I have a theory.......... I think men are physically stronger than women, yes, but I think women are emotionally stronger than men. Think about it. Sure, theres a lot of emotionally weak women- "handmaidens" for example. But women has always had the advantage of being able to emotionally adapt to the cruelist of environments. Women have always been the ones to teach compassion and empathy.

Im not one of those people who say "oh men are all terrible, they all lack empathy and emotions" but I do think its true that women are the ones who are emotionally superior to men.

Men love to paint women as "emotionally fragile" crybabies and all that. The "hysterical women". They see women's emotional superiority as weakness instead of a gift. When in reality, its always been an advantage.

I mean look at the crime statistics. Look how many men turn to violence (which requires emotional immaturity) when things don't go their way.

Look how TiMs act compared to TiFs. Look how any women acts when she idolizes/relies on men, she becomes emotionally immature.

And if you think about it biologically and spiritually, it makes sense. To survive, women needed to rely on her emotions to weed out undesirable mates. Men needed to be physically strong to defend. Women may be physically weaker, but men are emotionally weaker.

This is why men are such threats. It's that lack of emotion that is dangerous. It's also why abuse from a mother can be more damaging than abuse from a father. Mothers are meant to be the nurturing counterpart. Mothers teach you how to control your emotions and be a better leader as mothers are inherently the "leader" of the relationship. When that relationship is fucked up, when the father is the one "in charge", it destroys everything because the father is less emotional and more out of control. It's why most abusive fathers are more outwardly aggressive. Yet women, who have abusive fathers, are better at handling it than men. Yet when a woman has an abusive mother, it hits harder because it affects her emotional growth.

I like how mainstream media loves to paint abusive mothers as more common than it is. Don't get me wrong, I grown up with an abusive mom. But what people don't talk about is that more often than not it's reactionary abuse. A lot of moms I've seen who were abusive were also "boy moms". It's fucking rare to see a mother who's just naturally abusive toward her children without influence from a man or drugs. Not saying it doesnt happen, but its not "common". Its nowhere near an "unspoken issue thats bigger than people think".

I dunno, im being controversial lol

I FUCKING HAD A CONVERSATION LIKE THIS THE OTHER DAY GIRL I AM GRABBING YOU BY YOUR SHOULDERS AND SHAKING YOU SO HARD BECAUSE YES!!!!!!!!! YES YES YES SYNFHAYZSYSYCYES

yes

YES

THEY LOOOOVE SAYING "women are soooo emotional lol" but they are the ones who KILL WOMEN FOR SAYING 'NO' TO THEM

and

OFTEN

when

MOTHERS ABUSE their KIDS it stems from abuse that came from other places in their lives, the media LOVES talking about evil mothers and highlighting it but men constantly abuse their kids because theyre all emotionally immature idiots who dont know how to regulate their emotions by nature

stoppppp im so happy we're mutuals youre so fucking SMART I WISH I COULD KISS UR BRAIN

[burning-thistles-bt]

fuck i mean sure okay i understand maybe but really i’m very sure that if a person is attracted to the same gender and is gay/lesbian you really. cant. w. you cant call yourself a lesbian / a gay man if ur attracted to the opposite gender ,, and keep in mind im lesbian myself so really… I AGREE with you about the certain part where its like they can realize they’re a different gender / sexuality but everything else is a not so much moment , but i realize i cant really change your opinions on things /lh thats just your view on it i suppose , i’m not gonna try and convince otherwise

I totally understand why you believe that as well! By definition, a gay man means "a man attracted to men and not women." That is The Definition and trying to define it as anything else is just undermining the identity. But trying to box in those who identify as gay into One Scenario Only isn't very helpful.

Let's say a gay man dates a non-binary person. They are not a man or woman. Is that okay? Are they still gay? Or are they no longer gay? Do they now have to be bisexual or pansexual?

Some people say they're still gay if the non-binary person appears masculine or was previously a man (see below*). Some people say that's offensive to the non-binary person as they don't identify with masculinity but masculinity is now being forced onto them so that the gay man can remain gay. Whose right?

Now, let's say a gay man becomes attracted to a trans woman. Their appearance is more masculine, whether because they choose to be masculine or because they have not transitioned fully into a more ambiguous or feminine appearance. This is a tricky situation, isn't it? Is the gay man no longer gay because they are technically attracted to a woman---or are they still gay because they were attracted to the masculinity of the woman? And is it okay for the guy to be attracted to the masculinity of a trans woman, or are they transphobic for having those feelings? What's the right answer?

To some, it's easy---he's not gay. Or, he is still gay. To others, like myself, that answer isn't black and white. It depends on the circumstance (is the gay man acting transphobic to the trans woman? is the non-binary person okay with a gay man dating them? is the gay man more attracted to masculine or feminine traits or do the traits not matter? is it more of the "biological" attraction or an emotional attraction?). Not everyone fits into the binary.

I'm not saying that gay men can date a bunch of women and call themselves gay, either. That's not what I'm supporting. I can't emphasize that enough. Hetero men can't genuinely date only women and call themselves "gay" just for queer points. What I'm supporting is the gray area, the rarer occurrences. The "my husband came out as trans and is now my wife. I still love her, but I've never been attracted to women before. What do I do now?" Because Holy Shit, isn't that a hard scenario? You've been confident and happy with your identity for so long, and then suddenly this one thing makes you have to rethink it all. Because here's the facts:

You are attracted to men.

You dated a man.

You married a man.

You love this man.

This man is now a woman but still has the body you love.

They start to transition (if they choose) and their body changes, but you still love them---perhaps the attraction for their body is different, but you still love them. Who they are, how they laugh, how they smile, how they snore, what they stand for, everything.

You are still attracted to other men, and not attracted to women.

You still love your wife.

Are you gay?

This is a scenario where I'm like, yeah, I don't care if you call yourself a gay man still. I understand the implications---other people see a happy man-woman couple and are like, "Uh? What do you mean you're gay, Steve? You have a wife!" And then homophobes point to Steve and Jill and go "Look! That guy says he's gay but he has a wife! You're all just liars and frauds looking for attention!" And that's not very fun for the rest of us who have to defend ourselves from those assholes.

But I don't care about those assholes. I care that Steve and Jill are happy. I care that Steve is okay with who he is and that Jill is okay with who she is.

And then there are the people who say, "But you can't be gay, Steve! You have to be bisexual now! You have to call yourself that, or pansexual, or maybe call yourself demisexual but just for your wife, or have you heard of abrosexual? What about agentosexual? I think that's what you are!" and Steve is just like "I don't know. Can't I just love my wife and that's the end of it? Maybe I'm not gay anymore. I don't know." And these people aren't ill-intentioned. They feel they're just trying to help, or trying to "correct" things. But there isn't always a correct answer, and the more you try to force one, the further away the "correct" answer gets.

Some articles I think are worth a read that go into more on the topic are these:

*‘What happens when you’re in a gay relationship and your partner comes out as non-binary?’ "This experience has highlighted to me more than ever that sexuality and gender exist on a spectrum; they are fluid and ever-changing. Despite my partner being non-binary, I still feel that I identify as a gay man. I still consider myself attracted to masculinity and my partner acknowledges that they are still predominantly male-presenting and have no intention of changing this, I still respect their gender identity and will continue to do so."

‘I wanted to be supportive but I was terrified of losing her’: what happens when your partner comes out as trans? "I didn’t fall in love with a gender, I fell in love with a person," is by far my favorite quote. Though, be warned, the second interviewee is Definitely Transphobic and I don't like them, but the first and third interviews are so sweet, I love them 🥺. But really this whole article is great to really get a wide perspective on how people react to their partners transitioning. "Any couple, whether or not they stay together, is changed by the experience of transitioning," is also a great end note.

What My Partner's Transition Meant For My Sexuality "It became very clear to me that being a lesbian married to a man was in fact not the actual problem. My problem was I could only see in black and white, yes and no. I had entwined my ego, my sense of self, with my lesbian identity. A lesbian shall not be married to a man. A lesbian shall not enjoy sex with a man......I lean on that inspiration when I'm asked, "So, what does his transition mean for you? Are you straight now?" I just answer, "I'm in love.""

Just in general, there's so many ways humans react to this kind of complicated stuff. Some people have a realization of sexuality---they realize that they were always X sexuality, or that they are okay with being X sexuality. Others find themselves able to "adjust" and love their partner(s) regardless of gender, even if the attraction is muddled.

Something I'd also like to mention is that there are fair points on both sides of this argument. I am not solely and utterly right on this topic. There are things that I concede could be my own bias---for one, I've never experienced romantic/sexual attraction myself, so what could I really know about allo experiences?---but I try to research topics before I fling myself into anything. I can see the logic and the reasoning on both sides. And also the other in-between sides. I don't think there's an absolutely right or wrong for this scenario---not right now. Not with how culture and society is right now. But this is the side that I stand with the firmest ground on.

[chaoticbritishqueen]

Things I've overheard in my 3rd year if uni:

"You got confused by the concept of a bus ticket...Londoners are weird."

"wait?! you boil your fucking chicken?!"

"I'm going to casually hate crime everyone this evening. It's okay when a gay guy does it right? It's almost charming" "it is as long as you're not being racist."

"are we saying the same thing?" "Don't worry, we're both as deaf as eachother." "Wait no, I'm actually deaf." "Holyshit i'm so sorry."

"You look energised!" "I'm not energised. It's just the nervous energy coursing through my veins."

"Wait you want to fucking hang me?!"

"no more bones for you!" "I am not a womennn" "NO MORE BONES FOR YOU!!"

"Mr blue?! why not Mrs blue?! Why not Mx blue?! WHY ARE WE GENDERING THE VAPES?!"

"what took you so long?" "I fell on my arse" "What?" "An old guy told me to go home" "Ew gross"

"Most heat escapes through our heads, that's why we have hair." "What about me? I have no hair." "Sucks to be you I guess?"

"shein Paul Mitchell tried to get me to give him a lift home and called me georgouus.... what the actual fuck."

"Freshers flu left me feeling sad with a sore throat." "Me after Saturday night's." "MATE! NO!"

"Is anyone an female woman?"

"Disabilities preventing you from being a simp."

"The problem with being a trans women, is that I love thigh high socks, so everytime I wear them I give myself an errection." "That's one way to turn yourself on tbf."

"Google maps says its 12 minutes, but I'm gay, so it will take me 8 right?" "Add headphones and it will take 5."

"I didn't have a minor panic attack when writing my review."

"The doctors took my asthma inhaler from me because I kept using it to placebo myself out of panic attacks!" "Wait, like that one scene in teen wolf?!" "Not so bullshit I found out..."

"The review is due in 11 hours and here I am playing god of war... I definitely am doing good right now everyone!"

"Mens existence ruining my outfit decisions"

"Discriminating against those with confused immune systems. Don't sit on the peanut table motherfuckers."

"I'm Mexican, I know how to survive in the wild!"

"the bottle is on your side tonight!"

"That's kinda gay, not gonna lie." "I am gay?"

"I don't love my sister enough to buy her paper chase wrapping paper. A kidney? Sure! Spending more than 1 quid on wrapping paper? Hell fucking NO!"

"You're 26?! You said you were 18?!" "I wanted to see if you'd belive me." "WHY WOULD I QUESTION YOUR AGE?! THATS FUCKIMG CREEPY" "i thought'd it be funny" "HOW IS IT FUNNY?!"

"I'll bring in a knife... and toilet roll?"

"I HAVE WATER IN MY BRAIN THANKS TO YOU!!!"

"This new year we will be preying for her nipples."

"I wanted an orgy!" "What?" "NOT WITH YOU GUYS. Obviously." "I was about to say..." "Yeah you know he's gay right?"

"STOP BURNING THE MARSHMELLOW! ITS BLACK THAT'S WRONG!" "HEY! what's wrong with black?!" "YEAH! Black is beautiful!" "NOT ON A MARSHMELLOW!!"

"I am the most British person here! Obviously." "Babe, not even your white half is British."

"My Unlce is half Jamaican." "Wait what?!" "It's quite obvious I'm not the Jamaican side of the family..."

"I had to explain to my sister she's not a quater Asian... Somehow noone told her about our biological grandma despite the fact she's named after her..."

"DOCTORS STOLE MY EAR BONES!!!"

"I have to stop eating gherkins when my heart starts beating really fast!" "Are you okay?"

"okay but why does that face give me 'moisurise me' vibes?!" "Thats what apartheid-era inbreeding does to a mf"

"Imagine actually talking to a bus driver, I pretend they don't exist and walk off." "What the actual FUCK is wrong with you you cunt. YOU SAY THANK YOU TO THE BUS DRIVERS, YOU WALNUT!"

"You've got like a bubblegum rock aesthetic going on." "Is that an insult?" "NO! it's cool!"

"No offense to either of you, but you both just gave me the gay gudgement face."

"I think gravity is acting on you and your boobs separately" "I mean issac Newton was a virgin when he discovered gravity."

"HOW WAS I MEANT TO KNOW MY TIT WOULD CAUSE A BREAKUP"

"I have been resting my head on your lap for quite some time now, you don't have any boobs." "My dude, that's called a binder."

"allow me to tube my feet on the tesco floor."

"You felt my ribcage!" "It was certainly a bonding experience"

"My hand smells like it would taste so good." "Please don't eat your hand."

"FUCK THE WHITES! They have no rights." "Xbox or people?"

"I am real straight women""Yes of course you love that man sausage." "Okay, but why did that sentance physically pain me."

"Congrats, you got a new highscore in the ace test."

"I have the eyebrows in the relationship."

"I got flash banged by a whipped cream can on the weekend!" "What the fuck?!"

"FUCK APPLEJACK!" "WHY WOULD YOU FUCK APPLEJACK?!?!?!" "NOT LIKE THAT!!"

"DON'T CAPRI SUN THE BABY!"

"Mc pickle pasta"

"I’m getting silly freaky weird tonight"

"YOU CENSORED YOUR TOES?!"Those are private." "Got to pay for those, do i?" "Yes, £5 per toe. " "Im good, respect the hussle. " "You'd get friends and family discount, Pinkie toes free with the whole set."

"Everyone is naked and dancing in your kitchen... this qualifies as a good party."

"Get back to your lesbian sex party."

"THAT LOOKS IILEGAL! THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!"

"does an earthquake mean the world is jerking off with no pay off?"

"today is the rise of the tampon king. everyone rejoice."

"All my ex gave me was an STI scare and commitment issues."

"Lesbians all know eachother!" "Hello. I am a lesbian and you do not know me. Nice to meet you!"

"I will send you a titty pic when you finish your exam." "now I'm motivated mommy."

"I will be slayed and not in the gay way."

"Day one of guessing what time you come out of the shower." "Fail. I'm fully clothed."

[lightblueminecraftorchid]

(You don't have to post)

"If enforcing gender norms requires a constant state of surveillance and censorship then they probably aren’t as biological or innate as you think they are"

What exactly does this mean?

I know the Church has certain ideals of behavior for men and for women (I know these ideals are not "immutable", and the Church acknowledges variation, and its ideals of masculinity and femininity are at least in theory deeper than shallow cultural expectations, which quite honestly do trouble me sometimes) and how relevant is that?

I am not the most "masculine" man and we both have scrupulosity issues and sometimes I get to overthinking about all this

Basically, I see it like this:

So much of what we view as an immutable feature of a certain gender isn’t… anything to do with God or our faith. It’s just an imposed cultural norm, and those change over time. Like the idea that girls are naturally drawn to skirts and makeup and need to wear them to be feminine is not anything to do with living our faith or glorifying God. It’s just something our culture views as feminine. Same thing with the whole “men don’t feel anything but angry”; that’s not true, and in many instances, that can be really harmful to men when they try and achieve that ideal.

If you have to bend over backwards to explain why this particular gender norm is 100% biblical and necessary actually, it’s probably… not. That big of a deal. Personally, I find it much more important to glorify God with your life as His child, rather than focusing on whether you’re performing masculinity or femininity enough. If you pray and listen to God, you’ll know He’s calling you to do.

Certainly, in the Catholic Church, there are distinct roles that only men or only women are able to perform. Nuns, for example, are female, and priests and monks are male. If God is calling you to Holy Orders, by all means, pursue this calling! But don’t freak out about looking or acting masculine enough. Live your life in God’s footsteps, and the rest will follow. I find that my best expressions of femininity are when I follow the example of the saints who’ve come before me, rather than what I wear or how much I fit the stereotypical “ideal woman”.

Pray about it, okay? You’re gonna be okay. And if you’re ever seriously unsure, you can always ask a spiritual director, priest, or other faithful person in your life that you trust. But simply approaching each day with the goal to reflect God’s love to others, I believe, is a great start.

[ileftherbackhome]

i think the reason i dont care about defining manhood or womanhood is because it feels inherently sexist to me. like to define these concepts in an objective manner is to imply that there exists traits out there that are exclusive only to the Y chromosome or X chromosome and that's just false.

Like, it's just not true. there is nothing truly masculine or feminine in this world and once you truly accept that men and women are equal human beings who only differ in the genitals we have it just all feels so completely pointless to sit there and argue about what makes a woman or what makes a man because no matter where u land on that conversation, at the end of the day, all you have done is define sex.

there is no name, no personality trait, no amount of body hair or body structures that is inherently masculine to the exclusion of femininity and you simply cannot ever define man or woman in a way that isn't exclusionary if you are looking for a set of biological characteristics you can search for to verify "correct" social behavior of an individual. like any definition you come up with will be exclusionary to some person out there who would be called cisgender.

and so when conservatives and terfs sit there and whine about how trans people are destroying the sanctity of gender, it all just seems so sexist to me. "a woman is an adult human female" okay what does female mean? not to be all intersex people exist but like they do. its impossible to define female without being intersexist (is that the word for it i forget i think it is but oh well) and so like for that reason alone, it doesnt work.

but even if it did, so the fuck what?

are you saying people born with penises cannot get a boob job? why? are you saying there are only certain outfits you're allowed to wear if you have certain genitals? are you saying there are certain names you're allowed to call yourself?

like okay, you've defined woman/man. Now what? Are you going to check the pants of everyone who looks like a woman to make sure they can wear that dress? what about cis but masculine looking women? is that not the definition of sexist harrassment?

you've defined womanhood, now what are you going to do with that definition? how are you going to enforce your personal definition of a word onto every single human being on earth.... without being fascistic or terrorizing about it??????

you literally cannot do jackshit with your "correct" definition of womanhood because at the end of the day, people are going to wear and call and act how ever the fuck they want and unless ur seriously purposing underwear checks for everyone, there is no feasible way to exterminate genderqueer behavior.

because your definition of womanhood/manhood is so restrictive, it becomes freedom in a way. Either way, you have to admit that your name/pronouns/dress/body hair amount/deepness of your voice/facial structure/height/hip to waist ratio/the existence of breasts is not apart of your definition of womanhood/manhood and if that's the case, your BEST case scenario is you define woman/man the way you want to and then have to let women and men do whatever the fuck they want anyways because there is no such thing as masc/femme names or body hair or temperament etc etc.

and so unless ur seriously purposing that we perform underwear checks to verify that people dressed in dresses have the right genitals to be wearing it, then you winning the "define woman" argument does nothing to get rid of genderqueer behavior.

if ur not purposing underwear checks to enforce this definition of genders, then how else are you gunna verify that samantha over there was born with a pussy? defining womanhood as must have pussy at birth does nothing to prevent "men from wearing dresses" actually lol.

you'd have to enforce that definition somehow and your only two options or genital checks or defining gender by things that have nothing to do with gender (name, voice pitch, dress, hair distribution patterns etc) and thats why nobody gives a fuck that the definition of womanhood is circular.

thats the only way it can be without society dissolving into actual fascism to uphold gender yall get that right.

[smol-bean-of-the-smols]

okay bit of a rant. under the cut.

so the day before yesterday, i finally found some way to be okay with the fact that i’m a woman, and i finally get joy from people using she/her pronouns for me

but the VERY NEXT DAY

my gender becomes a problem. again.

i hung out with my best friends yesterday, both of them being dudes, at one of their places, and the only parent that was around was going to be gone for an hour or two. and being that im a woman, the three of us cant be trusted to be alone together, because we’re ✨ teenagers ✨ and my parents immediately assume the worst would happen, despite the fact that i trust these guys with my life. plus, they’re both cowards and socially awkward, so i knew they wouldn’t even try anything anyway.

several things hurt. 1) being that they didn’t even ask how i felt about the situation, even though i understand why they didn’t. it still hurt. 2) being that they dont trust my friends, and that they jumped to conclusions about what kind of people they are. im very protective of my friends, so that made my blood boil. and 3) being that I JUST came to terms with the fact that i might be happy being a woman. and it became the main problem again. 

the whole problem i have with my gender is the way im viewed, the way im expected to act, all the social constructs surrounding women, and that men are by default not trusted alone with a woman.

because im a woman, i cant do the things i want. i cant dress a certain way cuz my mom will act strange about it. i cant hang out with the people that i feel more at home with than my own family without anyone else around. we have to censor some of the things we say, since our sense of humor is on the more inappropriate side, and parents dont like that

it just

it hurts, ya know?

and identifying a different way will change nothing because i know i’ll still be viewed as a biological woman and its all like “well you can still be taken advantage of” or some shit. 

and sure, the problem will go away when i move out, because my parents cant control me that way, but i still have a few years here because i still need a job, i need to get enough money to find a place and sustain myself. 

and im scared of being on my own

[dakotadawn]

what you fail to understand is that no matter what radfems and terfs tell you, out in the real world, people aren’t just attracted to others based on what chromosome they have. sexuality is a nuanced and implacable thing for a lot of people. many people! including many people who identify as lesbians, and gay men. if you’ve ever been or lived in a big city with a large LGBT scene — New York, Chicago, LA, San Fran, London, Edinburgh, Brighton, Manchester, Liverpool, Paris — you will find that many (though admittedly, not all) of the people there just… accept trans people as our identified gender. Especially in the LGBT scene, the punk scene, the metal scene, the emo scene, the goth scene, the standup comedy scene, the skateboarding scene, the graffiti scene — anything radical and counterculture. You’ll find that, no matter what terfs tell you, “lesbian” and “gay” are not scientific concepts, they are cultural ones. They are not dictionary definitions, they are labels people choose from based on what fits them best. There is not an innate compass within us pointing to either an X or a Y chromosome; our understandings of ourselves are defined by an amalgam of our experiences, our biological predilections (which yes, often play an enormous part in this) and our intangible sense of self. This is why zoologists don’t define animals as gay or straight; rather they write of “same sex sexual behaviour” because, of course, a chimp or a dog or a penguin has no notion of what a lesbian or a bisexual is. It’s the same reason historians often recommend sorting far past historical figures into modern day understandings of sexuality — while Plato would probably understand himself today to be a gay man, the cultural ideas of sexuality and gender in ancient Greece didn’t work on the same metric or understanding as ours; not because they were wrong, not because they hadn’t “discovered” sexual orientation yet, but because their cultural ideals and norms were different to ours, much like they still are in other places in the world, in other cultures. As recently as the 60s bisexual women were considered wholly to be lesbians, by the lesbian community. Not because they didn’t understand themselves, but because the word meant something different then! It was used in a different way. Words and concepts are not immutable, our experiences define language, not the other way around.

I never denied that sexuality is more complicated than genetic makeup. I wouldn't be attracted to a passing postoperative MtF transsexual because she appears, in all senses, to be a female. I am not magically drawn to her XY chromosomes. I will accept other trans people socially as their identity, I'd be hypocritical to not, and thus socially I will treat a trans man as a dude. However, I wouldn't date someone who has a vagina.

Yes, I am shocked as to how much people accept and validate this whole trans thing in reality. I went in expecting that the majority of mankind would see me as a delusional freak. However, I think social acceptance is one thing. Most people will respect me as a human being, but don't want to sleep with me, because they do not find a body like mine attractive. That's okay. I'll find somebody someday. There are actually plenty of guys who have a thing for this so I'm sure I can find someone.

I'm not saying anyone's individual experience of sexuality is not real, but trans activists need to stop demanding lesbians sleep with trans women and gay men sleep with trans men, its nasty homophobic incel behavior. If we want respect, we must also respect others, and that includes respecting their boundaries. It is not transphobic for a straight man or a lesbian to refuse to date a trans woman, because they aren't attracted to biological males, and that's *fine*. Cotton ceiling rhetoric is absolutely disgusting and I will not change my mind on that matter.

Also, don't act like all radical feminism is is the trans debate, there's more to it than that. My core radfem beliefs are anti-porn and sex trade abolition, as I think those are two of the biggest problems and setbacks to women's rights that libfem ideology has created.

[demonkidpliz]

Things I learned while re-watching Star Plus Mahabharata (Part 19/many):

Kansa’s death scene is A+, 10/10. 

Boy Krishna literally looks like Devaki!

I know where else I have seen Boy Krishna! He plays Pradyumna in Radhakrishna!

Arjun, Bhim and Drupad have no chill and I am here for this rage. Let’s keep this going until the war starts.

It is very sad that in Kalyug a woman has to fend for her own honour when ideally it should be a joint effort by men and women.

The only appropriate reaction to a man attempting to dishonour your wife was shown by Krishna and by Ram before him = decapitation. I will not be hearing arguments against this at this time.

We should not be resorting to war. WELL YOU AND YOUR NEPHEWS SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF THAT BEFORE THAT GAME OF DICE KAKASHRI VIDUR.

I am here for this Panchali. What did you decide? What did Madhav have to say?

Panchali is against the peace proposal and honestly I am on her side.

Panchali is 100% right. The decision to fight or not is Panchali’s. Not the Pandavas. Because for every action and reaction of men, it is the women and their children who suffer. She is 100/100 right.

At least she has Krishna on her side who has absolutely no qualms in pretending anything other than the fact that he really badly wants this war. This is literally what he was put on earth to do.

In the actual story, Duryodhan offers to put Krishna up in Dushasan’s palace which was allegedly bigger and better than the main palace. And Krishna declines because he wishes to stay in Vidur’s palace but StarBharat fails to show why. It’s because Krishna’s aunt, Kunti, lives with Vidur and I think it is the most natural thing in the world that he would want to stay with his aunt rather than with these random cousins by marriage.

I am sorry sweetie (Krishna) there is no dharm ka phool in Angaraj Karna’s heart. He's a social climber.

Aye hai laddoo Gopal really be here turning all this karela into laddoos.

Nice that they gave some screen time to Vidur’s wife. Now they need to do this 200x with all the female characters.

Krishna is…right? Yudhishthir should have been crowned Yuvraj the moment Pandu died and the Pandavas came to Hastinapur. Dhritarashtra was a placeholder king and his son cannot inherit this throne. It is a different matter altogether that Dhritarashtra was the rightful king and that they should have never crowned Pandu as king. 

Krishna coming at the Kauravas with one banger after another. Their behaviour towards Draupadi cannot be forgiven. And not just Duryodhan, every man in that Sabha was culpable.

Is Duryodhan really going to bind Krishna with those big ass fake looking gold chains? This seems like a bad idea.

Krishna is asking for five villages for the five Pandavas. But Duryodhan has nothing if not his principles.

Karna is sooo annoying. Oh my god, we get it. You would give your life for your rich pals.

At least Bhishma, Vidur and Dronacharya are showing some good sense now. Long overdue.

Oho! Even Dhritarashtra has the good sense to agree to this five village business.

Lol, I can’t wait for Duryodhan to try and imprison Krishna.

I’m also waiting for the needle’s head worth of land line. Will StarBharat oblige?

StarBharat has obliged! Duryodhan will not concede a needle’s worth of land.

Krishna looks...mildly discomfited.

Arrest this cowherd LMAAOOO 

The big ass fake looking gold chains are here.

The soldiers can’t even get up, let alone pick up the chains. How underwhelming.

Is StarBharat also going to show me the wondrous scene where Dhritarashtra temporarily gets his vision? Coz that would be cool.

Oh finally someone (Karna) has the sense to say that this is not how one behaves with a peace messenger.

Chal, gwale! I am ded 🤣

What happened to the Vishwaroop scene in the middle of the Hastinapur court??

Very attracted right now to moustached Krishna dressed like a guard.

Calm down, think of Jesus.

Is Krishna also dressed like Vikarna and Karna?

Accha, Drona also.

And Pitamaha.

This is fun! 

Mamashri Shakuni 😂

Kakashri Vidur. I could do this forever.

SRJ looks amazing as all these characters. Even Dhritarashtra.

Where did Krishna transport them? On the banks of the Ganga? Dwarka? 

Did Krishna strike Duryodhan’s thigh?

YAAAAS

Dhritarashtra can see the Vishwaroop! 

Apparently, after this, Krishna gave him the option of retaining his sight. And Dhritarashtra said that after having seen the Vishwaroop to see other sights on earth was simply not worth it. 

Should’ve kept his sight for the war but he has his satellite dish Sanjay.

Okay Krishna has left. This was anticlimactic.

Oh cool, Krishna is going to play the Kunti card.

I simply love Kunti’s character and every scene with Krishna and Kunti in the same frame is simply golden.

Kunti’s entire personality is so on brand with the no chill Yadav mood.

Please do not for one second pretend that you altruistically care about the child you abandoned at birth. You’re doing this to save the skins of the five sons you actually give a damn about.

At least Radha is slightly more realistic about Karna than Kunti is.

Radha and Vrushali are like, how do you know this, Vaasudev? Vaasudev (probably): I drink and I know things.

Nothing will astonish me as much as my progression in life going from a Karna Stan to an absolute Karna Skeptic.

Karna is a social climber. That is all I have to say on this topic.

The only thing admirable about Karna’s character is his loyalty towards Duryodhan.

Also, where is this conversation between Krishna and Karna taking place? On the banks of the Ganga? Yamuna? The sea beach at Dwarka?

Where is the big speech Krishna gives to Karna? Where he promised that Draupadi will marry him (HA, AS IF) and that Yudishthira will crown him King of Hastinapur (that fool might just) if he fights on behalf of the Pandavas.

Are all Radhas this terrible? Are they all hell bent on stealing for themselves things that do not belong to them? Why won’t this awful woman own up to the fact that she’s not Karna’s biological mom?

Okay Karna is back on the banks of this mysterious water body.

I will have you all know that Karna may be suddenly having feels for Kunti, but was totally okay to sacrifice her during the Varnavat episode.

Oh goddamn it, Starbharat! 

Hitting me right in the feels when I least expect it.

Karna thinking back to all the times he was with Arjun, not knowing that they were brothers.

I’m not going to lie. Karna is in an impossible spot. Damned if he did, damned if he didn’t.

Now I am remembering why child me Stanned Karna so much.

I may not like Karna but at least I respect him for supporting Duryodhan.

I can’t wait for Queen of Resting Bitch Face, Kunti, to come and beg for her sons’ lives from Karna, when she literally does not give a damn if Karna lives or dies. Kunti knows which side her bread is buttered. Such a Yadav.

Oh this Karna-Vrushali scene is A+, 10/10. I really wish StarBharat gave more screen time to its women.

Okay I feel bad for Kunti also, mostly because I love Kunti. 

But let us not pretend that given a choice between her Parth and this veritable stranger, she will always always choose Arjun.

She had to do this for Kuntibhoj, her poor father, who loved her so much, who couldn’t have children and all he ever wanted was a child of his own, so much so that he begged Shoorsena to give him one of his daughters.

I think what’s worse is that Kunti knew. Right from the beginning. And she stayed quiet. That was not right. 

StarBharat really be here trying to make me feel for Karna again. Smh.

How tf will Karna be a Pandava? When Kunti wasn’t even mf married to Pandu when she gave birth to Karna?

Karna talking about Duryodhana while the Dharmecha shlok plays in the background. Chills.

I have a story called The tree stump on Karna, in case you are interested. 

Yeah Kunti f*cked up here. I support Karna. He is nothing but a prisoner of birth. 

Pretty big of Karna to ask Kunti not to tell his brothers. Uncharacteristic of a social climber. He’s not a bad soul, I guess. 

I don’t know if it’s Kunti’s dialogue or her acting or the background score but I am tearing up. No assholes here.

Kunti might as well cry because if Karna refuses to call her Mata until Arjun dies, she’s never going to hear it from him. Coz he will be dead.

It’s okay, Kunti, you can relax. You got what you came here for (ish).

[transmascjfk]

i'm,, trans and hc chihiro to be a male..

i'm sorry, but i don't quite understand how that's transphobic. could you please explain how chihiro is transmisogynistic? (sorry if i come off as rude - that's not my intention and i genuinely just don't understand, though i would like to!!)

What is transmisoginy?

"Transmisogyny is a distinct category of transphobia in that transmisogyny mainly focuses on trans women and other transgender individuals who demonstrate femininity, whereas transphobia is a more general term, covering a broader spectrum of prejudice and discrimination towards transsexual and transgender individuals. Julia Serano states in Whipping Girl that "when the majority of jokes made at the expense of trans people center on 'men wearing dresses' or 'men who want their penises cut off' that is not transphobia – it is transmisogyny. When the majority of violence and sexual assaults committed against trans people is directed at trans women, that is not transphobia – it is transmisogyny." "

Chihiro is written to mock trans women, to say that in reality trans women are secretly men, she is a man who is weak and uses being trans as a way to escape her problems, this is a thing that is also said to trans men a lot, that theyre just trying to avoid the hard parts of being a woman by becoming a man. Even if the writters intended it to be like that or not (which they probably did because transphobia is a big thing that happens a lot, obviously) it's still transmisogynistic. Thats that on that

This is a pretty common transphobic trope actually, the "Turns out this one character was actually from the opposite sex??!!", theres more examples of this in other games outside Danganronpa.

But also her experience is pretty different from other examples, her experiences are way too similar with trans womens experiences.

This is mostly for the cis people who call her a crossdresser and refuse to change their mind, on it, sit down.

Written by a trans man.

Don't tell me whats transphobic and what it's not transphobic if you're cis. Just sit down and read.

Tw: transphobia, transmisoginy, death mentions and blood in the pictures.

The game implies a lot of stuff with her dialogue, it doesn't straight up says "I don't want to be a woman anymore, I'm a man" like everyone claims it does.

[ Alt text 1:

Chihiro Fujisaki: I'm going to get stronger...and accept who I am... ]

[ Alt text 2:

Chihiro Fujisaki: Strong enough so that when someone says "even thought you're a boy" I'll be okay. I'll get better! ]

[ Alt text 3:

Chihiro Fujisaki: I wrapped myself in lies. I'm weak. I want to destroy that version of me forever! ]

[ Alt text 4:

Chihiro Fujisaki: ... I want to change. ]

[ Alt text 5:

Chihiro Fujisaki: I have to change. I don't want to be weak anymore ]

She goes to Mondo not because hes masculine, but because she admires him and his strength. She never once says it's because shes a man or because Mondo is a man.

[ Alt text 1:

Chihiro Fujisaki: Maybe talking to Mondo about it will help give me some courage... ]

[ Alt text 2:

Chihiro Fujisaki: I admire... your strength... ]

These dialogues can be read in two ways, the first one being the one the game tries the hardest to put in your head thats shes a man, all of this guessed by other people btw not what she herself says. Which is really transphobic, because she was written as a trans woman and then theyre like "uh no actually hes a man, because he was born as one but hes a coward so he started to dress as a woman to hide from his problems. Because thats what people do right? People who dress as their oppossite gender are so pathetic, specially men amiright? Ahaha"

Reading it in this way really weird, you're doing a lot of mental gymnastics because you would literally call her a trans woman with all of this if the rest of the trial, that consists of cis people assuming shes a man, didn't happen. And sadly you're following transphobic ideas by this. Because the canon is transphobic and transmysoginistic.

And the other way is just read what she says, that she just wants to be stronger and stop lying to everyone, basically about being cis, because shes not, shes amab (assigned male at birth) and thats probably what she said to Mondo, but most people when a trans person who already passes or is in their transition comes out many people tend to think "oh so youre your gender assigned at birth and not the one you claim to be?", because they don't get what being trans is and they think only "biological gender" is a thing. Basically, misgendering and invalidating the trans person.

I can guess all of this just because of how vague they decided to make her dialogue, not even showing how she tells Mondo about being amab.

What did she said to Mondo? "I'm trans"? "I'm a man"? "I was born a man"? We dont know, because they didn't show it and she died right afterwards and then everyone was like "Chihiro was secretly a man" to solve the case and thats it. A lot of people in the discourse get their information from Monokuma who isn't either Chihiro or even Mondo. Monokuma knows many things but he can't read minds to know if she was really trans or not, only she could say it but she died so she couldn't explain if shes trans or not.

[ Alt text:

A youtube comment by Gail Frisbee, posted 4 days ago, this comment was edited by the autor. The comment says:

"It's honestly increible to me when people try to argue that a scene in which a female-presenting character gets their genitals groped and then is posthumously referred to as a male from that point on can't be transphobic just because that character calls themselves a boy in some other side content later. It's on about the same level of intellectual honesty as claiming that Quiet from MGS5 isn't really fanservice because she totally breaths throught her skin you guys.

As it turns out, if you really dig down deep into the lore, Chihiro is a fictional character and the same people who wrote the genital investigation scene also wrote the lines that character says in the game as well. It's a shocking twist, I know." ]

Her fears of being outed and people founding out her secret (being trans) or being transphobic is used as a gross big twist. A trans woman being used as a mockery of trans people? Great totally normal (/sarcasm)

Read this post made by a trans woman. I'll be using this only part but it's still a great read.

[ Alt text:

So. There is a lot to unpack here, but I want to start with something that specifically hurts me as a trans woman, and that's how the game flippantly uses real world horrors trans people face as shocking reveals and twists. You can go down the list for "worst nightmares" of trans people incluiding:

Threatening to be outed against your wishes

Outing yourself to a trusted friend and being met with rejection, or worse, violence

Having your body and privacy examined and invaded

Having your deadname used and being misgendered after death, when you can't correct them ]

Now, let's go to her backstory for a bit. I will be using the wiki for this. (Which sadly uses he/him for her 💔)

" When Chihiro was a child, he became the subject of harassment and bullying. He was always told to "be a man" and that he was "so weak despite being a boy", and because of that, Chihiro slowly but surely began to develop a "weakness complex". In order to escape the bullying, Chihiro began to dress as a girl so that people wouldn't bully him as a weak boy. "

This doesn't sound like a normal crossdresser, this sounds like a trans woman who was bullied for being different when she was younger, like many trans people, and then she decided to transition because she's a woman, she wanted to be more feminine and stop being seen as a person shes not. Specially after so many people tell her to basically man up when she doesn't want that, because shes not a man.

Have you ever heard of the classic stories of "since I was little i knew i was different, i was a boy who liked playing with dolls and was more feminine than the rest" or "i used to be a tomboy when i was little, i had mostly male friends, i liked playing with car toys and was more masculine than other kids" coming from trans people? This just sounds as these types of stories to me.

People also like to say that alter ego uses he/him pronouns and says shes a boy. Many trans people can misgender themselves for personal reasons too guys, she could've been trying to misgender herself because she didn't felt like she wasn't enough to be a real woman, this happens a lot to trans people. If people constantly tell you that you're not actually transgender or you just feel like you're faking it then you might actually believe it, thats were most "detransitioners" come from. And thats basically what they made her, a detransitioner.

Some of you might also don't get how shes trans because you think she doesn't perfect or exact trans stereotypes. Trans experiences can be similar on the feeling of not fitting in, dysphoria, etc. But trans experiences, stories, transitions and complete lifes can be very different, because we all (including cis people) live different lifes, experience, process and cope with things differently. So i can understand why you might not get her being trans coded at first, don't worry. But try instead of just not caring because you don't get it at the first try, to see what trans people say.

This whole discourse its mostly cis people talking over trans people about their own experiences (incluiding the dead trans coded characters experience) saying if theyre valid or not and denying stuff not wanting to learn anything, completely refusing to it because "In canon hes a boy" ok then in canon shes written in a transphobic way too but most of you don't care about that. You would rather call her a crossdresser than try to acknowledge how obviously trans coded she is and how thats used as transphobia.

The way most cis people act in this discourse is very transphobic to me to be honest, if you think you're a good ally but act like this then you should get more educated on the topic as a whole and about trans people too.

-the trans Chihiro flag to finish this up, she has a bit boobie! good for her! good for her.

[absynthe--minded]

please may I hear about The Wife... no judgement at all I just love hearing what everyone thinks

Okay. So.

(obligatory disclaimer: all headcanons are valid, and all fanworks are valid, and my opinions are my own and based on what I see in fandom around me, which is not the full breadth and depth of Tolkien fandom and is only a tiny piece of the greater puzzle. this is salty, and somewhat bitter, and very frustrated, but it’s not aimed at any specific person and it’s not just my negative feelings due to being a Russingon shipper. I’d actually really like to continue conversation about this, with people on all sides of The Wife Debate - I enjoy talking with people!)

the tl;dr is that I really cannot stand how the fandom treats the potentially-existing character of Fingon’s wife.

first off, it’s basically up in the air as to whether or not she exists - we have reference in the published Silmarillion to Gil-galad as Fingon’s son with Christopher Tolkien saying later that he was acting in error in confirming GIl’s parentage that way, and we have a line from The Mariner’s Wife that’s the beginning of a letter sent to Tar-Meneldur (Ereinion Gil-galad son of Fingon to Tar-Meneldur of the line of Eärendil, greeting: the Valar keep you and may no shadow fall upon the Isle of Kings.) in which Fingon’s parentage is claimed by the then-High King, but we also have writing from The Shibboleth of Fëanor that Fingon had no wife upon departure from Valinor and no biological children at that time.

For a long time it was assumed that Fingon’s wife was a Sindarin woman named Meril, but ‘Meril’ is the name of Finrod’s wife as recorded in The War of the Jewels and in this draft Gil-galad is Arafinwëan. The confusion there is easy to understand, as Gil-galad’s departure to the Falas and early life spent with Círdan is present in both the published Silmarillion and the unpublished footnotes of WotJ, but ultimately the canon holds two things to be more or less plausible: first, Gil-galad is Fingon’s son; second, he has no stated wife.

of course the absence of a recorded wife doesn’t mean there was no wife - we only need look at Orodreth’s child/children, or Elros’s, or Isildur’s, to see that Tolkien has a habit of giving men biological offspring without recording the names of the women in their lives who must have birthed and helped raise those offspring - but this actually brings me to the first issue I have with how fandom treats this particular quasi-character (let’s call her Nís, for this little ramble - it’s easier than dancing around the fact that she has no name of her own): she’s assumed to be necessary for the existence of Gil-galad the Nolofinwëan.

Fingon adopting a child, or taking an heir for legal purposes, or fostering someone else’s son, are perspectives on family life that are more or less entirely gone from the fan conversation surrounding this interpretation of Ereinion’s parentage, as is the idea that Fingon might have wanted or had a child without the help of a woman. (and like - not to bring prejudices into this, because I don’t think they’re entirely the motivating factor here, but... sex-repulsed people exist? ace and aro people who don’t want conventional romantic relationships exist? I’m 100% on the “Fingon is grey-ace and 100% gay and only wants Maedhros” train but aspec/arospec, single Fingon is also a valid headcanon and assuming he had to have a wife for the sake of having a child uh. bothers me because of its implications?) and all of this comes down to my larger point of frustration which -

Nobody really cares about this character in her own right. Nobody looks at Nís, or the gap left by her in the text, and becomes invested in her and in what happens to her without some external factor making her a necessity. She’s Gil-galad’s mother so she has to be there, or she’s Fingon’s wife and therefore something that isn’t Russingon so she has to be there. She’s not a personality that anybody gives a damn about outside of what she can do for the men in the narrative, and that pisses me off like nothing else and is the main reason why she’s basically the only woman in the Legendarium I can’t stand. I love Tolkien’s women! I think they’re all great! I’m a lesbian and I’d love to see more ladies hanging around! But she doesn’t matter, in my experience, outside of propping up really narrow-minded ideas of family and giving weight to homophobia.

I would at least be able to grudgingly tolerate and understand and even respect her presence in the fandom if people liked her and respected her and treated her like her own person with weight and import! But she’s not in any of the textual ghost fanworks, she’s never given a shoutout in fanart, she barely registers on anyone’s radar. There are twenty fanfics on AO3 tagged with her relationship to Fingon in them, and eleven of those left when you filter out fics that also include Russingon in some capacity. “Fingon/OFC” yields ten stories total. Out of over sixteen thousand. Nobody - and I mean that seriously - treats her like she matters, even people who believe she exists. She’s not a fundamental part of serious headcanons - I’ve seen more love given to OC wives for Maedhros than this woman who a large subset of the fandom seems to think must have been real in some capacity!

(Just for fun: we have 40 works tagged for Orodreth’s wife, 40 works for Caranthir’s wife, 18 works for Elros’s wife, and 112 works for Maglor’s wife. Branching out into ‘named but with very little known about them’ we have 35 for Eldalótë, 135 for Amarië, and 199 for Elenwë. Everyone else in this story matters more than Nís does. It’s a little absurd.)

basically I’m done taking claims of loving this character or caring about her seriously. I’ve had to fight people using her like a bludgeon for so long that I cannot stomach her; my personal opinion is “I don’t want to see content made for this character who Tolkien himself said didn’t exist” but I’m a firm believer in ship and let ship and in the idea that all fanworks have a place and a purpose so like. people interested, y’all can do what you want if you stop resenting the hell out of Russingon shippers for no reason and keep things cordial? but in the meantime stop pretending you care about Nís for literally any other reason but ulterior motives, you clearly don’t! she’s a convenient person-shaped battering ram and literally nothing else.

(Also, I want to know what exactly Russingon shippers have done that makes us so worthy of everyone who doesn’t ship it hating our guts, you know? Homophobia is obviously part of it in some circles but what the hell happened that makes non-homophobes so damn resentful of us? please do give thoughts on that if you have them I want to know and that is even more salt.)

[freyfall]

Hey sorry to bother, but i don't thing I've really seen any sexism in the fandom? I might have just missed it, but would you be willing to elaborate on it a bit? You don't have to if you don't wanna

CHOKES

I’ll elaborate under a cut because a lot of the sexism I see is rooted in the ns/fw side of the fandom. I’ll be talking explicitly so don’t click if you’re not prepared for a conversation about sex and ectoplasmic genital shit. Also... it’s long.

God, where do I even start? This post covers a lot of the base issues with the fandom, though most of what OP said had to do with queerphobia. The issue with writers and magic genitalia in the fandom boils down to the fact that so often - so often - I click on a fic to read and heteronormativity slaps me in the face. One dominant (male-identifying) partner with male genitalia, one submissive (male-identifying) partner with female genitalia. And okay, I get it, some couples are like that. It’s not bad to write something like that as long as it doesn’t rely on sexism or queerphobia to explain away the choices. But then it’s... every fic. Every. Fic. I click on. 

Actually, I’ll give you some numbers! I’m going to look at the UTMV kinktober fics I’m keeping up with and see what kind of ratios there are. I won’t name them out of politeness, but here we go. Out of 4 Kinktober 2020 series on A03 with, so far, 23 or 24 chapters each, here’s how the gender and sex of the characters play out:

In terms of biological sex, the majority were male/female* with two partners, making up almost half of the fics read (42 out of 94). Out of said fics, 35 had a dominant** male and submissive female dynamic, 4 had a dominant female and submissive male dynamic, and 3 were unclear or there was no such dynamic. Only one out of the 42 fics had the female character identify as a woman. (Furthermore, she was genderbent.) 

The runner-up was the ‘other’ category, which encompassed the following: no genitals present, only one set of genitals present, odd genitalia (such as tentacles), or unspecified. This category made up 26 out of the 94 fics. Of the 26, 20 of them fell into the ‘one set of genitals’ category, with 14 male and 6 female. The male fics were split evenly between dominant and submissive males, and the females were all written as submissive. 

None of the other categories were nearly as popular, with the next one down the line only having 9 fics out of the 94. This category was male/male with two partners. The next one, male/male/female with three partners, had 8. Of the 8 fics, all of them had dominant male and submissive female dynamics.

The female/female with two partners category only had 3. Only one of the three fics portrayed a lesbian relationship where both characters identified as women. 

The other categories were as follows: m/m/m with three partners, m/m/m/f with four partners, m/m/m/m with four partners, m/m/f/f with four partners, m/m/m/m/f with five partners, and m/m/m/f/f with five partners. These categories only had 1 fic each. Each and every fic with a female partner had the female partners playing submissive roles.

It’s important to note that out of the entire roster of fics, there were 3 women. One of them was a genderbent character in a m/f fic, and the other two were in a lesbian f/f fic. Why the lack of women? Why constantly portray those with female genitals as men?

Going back to the post I linked at the very beginning, I do want to cover my bases - I understand that male characters with biologically female genitals and sex characteristics can be a hugely needed source of rep for transgender people, especially those who are transmasculine. As a transmasculine person myself, it’s important to me that male characters with female bodies exist. Having a casual environment where men can have whatever genitals they want is, in theory, rather progressive. However, three things:

Never in all my time in this fandom have I ever seen one of these characters stated explicitly as transgender. None of the fics in the study above did, either. 

In the UTMV, when writing skeletons with magical genitals, having male or female genitalia is seen as a choice. It erases the need for transgender characters. It erases transgender narratives that deal with transition, discomfort, coming out, and dysphoria. If you can pick whatever kind of body you want, why would there be a need for being trans? There’s no easy way to determine a ‘male’ or ‘female’ skeleton, erasing the concept of gender assigned at birth and erasing the struggles that trans people may face.

None of the characters have bodies that might align more closely with transgender folks who medically transition. No top surgery scars, no bottom growth. No breast tissue growth on male bodies, nothing. Of course, why would that exist in the first place? Magic erases the need to portray bodies with quote-on-quote ‘imperfections.’ None of the bodies portrayed even step a toe out of the cisgender box - such as perhaps portraying female genitals with a flat chest or male genitals with breasts. None of that was found in the study, and I don’t recall fics like that outside of the study, either.

So clearly, most if not all authors are not attempting to portray any sort of transgender character when writing them this way - which begs the question, why write men with female bodies? 

While I was taking these statistics, I had a conversation with my partner in which they said something that applies here:

“[Every AU character] being Sans is a problem on its own, but when you have the power to make whatever character a woman, how you approach that says a lot. What people do is that they give a male character female parts and it’s only for sexual purposes. So like, the entire existence of [the female body] in the UTMV serves only for sex and that’s just kind of not good.”

Keeping this quote in mind, the short answer to the question I posed above is this: sexism. In this fandom, the female body, femininity, and being a woman in and of itself is objectified, hyper-sexualized, and exoticized... in that order, respectively. I’m not just using these as buzzwords, I promise you.

The female body is objectified. The same as the quote above, female bodies aren’t seen as something that someone will just have in a non-sexual context. After reading 94 smutfics, their treatment of the female body tends to start looking the same. The female body is for sex. That’s it. Giving or showing a character with breasts, even clothed, is seen as the display of a sexual object, even though breasts are visible on (cis) women in everyday scenarios. In sexual scenarios, the female body is never portrayed realistically, either. Female arousal and preparing the female body for sex - compared to its counterpart, the male body - is wildly unrealistic. Yes, this is porn, and there’s bound to be realism issues, but in comparison, female sexuality is much more unrealistic.

Femininity is sexualized. Characters act feminine for sexual appeal... and only for sexual appeal. Because a character acts feminine, they’re more sexually appealing to their partner. Feminine clothing, such as dresses or skirts, are seen as sexual. 

Being a woman, in and of itself, is exoticized. This isn’t even a staunchly NSFW issue. I’ve been asked if my male characters, explicitly stated to be bisexual, would have sex with a woman. My partner has received asks about ‘what would happen if (insert male character here) met a woman.’ Genderbends of male characters into female characters are seen as cringy, childish, or fanservicey by default. Women aren’t treated as a normal occurrence. When genderbends do happen and people like them, it’s often in a sexual way. “She’s so hot/sexy.” “Step on me, queen.” 

It most likely doesn’t help that all of the popular AU characters in the fandom are men. It creates an environment where women are scarce and hardly represented, leading to unnatural assumptions about them.

I’m not sure how to close this off, so... TLDR; women are normal people. Stop exoticizing them. Stop objectifying the female body. Don’t use trans/queer characters as a scapegoat for your sexism. 

Sincerely, a bigender lesbian who’s sick and tired of all this.

-

*‘Male’ and ‘female’ are used to refer to biological sex. When I talk about gender, I will say men and women.

**When I say dominant, I mean ‘in control’ of the sexual situation. This was determined by considering factors such as written personality, physical position, and how they behaved. Vice versa for submissive. I don’t intend to use these terms as an equivalent to what they mean in BDSM language, though several of the fics attempted to or did portray BDSM relationships. I also do not mean these terms to be equivalent to ‘top’ or ‘bottom’. 

[flashfuture]

Follow up questions because I’m a Nerd and I love learning: is there any evidence to suggest frequent inclusion of women in Scandinavian warfare? Or is finding something like women’s armor rare? Was there a standard definition of any queer terminology in any ancient civilization? Did any Norse culture ever find its way to the Middle East???

I feel a bit like an over eager student writing this but uh...I’m very curious. 👀👀

When talking about women in Scandinavia you run into people describing how it appeared these women would take on the role of men in the absence of men. But I think there is an issue in that we’re assuming the role of women in these societies would match the role of an Ancient Greek woman (which is a whole other thing but I digress)

They’ve found that some of the founding fathers of Iceland were women, thirteen of them to be exact. women could inherit land and money from their parents. Women could be involved in legal matters and hold official positions. 

There is lots of evidence that women were very frequently going raiding. They have been debating recently I believe if the term dregnr a young warrior really was only applied to men. Young women were described in the same vulgar terms as dominators and something we discuss in ancient Rome was the ideal of male “hardness” basically just being the top dog in the room. Women were the same in Ancient cultures if not expected to hold themselves differently but Skalds (the poets) describe the women just like the men. 

Another thing quite recently (1993 so really recent in terms of historical archives) is the idea of the surrogate son. Basically, if a man died with no son to inherit a surrogate son would be chosen over a daughter. It has recently been noted that they very well could have been describing the daughter as a surrogate son. Someone to take up that male role of head of the household. This suggests in the sagas we have noted women but there is also a possibility for women to be described with male traditional words because of the role they were playing. 

And we have found tons of armor that looks ceremonially and some battle worn for women yep. All women could fight though it was excepted they could defend themselves and their home front. Against potential attackers and wild animals. 

Plus in the 13th century, the Christians introduced the Law of Gulathing which were sets of rules for people to follow. Women were then banned from cutting their hair like men, dressing like men, or in general behaving like men. This suggests It was common enough for them to throw it in the laws that banned traditional things that Scandinavians did that did not fit the Christian narrative or way of life. 

-- This is gonna go under the cut for the rest cause wow I got long lol. 

Okay queer terminology. You’ll see lesbian which was women who fucks women. and you’ll see penetrator a lot. These were slave cultures also so the idea of sleeping with another citizen was defiling them you shouldn’t do it.

In Ancient Athens, you saw men preferred the company of men over women because they didn’t think women were of value they were only good for producing heirs. There was a thing called pederasty where a wealthy man in his 20s, the erastes, would court a young wealthy man from the ages of 13-19, the eromenos, and teach him and keep him as a lover. Their debate over Achillies and Patroclus for example wasn’t if they were sleeping together but who was fucking who really. Because Patroclus was older but Achillies was the hero so was he being emasculated or were they breaking the age rule? That was their debate cause these things mattered to them 

They were kinda the exception to the citizenship rule. The Spartans felt the pederastry was weird because it involved citizens but they were all in with the homo. Obviously, this was all very public and you’d be scorned if they thought you were being penetrated.  

All in all, being penetrated was something women and slaves did and the last thing you wanted to be was a woman.  

Another thing to consider was these cultures had a lot of problems with excess. So too much sex or food and in Rome you were a uh Cnidus? Idk I can only spell it in Greek which is staggeringly unhelpful but basically, you can’t control your urges. Based off that time someone tried to fuck a statue I think or something like that

The Norse had a similar word ergi which meant you had too much heterosexual sex actually, you were too promiscuous. In the 12th century we know in Iceland homosexual acts like sodomy were banned under Christian canon (Thanks Richard I of England) so there is that. Pre-Christian influence there seemed to be no stigma around this minus don’t force yourself on your friends that’s rude but slaves were fair game. (I wrote a paper on the weird stereotypes of Vikings being the sexual aggressors when the literature of the time suggests the Lotharingians were way way more likely to commit those acts. At least according to French who were besieged constantly by everyone all the time.)

níð was an insult for the ancient norse which basically you had displayed unmanliness. Or you liked to take it up the ass to be plain about it. (Ancient people were vulgar as shit the Romans were obsessed with sexual threats to the point where its just in common day-to-day speech.) Ragr was a term that meant you were unmanly which is much more severe and you could like legally kill someone for saying that up till the 13th century. 

There is actually some debate that the concept of unmanly comes from making fun of the Germans. So like if you were Ancient Germanic or Ancient Brittania you were the savages of the day. Which is interesting when you consider the rhetoric those two countries put out. Like literally no one like the Germans or the Brits they thought they were filthy uncivilized and cowardly people. 

Also fun from the 7th to 10th century in Norse culture there were these figurines called gold foil couples. In it a couple would be portrayed which was a way of proclaiming themselves married before the gods. It was a very religious practice for them. There are figurines depicting people of the same sex in the gold foil figurines. 

Basically, we can thank Christianity for why we think the Vikings didn’t do homosexuality or homosexual acts. Because well they didn’t want them to starting in the 12th century again thanks Richard for having the worst break up with your boyfriend in the history of break ups. 

And onto gender which if you know Loki from Marvel him being genderfluid is based entirely on mythology and is common in Norse writings. Okay so essentially we think of seiðr or magic as something women do. And they did too. But men did practice it. This was seen as a third gender in Norse culture, the seiðmaðr a man who practices magic. Hence Loki moving between the three as he’s a known magic-user. There was also this concept of gender mixing, biological men buried in traditionally female clothing. But there is no way for us to know if that is this third gender or potentially they were more excepting of what we would call transgender. 

Because most of the writings we have come from the 13th century where Christianity really took over and just started making shit up. Like we have evidence they were trying to cover up things about Norse culture they didn’t like. So men who practiced seiðr were actually ergi and not a different gender, just an unmanly male. 

So yeah lol these were acts they did so verbs can be found really easily. But we have mostly Icelandic stuff cause Christians they did fucked up shit 

--

And the Vikings in the Middle East. They went all over. We have this assumption they were raiding whenever they went. Actually, the thing is they only raided northern Europe because they rightfully assumed those guys couldn’t fight back. 

But they had trading agreements easily with the Greeks, Persians, and Abbassids mostly. There is a woman from Sweden who was buried with a ring that was inscribed with “For/To Allah”

The Arabs had the term Rusiyyah to describe the Vikings because they came so often. They noted that the Rusiyyah were not good at practicing hygiene but also describe their bodies as being “in perfect form” They liked a good ripped viking and I can appreciate that. They were like “they’re filthy but damn are those rusiyyah built” 

Baghdad had the first real market place and they had paper from China so they were printing stuff into books which the Vikings found very interesting. There was so much international trade but the British and Germans who we mostly hear from now were so technologically unadvanced there was no way they could have participated with these other older cultures. 

There is money found sometimes that was certainly viking in nature. They didn’t really have money like the Arabs at the time preferring to trade in goods. So they offered furs and silks along with weapons and slaves. 

And it is possible that there was culture exchange as all cultures were being exchanged back then. We know some vikings converted to Islam as Arab writers commented that they missed pork dearly but were committed to the Path of Islam. 

The Slavs or Rus (Russians) of the time were also annoyed with these viking raiders because their shit would get stolen and then sold to Arabia where they’d have to buy it back usually. 

So yeah lots of trading going on. And many Vikings like I mentioned worked as bodyguards or mercenaries. We don’t know much of what the Vikings thought except that the writers in Arab noted they were very polite to their hosts if not aggressive with each other in a playful manner. 

Lol you really let my nerd pop off here. I’d have to do more research into the Norse effect on the Middle East though cause I only know about the other way around off the top of my head here. 

[princeescaluswords]

Black-and-White Whatever

Peter: Oh, come on. How much damage can they do? So they off a few homeless people, a drunk stumbling out of a bar too late. So what? Let Scott deal with it. Let him be the hero of his morally black and white world. The real survivors, you and I, we live in shades of gray. Then again, even if you did kill them, you're still an Alpha. You can always make more werewolves.

Just to remind you that in this scene in Fireflies (3x03), Peter Hale says this while his nephew is trying to corral his beta, Boyd, and his sister, Cora, who have been driven moon-mad by the Alpha Pack.  Peter suggests killing them, which is what Deucalion wants to happen, or letting Boyd and Cora, out of their minds, kill any innocent people they come across.

And yet, his criticism of Scott has echoed across the fandom for years.  Peter’s self-serving appeal to Derek has become the fundamental attack against Scott McCall’s character arc.  (And it is self-serving.  Notice in the above passage how it turns out to be a subtle defense of Peter killing innocent people along with the guilty in season one and how he justifies it as survival.)  

And it is just as racist as the themes of Stiles is Always Right and Derek Deserves Nice Things, because all three of them are about the same thing: the entitlement of good-looking white males and the necessity of minority characters knowing their place.  

Peter’s argument, as Peter’s argument almost always are, was designed to get him what he wants as much as they are dishonest and insincere.  The audience knows, if they paid attention to the show at all, that Scott doesn’t devolve into black-and-white thinking.   I mean, would someone who refuses to cross the line into ‘shades of gray’ do the following things?

plan to kill Peter to cure his lycanthropy.

rescue Derek after Derek betrayed him to Peter and tried to kill Jackson

work with Derek after Derek abused him in Ice Pick (2x03)

deceive Derek by joining his pack

deceive Gerard by feeding him scant information (”You haven’t been answering your phone”) and poisoning him

try to reach an accord with a mass murdering cult leader like Deucalion

agree to join Deucalion’s pack to save his and Stiles’s parents

call on Peter to help Stiles during his possession

conspire with Chris Argent against his own father

conspire with Deucalion to stop Theo from getting the Beast’s powers

ask Peter for help and endure his annoying and pedantic lectures

try to reach an accord with Gerard and Monroe

Any one of those actions puts the lie to the idea that Scott won’t cross his own arbitrary moral boundaries.  I’m sure you can think of others, but Scott eschews black-and-white thinking throughout the show when it is necessary to save lives.   It’s actually one of Scott’s strengths in the story -- his ability to put other’s lives above his own wants and needs, including his desire not to have the power and responsibility thrust on him.

Then where does this criticism come from and why is it racist?  Because its always used to defend white male characters and argue that the story should be theirs.

They see this fallacy in Scott refusing to condone Peter’s killing spree in Season 1 or fighting against Derek’s recruitment of child soldiers and kill-them-first thinking in Season 2 or believing that Stiles would be capable of murder in Season 5.  White men have the privilege to ignore morality when it suits them, and so if Scott considers himself better than Peter, it is unforgivable.  White men should be in charge, so when he resists Peter’s and Derek’s attempts to compel and control him, it is stubornness or obsession.  That he opposes Derek’s attempt to murder his way out of the mess he created in Season 2 must be stupidity.  That Scott could possibly (and finally) think he can hold Stiles accountable for his behavior in Season 5 is tyranny.

Look at it this way -- very few people in the fandom (except me) hold it against Derek that he tried to murder Lydia, because he believed that she was the murderous kanima.   It would have been the slaughter of an innocent girl performed by other children at Derek’s orders, but he was doing it for the greater good.   Yet, when Scott tells Stiles to go talk to his dad, the chief law-enforcement officer in the city, about the manslaughter that Scott thinks Stiles performed, it’s ... well, you know fandom’s reaction.   Who, to them, is entitled to think in terms of moral necessity?   Not the Latino.

And, to be sure, it’s not just this minority character.   It’s perfectly okay when the Sheriff is willing to risk exposing the supernatural world for his shifting dedication to the law.   It’s perfectly okay for Stiles to despise Peter for the entire show and decide if Malia gets to know the identity of her biological father.   Yet it’s not okay for Alan Deaton to act according to his own concept of right and wrong and his own code of behavior.  It’s not okay for Mason to hold what Theo did against him.

Women, too, get it in the end.  Compare how the fandom treats Derek, Peter, Argent, and Theo compared to how they treat Jennifer, Monroe, Allison, and Meredith.  Black-and-white thinking -- the reduction of people to good or bad with no empathy for necessity, trauma, or history -- is rightfully considered a bad thing, but fandom’s more than willing to use it to dismiss a character like Braeden because she’s a mercenary as they are to infantilize Isaac because he’s a hot white dude.  Isaac was willing to kill Lydia because she turned him down for a date but ... he’s baby.

This black-and-white-world criticism isn’t really being applied as a sincere criticism of Scott.  It’s echoing a single solitary quote from Peter, a character whose very nature is repeatedly described as unreliable and manipulative, in order to undercut Scott’s position as hero protagonist.   

BUT IT’S NOT RACISM.

[sheena-isa-punkrocker]

Errementari: Sartael/Demons HCs

yoooooooooooo i’m 3 yrs late to this movie but im obsessed and lets do thiiiis~

these are hcs i made about sartael and all other demons in this movie

firstly, the amount of demons in hell are as innumerable as the amount of human souls are in there 

since hell is divided into categories (think dante’s inferno) this means that there are different demons for each punishment 

there are also more..... bureaucratic parts of hell (its a vast place) and there are demons for those jobs too

tbh all the demons know each other

they’ve spent centuries in hell since the dawn of time, everyone knows everyone let the gossip commence

there’s also a hierarchy of demons

like low level demons are basically the run of the mill ones that go out and tempt ppl by making deals but also the ones who execute the punishments 

sartael is a low level demon lol

the bigger demons like alastor are the higher ranking demons, they usually are in a position to tell lower demons what to do and carry out orders from the big man downstairs 

there’s more than one way to enter hell than through the fiery gates and yes some of them u can enter and leave without consequence

now lets get into the demons that tempt humans

to demons, humans have their own scent. one demon can smell a small village from miles away

if a demon spends time with a human, they learn that human’s individual scent

although demons are immortal they CAN feel pain like anyone else

most injuries don’t last long though and heal quickly

however some are permanent (i.e. sartael’s broken horn poor bb)

burns are the fastest to heal tho

since they basically live in the fiery pits of hell, burns are like nothing to them

demons can shapeshift obv since they are supposed to trick humans

however they are not supposed to reveal their true identity until the last moment when they are taking the human’s soul to hell

blessed bells hurt their ears considerably, we know this from the movie

to them it’s a horrible screeching sound that they hear

can’t step foot in a church due to it being holy grounds

blessed items in general make their skin sting 

they have an aversion to images of christ or anything holy related

it’s hard to explain... it doesn’t hurt them necessarily but they have an extreme dislike of it like a biological hate

if you had to label them, on the whole demons are pansexual (can have preferences tho!)

since they are demons, they tend to look down on humans since they are a different species and they don’t understand why they are so fickle about orientation

since its their job to tempt humans, they are not above sleeping with same sex when they are in their human form

they are also confused by women being seen as weaker than men and patriarchy as a whole in many human societies

demons have seen so many human souls, male and female, young and old do horrible things that they don’t consider one gender weaker or stronger than the other, everyone’s shitty

 demons have an innate inclination for causing suffering to humans

this can range from little mischievous antics to the upmost cruel acts

its just within their nature

however they are also capable of experiencing emotions such as love, sadness, anguish, etc

 so yes they can experience real relationships if they want to however who has the time when ur supposed to tempt souls all day?

who wants to befriend a human anyway??

there are some demons who have fled hell to stay in the human world, this is against protocol and other demons are sent to bring them back eventually

okay so that was more about demons than sartael specifically BUT i will be making MORE hcs in the future for this movie stay tuned~

also let me know if u want any specific hcs???

[ardenttheories]

The bulge-nook standard is fanon; in HS proper "nook" seems to mean "ass", not vag, if anything, "bone bulge" only seems to be used as profanity rather than legit discussion of body parts, and there is no implication of tentacles of any sort. That aside, let's assume trolls do have dimorphism which would make transition meaningful; why would they be allowed to? Why would breaking that part of your assigned birth role be even semi-okay when caste roles are enforced by torture and death?

I responded to the nook/bulge thing already - though I’ll just mention this here again: 

Hussie absolutely sucked at using any of these words in any way that wasn’t insulting/joking, and also failed at using them coherently (sometimes referring to nook as interchangeable with ass or as its own thing, and even using bone bulge in one instance to mean skull). It’s clear that there’s something there, but that Hussie never thought it through beyond what he was implying - so naturally fanon came in and cleared it all up because Hussie had an entire canon he could do things with and then just did not. I think there is reason for the prehensile dick thing, but I don’t specifically remember what - and admittedly I don’t want to search through the entirety of Homestuck to figure out whether or not trolls implied they have wiggly dicks. I already did that once to figure out how frog breeding worked. It was not fun.

Onto the part about sexual dimorphism - honestly, the only way that I can finangle it is that trolls care more about castes than about gender? That gender has so little influence on their actual society compared to the strict division between blood that you can quite easily get away with transitioning pretty much no questions asked - especially since even Sollux, a lowblood, was able to transition without issue. 

If it wasn’t for Sollux, I’d probably say that it’s something only highbloods can get away with, and that they can only do so because HIC isn’t there to impose her strict rule - but then, surely highbloods would use a transitioning lowblood to enact their violence upon if it was really that much of a strict rule in their society? Why would Sollux be able to get away with the act of transitioning when even Eridan faces transphobia from his lusus for identifying as nonbinary?

This is part of the problem that comes with writing what was clearly set up to be a species without sexual dimorphism, but without making it entirely clear or deadset; there’s just things that don’t make sense even when you DO put it into a sexually dimorphised content. Alternia just isn’t built around a care for gender or for assigned sex. Its entire focus is on blood; it’s what they use to suppress lowbloods, and it’s what they use to create a natural order of things. 

Like, what importance does assigned sex have on Alternia? Well, as far as we can tell, next to nothing; though HIC is the woman in power, it’s never suggested that there’s an inherent matriarchy; it’s a fuchsiarchy. It’s because she’s fuchsia, not a woman, that makes her ruler. All of her closest in power have been men; GHB, the leader of an entire religion, and Dualscar, one of the top Orphaners in the world. So it’s not even as if we can suggest that only women can attain power on Alternia, because the truth is that they’re just as likely as the men to be stuck in specific positions based on their blood.

In terms of physical strength, too, there’s more of a bloodcaste divide than a male-female divide. Vriska outright states that highbloods are made of “stronger stuff” than lowbloods - that they can take more damage before they go down - and Equius’ physical strength, though considered a mutation, isn’t inherently because he’s male, since we know that Sollux, Tavros, and Karkat are weaker than even Gamzee. We’ve also seen Kanaya exhibit incredible feats of strength, though again, that’s not because she’s female so much as because she’s a rainbowdrinker. 

There’s not even an inherent divide on the basis of jobs; female rustbloods are just as likely to be sweeping floors as male rustbloods. And this doesn’t even go into the fact that we’ve seen nonbinary trolls in Friendsim who never really mention gendered issues - which is incredibly easy to forget, honestly - both highblood and lowblood. Like, even under Trizza’s reign - which is MUCH more brutal than Feferi’s - there’s no discrimination based on gender identity. 

So what exactly is the issue with being trans on Alternia? The fact of the matter is... there isn’t one. Everything we see of them points to bloodcaste being the biggest societal issue and the biggest biological factor used to suppress Alternians, not gender - and we’ve seen time and time again that gender identity isn’t really questioned on Alternia, either. So, even if the trolls were sexually dimorphised and could transition, they wouldn’t face anything like the experiences and transphobia humans do; it’s just not an inherent factor of their society. Hell, it might actively confuse them more than anything else. But this is completely disregarding that everything above points to a society that would put more emphasis on a gender structure based around the class system - something I’m going to go into on another post. 

Again, it’s one of those things where you can just tell that it’s a cis man’s take on society, because he genuinely couldn’t think of how society would work without a gendered structure. Well, now he’s got a gendered structure on something that doesn’t need one, and trying to figure out how trans issues have any impact on that society is almost impossible to rationalise without eventually realising that the society very likely would not care.