#she is not just an allegorical trans person she is also just trans . that’s important too
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
frogatz · 11 months ago
Text
shirley transgender 🫶
2 notes · View notes
scarlet--wiccan · 11 months ago
Note
Wednesday spoilers incoming but for some reason it’s so funny to me that you answered an ask about Emma being trans (real and true) and two weeks later she comes out as sapiosexual (good for her regardless)
Also trans mystique in the mean time (I mean they didn’t say it exactly but I think it’s undeniable now that mystique isn’t a traditionally cisgender woman)
I'm not going to dignify the idea of "coming out as sapiosexual" with a response.
Characters who exist outside of both biological sex and socially constructed gender are a great way to explore the expansiveness of gender and sexuality, and can provide really profound allegorical representations of LGBT experiences. I think this scene was really beautiful and it resonated a lot with my own philosophy, not just as a trans person, but as a trans person who occupies multiple intersecting positions of oppression.
Tumblr media Tumblr media
That said, characters like Mystique-- who states very clearly that she exists outside of human sex and gender-- fundamentally cannot represent actual trans identities, trans embodiment, or real-world trans experiences. Raven is an important, interesting and valuable character, and this chapter in her history absolutely deserves a place of honor in the LGBT comics canon-- but she is neither trans nor genderfluid in any way that reflects real trans people. To me!
"Not a traditionally cisgender woman" is also a meaningless phrase, and it doesn't do Raven justice, either. Love and light, though, I mean, at the end of the day we're all happy about this new angle on her character/backstory.
19 notes · View notes
alvoskia · 2 years ago
Text
Welcome!
FAQ:
1) What is Alvoskia?
Pitched as TDP x ATLA x Six of Crows, Alvoskia is the over arching name for the planned series. In-universe, it’s a fictional country in the West of Vita’s Land, ruled by a democratic monarchy and boasting variety of kingdoms and independent states. It is very socialist in its structure and shares its borders with just about every other people, including elves, wolf-human shapeshifters, giants, and their primary rival / long time enemy, Kilvoskia, the two countries largely splitting the continent in two. It is, therefore, also the main setting, loosely, for most of the book(s).
2) What is an Infran?
One of eight reincarnated protectors, each bound to their own cycle and with their own unique power set consisting of 3-4 abilities. The Infrans are as follows: Life, Death, Water, the Moon, Fire, Knowledge, Time, and Blood. Their abilities include but are not limited to shapeshifting, elemental manipulation, death and shadow magic, dream sharing, telekinesis, and healing.
3) Who are the main characters?
All of the main core cast (seven in total) are important, but the main protagonist throughout is Ally, a resourceful if insecure Infran of Life who has lost access to her abilities and is trying to get them back (an ‘unchosen’ one if you will). The other two leads of the first book is her twin sister Jamie, the Infran of Death and an asshole with a heart of gold (think if Kaz and Inej from Six of Crows were one person) and their mutual friend, Flames, a prodigal Infran of Fire with an equally sunny personality and a dark past to run from. Things take a turn when Alvoskia is threatened with war/invasion, but with hope that the peace treaty can still be renewed.
4) What inspired the premise?
A lot of things, but growing up as a very ATLA obsessed kid, I always wondered how people in the Avatar-verse knew that the Avatar would, without a doubt, be a good person, as well was what it would be like if there was more than one Avatar running around, and they could disagree with each other. Thus, Infrans was born with a strong mythic foundation as well as a desire to subvert typical fantasy tropes over how certain tropes like elves, dragons, unicorns, and indeed chosen ones, are typically portrayed. 
5) Themes?
A focus on the complications of friendship (jealousy, resentment, trauma, found family), religion (religious trauma and reclamation, chosen one status), war (what is worth fighting for vs knowing when to yield), and trauma (acceptance, grief, healing). 
6) Representation?
Everyone in the main cast is a person of colour except for Bill, the resident healer. Everyone in the main cast is canonically queer (featuring bi-ace, bi, pan, genderfluid / nb, trans, aspec characters) except for Isuri, who I picture as cishet but can honestly easily be read as arospec. She is Islamic coded as well and wears a hijab equivalent. Ally’s journey with her abilities is allegorical for growing up ND in a lot of ways; she and Jamie belong to an in-universe minority religion somewhat reminiscent of Yazidism. Flames is canonically Autistic and uses both she/her and he/him. One of their main instructors is an amputee and more characters become disabled over the course of the series.
7) Triggers?
TW: death, some mild gore and blood, mentions of abuse and indoctrination, body horror, and very minimal mentions of animal abuse/death. If you read The Hunger Games or Six of Crows, you’re probably good here. There are is no SA, racism, homo/transphobia, or religious discrimination, although the series does touch on xenophobia sometimes (think TDP). 
8) Where am I publishing wise?
In late March 2023, I received an offer of publication from an indie press I had queried the previous year. I have accepted this offer as of September 2023 and signed paperwork as of October 2023, with an expected March 2026 release date. More details will follow and some of the journey will be blogged about here under “dragons’ publishing adventures”!
Thank you for checking out this blog, reading this post, and potentially following this blog. I’ll probably post here a few times a week with word counts for revisions I’m making in my own time, playlists, some edits/moodboards, and small snippets of writing. I’m still working on the characters page but the ‘about’ and ‘writing’ is done for now. Feel free to send in any questions or DMs, I would love to hear your thoughts!
25 notes · View notes
herawell · 2 years ago
Text
#yeahhh i feel all of this very much too#i won't get into details here because you're not very far into the show but there's a lot of stuff i think you'll like#+ i would be happy to talk about it with you later if you want#i have a lot of personal thoughts about hera and embodiment and how much it's about ABILITY (and safety) even more than self image#like i have thoughts about hera as a trans character and even in that context it's so intertwined with. autonomy and her ability#to make choices for herself to do things for herself. and to actually. have the importance of that recognized because#people don't really understand how much she has to work for things that other people get to take for granted#all the small things she doesn't get to have or experience add up and it's a hollow and alienating and embarrassing thing#there's something to be said about. disability and how much more feels like it's riding on your ability to be productive or useful or ...#and her particular experience with physical loneliness and isolation and like... the humiliation of lacking experience or ability#that everyone else around you has...#how it's isolating to have people call attention to your differences when it's not relevant but equally#it's isolating when people forget you can't do the things they can do. or it isn't safe for you. eiffel forgets sometimes but his attempts#to accommodate hera mean a lot. he stands up for her but he always backs off and lets her speak/act for herself when she asks him to.#and that he's the one person who always. wants to be around her and values her even if she doesn't have anything 'productive' to offer.#just the fact that she is always in some level in pain and there's never been a day of her life where she wasn't worried about her survival#and the most she gets to really offset that. the 'best' sensation she really gets. is relief. from the perspective of chronic pain... augh.#also this is a big part of why i find hera's particular situation as an AI... not necessarily allegorical but less speculative#than other takes on AI characters#because so much of what she experiences is like. this isn't hypothetical. real people experience that. i experience that.
i have so many disabled feelings about hera
366 notes · View notes
tenderqueso · 3 years ago
Text
oh i could totally post on here about how mettaton's experience as a stealth trans person is represented hehe
(excuse my inability to cite sources. source for everything is dude trust me. i know this game quite well except i don't remember when all the stuff got said. but if something seems wrong please correct me)
like, first of all, i'm a big fan of characters who are allegorically trans but also just literally trans. mettaton's pronouns change from they/them to he/him when he starts living as a robot. and it's not that they/them pronouns are just "placeholders" for the ghosts who haven't found their vessel yet; napstablook uses they/them and shows no desire to become corporeal, seems content (aside from their typical gloominess) with their life as a ghost, and could even be considered "cis" in ghost terms. being a genderless ghost who uses they/them pronouns is a valid identity in its own right. so mettaton (along with fellow trans icon mew mew) has canonically transitioned from one gendered identity to another.
but while i think mettaton's literal transness is great, the way his backstory is explored in the game focuses more on the allegorical side, so i will focus on that too.
so the official story is that mettaton is a robot with a soul, with alphys having created mettaton's soul herself. this is what impresses asgore so much that he gives alphys the royal scientist job and tasks her with the most important soul-related job there there is, eventually entrusting her with the souls of fallen-down monsters.
so one of alphys's big lies is that she created mettaton's soul, when she really "only" made a robot body for a soul that already existed. what she did was still pretty impressive, but because she allowed everyone to believe that she had so much expertise with souls, she was put in a job she was unqualified for and ended up harming a lot of people.
now, mettaton obviously cares about alphys. otherwise, why would he play along with her plans to "guide" frisk for so long, even when it bores him and starts causing him to lose viewers? however, he isn't exactly known for being selfless, and he justifiably feels used by her. after all, she's been avoiding finishing his body to keep him dependent on her, and then she recruits him to play the villain against frisk to make herself look good. so why does it seemingly never occur to him to expose her original lie instead of letting her continue to take credit for his entire existence?
it's because it benefits him! it was probably even his idea. mettaton has chosen to be totally stealth, leading everyone to believe he was literally "born" as a robot, the same way stealth trans people lead others to believe they were assigned their preferred gender at birth. if this weren't something mettaton had chosen himself, he absolutely would have exposed alphys for it at some point. furthermore, this is one lie alphys never confesses to when confronting her guilt in a true pacifist ending, suggesting she feels justified in continuing it.
one detail of mettaton's cover story i think is interesting is that when you first meet alphys, she says mettaton was originally an entertainment robot, and that he had anti-human combat features built in later to make him more "useful," so he was only dangerous to frisk because she did an oopsie. this makes sense based on the fact that mettaton was only interested in entertainment all along. but he does have his neo form, and just before he transforms into it before a no mercy fight, he says that any true fan knows that his original purpose was to eradicate humans. so alphys would have actually been telling the truth as part of her own charade to make herself look better to frisk, but otherwise, she and mettaton have apparently told everyone the opposite story. and this aligns with alphys's desire to impress asgore, since he would have been more interested in an unstoppable killing machine with a thirst for human blood than a TV personality. this just serves to hide mettaton's background even more.
we can see the extent of how seriously both of them take protecting mettaton's identity when fighting him. if you fight and kill mettaton, even as he's dying, he says that it's okay because alphys can just repair him. when alphys rushes in and finds him destroyed, she becomes emotional, but then she seems to catch herself and says that it's okay because she can just build another robot, leaving out the possibility of repairing him altogether. of course, alphys knows she can't just replace him since she didn't create his soul, and she's ultimately unable to cope with this (see: every neutral ending where mettaton is killed). but when she first discovers his death, her immediate reaction is to suppress her emotions in order to protect his secret.
many trans people, in the present day and throughout history, have been concerned about the possibility of being outed or misgendered after they die, despite having lived as stealth up until then. some stealth trans people express their wishes about this specific scenario to their loved ones. it's likely mettaton would have explicitly told alphys not to reveal his previous identity even after he was gone. and so alphys, number one trans ally that she is, understands and respects mettaton's desire not to be outed at any time.
another element of mettaton being stealth is his relationship with napstablook. the two of them used to be very close, and mettaton regretted leaving them behind. it's not clarified whether mettaton ever told blooky about his plans before he left. it's possible he didn't because he wanted to make a clean break with his old life, something that's not unheard of among trans people. the other option (and the one i'm more inclined to believe) is that he did tell them, and they've been guarding his secret as well, just allowing everyone else to believe their cousin mysteriously disappeared one day. it's not outright stated that blooky knows who mettaton is, but his show is the only one they watch, and they give him quite a sentimental phone call when he says he's leaving the underground, despite them not seeming like the type of person who loves phone calls. mettaton apparently feels that associating himself with napstablook gives away too much about his past, and he struggles to pretend he doesn't know them on the phone, only stopping himself after he's started to say their nickname. and of course, they reunite in the true pacifist ending, without either of them revealing how they know each other. this conflict over whether to sacrifice a close relationship in order to remain stealth is another one trans people often experience.
on another note, i do also appreciate that neither undyne nor papyrus can recall mettaton's "deadname." (haha get it because he was a ghost...) the fact that his previous name was something he wanted to leave behind is also treated seriously by the narrative and i like that. it definitely lends validity to his story as a trans allegory.
basically i just really appreciate how even the allegorical piece of mettaton's transness is an authentic representation of a specific trans experience, rather than just being a basic "he wanted to have a different body... just as if he were trans gender... whoa..". one of the cool things about undertale (and deltarune) is the detail that goes into making these fantasy scenarios reflect their real-world analogues. another one i suspect we'll see more of in future deltarune chapters is kris's family situation as both an allegory for and a literal in-world example of transracial adoption, though that's not something i can speak on in detail myself.
in conclusion, trans rights for mettaton and everybody else, may we all find an alphys to build us a sweet robotic form we can transform into at will
9 notes · View notes
brokedex · 3 years ago
Note
🎥💕💔🏳‍🌈💎📌!! go wild boss
YESSSS thank you for asking!!!
(all of these are answered under the read more for my current hyperfixation, reanimator)
🎥 do you have any favorite scenes from your hyperfixation?
one of my favorite scenes from the first one is when herbert and dan fight rufus in the basement. the swinging light was such a sick choice and the sound design/acting with the rufus puppet makes it so frantic and suspenseful!!
💕 tell us about one of your favorite characters and why you like them!
the titular bride of reanimator!!! gloria my beloved!!!!! she's such a tragic character and I wish she got more screentime. she's very much a return to the frankenstein influence with her similarities to the original creature: someone stitched together from parts who shoulders their creator's high expectations of a person before they're even born!!! neither creator is prepared to accept them as a full person with their own desires and agency and just forces them into a box (the "perfect human" or "perfect lover") then immediately rejects them for not meeting those unrealistic expectations. their violence and anger are results of being born into a world unprepared to accept them. this aspect of their characters also makes them kinda trans-coded to me as well.
on a thematic sense I interpret her as a sort of twisted telephone game of what herbert assumes dan would like in a woman. we've joked about it in the necroprancer fan club (reanimator) server a lot, with herbert panicking: "what women do men like?? ballerinas??? virgins?? LAWYERS??" she's also the deviant yet more desired counterpart to francesca, as francesca is an emotional replacement for meg but gloria is the literal physical replacement with meg's heart!! there's also the subtext of her being the allegorical "marriage-saving child" for herbert and dan. love divorce-coded mad science experiments! all of these expectations are so much for her to bear and I wish she could be allowed to exist as an independent person, but I think her tearing herself apart is still a fitting ending.
I could talk about this for a million years, mad scientists' creations make me cryyyy
💔 tell us about one of your LEAST favorite characters and why you dislike them.
I don't like lieutenant chapman from bride at all. apart from textually being an abuser cop, I don't think he added much to the movie. the acting also felt kinda weird, I feel like he was doing a sort of deadpan performance for most of it, I guess to make him a sort of dr. hill 2? it didn't work for me. I know he acts as an external force acting on dan and herbert to make their lives and building gloria harder, but I feel like he and hill coming back just filled very similar roles and took away time that could be used for better character/main story development. I don't really know why they felt the need to add one villain let alone TWO to bride when they could have had a more compelling story if they just focused on the characters' relationships!
🏳️‍🌈 do you have any headcanons (lgbt, race, neuro, etc) that are important to you?
ohohohoho!!!!! yes! my strongest and most self-projecting hc is herbert being gay and trans because. just look at him. he's also very adhd/autistic to me and I relate to how he approaches social situations and his interests a lot!!
💎 are there any fun facts or trivia that you would like to share?
yes! I'm sorry if you've ever watched either movie with me because I can't stop reciting the trivia. I'll give you a few facts:
• during the shovel scene, the second time herbert stabs hill with the shovel you can clearly see someone using a cup to throw blood on him from the bottom right
• there was originally a subplot where dr. hill could hypnotize people, and though the explanation was cut he seems to hypnotize herbert, meg, dean halsey, and all the morgue zombies anyway
• in the scene where herbert kills the first morgue zombie (played by arnold schwarzenegger's stunt double) with a bone saw, the effect was done by positioning the actor's head above a fake chest and putting hamburger meat on the emerging saw 
📌 how did you find your hyperfixation?
at the beginning of june a few of my friends were getting into it and it seemed right up my alley!! I was also getting into 80s horror as a whole at that time and had just watched the evil dead so I needed more buckets-of-blood popular-with-gays weirdass movies
2 notes · View notes
direquail · 5 years ago
Text
An NB reading of Grace in Terminator: Dark Fate
Disclaimer:
Before I start, just want to get this out here: I’m in no way insisting that Grace *has* to be non-binary, that we’re *supposed* to read her as non-binary, or that that’s in any way what she’s “meant to be”. This is just some stuff I’ve noticed that, as someone who sits on the genderqueer/non-binary/transmasc side of things, really resonated with me. Again--read her as entirely woman-identified if that’s what you want to do or feels right to you. I am ecstatic that lesbians and wlw-identified folks have someone that they feel represented in, too. I wish I’d had more characters like her when I was growing up and felt so out of place because of my gender non-conformity. 

But I, for one, would love a non-binary or even trans reading of Grace.
So what I’d like to do instead is just lay out a couple ways someone who is NB-identified *might* connect with Grace as a nonbinary character. Starting with the obvious.
Androgyny Now, I do want to be clear that I know that gender presentation =\= gender identity. And again, obviously, people will latch onto things that they relate to in characters, and I really do believe that there’s no “one right way” to read a character. The character of Grace isn’t a real person; she’s part of a story, told by people, who had something specific to say, and her character reflects that. But from the perspective of the people who watch her, who internalize and connect with her character, there can be points of connection that have nothing to do with the author’s/creator’s intent, and so, Grace-the-character can be many things to many people. The only real way to know how a person IDs is to ask them. That’s it, that’s all. You can’t assume. But also, sometimes, people do “ping” a certain way. They give off a sort of “energy”, and for me, Grace’s energy isn’t the sort of “diaphanous femininity” that even visibly-gender-nonconforming AFAB characters are often framed to exude. Grace’s energy isn’t masculine, either. Her mannerisms don’t seem intended to read that way; rather, they seem intended to read as soldier. I’m not very skilled at breaking down movements, especially when it comes to how actors move and what it all means. It’s totally possible that a lot of what’s unique about how Grace moves is because Mackenzie Davis is, self-admittedly, not the most athletically-inclined person. Grace is long-limbed and rangy and sometimes very stiff/poised, but never stiff through the hips like a Straight Dude(TM), or heavy through the shoulders like a musclebound meathead. She takes up space, too; she’s taller than Dani and Sarah both, and the only recurring characters who are “bigger” than her throughout most of the film are Carl and the Rev-9.
To be clear: Women can be tall, and rangy, and androgynous, and take up space, and that doesn’t make them less women--unless they don’t identify that way. My point with all of the above is just observing that Grace doesn’t move like a “male action hero”—but she also doesn’t seem over-the-top feminine in the way that mainstream-y media will “compensate” for perceived unfemininity, and that’s kind of wonderful. Her stature, her physique, all of that, seem to be chosen and calibrated towards an end goal that isn’t gendered: Combat, efficacy as a warrior. Whether you want to read her as a woman or as nonbinary is largely going to be about your personal preference. This also has the effect of giving the impression that Grace is absolutely unselfconscious about her body and how it looks—and she has no reason to be, not because she looks good or bad, but because what she can do with her body is just so vastly more important, and because she’s so willing to put her body and everything it can do on the line in order to fulfill her mission (and protect Dani). If Grace has a gender, it’d be “Protector” or “Warrior”. And in a way, what makes Grace so appealing to female-identified lesbians is the same thing that makes her appealing to NB people—Her character was explicitly designed not to cater to “the male gaze”, and therefore, she also exists outside the typical gendered confines reserved for “female characters” in media. The emphasis is just slightly different: Instead of a different way of being female, NB!Grace has little to no use for those categories at all. Again, it’s all in how you want to read her. Grace comes from a future where survival and fighting take first priority, and you could project the same tired “Gender isn’t a ~problem~ in the future/after the world ends” approach that a lot of cis and hetero men take to sci-fi--but also, why? It’s tired. Give me a Grace who is preoccupied with survival, yes, who maybe doesn’t have time to think too much about this gender shit--but also, a Grace who finds that this “androgyny” (although she might not call it that) suits her, who takes to this way of moving and being in the world, this way of using her body, and identifies more with that than with being a “man” or a “woman”. 

(Sidenote: as someone who took a fair amount of Queer Studies classes, it does irk me a bit that discussions of mainstream-y speculative media seem permanently suspended between this sort of “genderblind” futurism where “identities” just don’t exist because they’re apparently not needed anymore, or copy-pasting our contemporary discourses about identity into a future that is materially very different than ours. The point of these identities is, in part, to describe our experiences, the good as well as the bad, and those experiences of gender and sexuality don’t exist in a vacuum. So, the words we use will necessarily change to accommodate that—especially in the post-apocalypse. BUT, everything that comes after us will also bear the stamp of what came before it; it’s just a matter of what the creator means to emphasize.) Augments & Body Mods This is a little dicey, because there’s some clear tension in the movie between the idea of robots = inhuman/unfeeling = bad, and humans = good/feeling. And in that light, it’s potentially problematic to (even incidentally) imply that nonbinary/gender-nonconforming = not human.
But I’d like to point out that the film does deliberately challenge any neat separation of “human” and “machine” with Carl’s evolution as a person. 
And based on what I’ve read from James Cameron and Tim Miller interviews, there is some “blurring” intended between human and machine in the franchise.
In fact, Carl and Grace are foils for each other, somewhat, in the sense that they’re on opposite ends of a spectrum where human and machine become blurred, and I love that. As a genderqueer person with a very fluid experience, it appeals to me on a deep level because you could spend literally forever breaking down where does one “gender” end and another begin--emotionally, socially, spiritually, and physically.  

So the fact that there’s (1) no hard binary between human and machine (it’s explicitly subverted), and (2) we’re given multiple points of inflection, especially if you count Sarah and the Rev-9--alleviates a lot of the tension I’d feel otherwise in mentioning this. But I don’t think this is something that should be allegorical or a direct comparison; I think that it operates best on a metaphorical or theoretical level. 

And just, it’s the whole vaguely-cyberpunk idea of modifying your own body, not in a mass-produced or manufactured sense, but in this organic and highly individual sense, born out of contingency and necessity, that makes Grace’s Augments so meaningful. It’s one of the things that makes her read as human, too, because it feels more in line with our tendency to stick ink, steel, bone, what have you, through our skins whenever we get the chance--as opposed to some kind of symbolic dehumanization by “becoming a machine”.
Grace routinely refuses to categorize herself in anything other than the most general terms, or explain the details of her Augments, and she seems very protective of them. Rather than seeming ashamed, this refusal reads a lot like the popular queer identity explanation “not gay as in happy, but queer as in “fuck you’”. Her Augments are part of her, and part of her humanity; she volunteered for them, she owns them, and is even protective of them, viewing CBP’s invasive examination of her Augments as a kind of violation of her bodily autonomy. They’re clearly complicated for her, but they’re anything but depersonalized.
And going even further, the reason why she volunteered for them is so that she can defend humanity--and also someone she loves (Dani). They’re an extension of her sense of family, loyalty, love, and willingness to sacrifice.
And I don’t know for sure, but I imagine that Grace is basically one-of-a-kind, even among other Augments, if only because those Augmentations seem to be performed with the tech that’s on hand--salvaged Legion tech, by the sound of it, at least to start with. So the outcome depends on the parts available, the complexity and maturity of the Augmentation technology and process, and the skill & experience of the surgeons, all of which would vary over time. 

And honestly? If that doesn’t qualify as “beyond the binary”, I don’t know what does.
Some other general observations:
- Grace’s short hair is a constant throughout the post-Judgement Day scenes. As someone who started wearing their hair short as a preteen and hasn’t had hair to my shoulders since age 12, that does seem significant.
- Grace only introduces herself by name after Diego shouts “HEY LADY” in the factory before dropping an engine block on the Rev-9. Granted, most women don’t like to be addressed as “HEY LADY”, either, but it stood out to me, especially because she refused to give her name only a couple of minutes before that. Either way you read it, the line feels like it expresses some level of discomfort with or objection to that gendered statement. Maybe she finds that particular reference annoying or even offensive, but also, maybe she doesn’t really identify as a woman. She’s just... Grace.
- there were multiple times I mistook the back of her tank top for the back of a binder, even though she clearly was not binding.
- she constantly steals mens’ clothes--partly because she’s too tall for a lot of womens’ clothes around her, partly out of utility (like at the factory and CBP, where a lot of the guards are men). But also, it pleases the genderfucking queer in me quite a bit. And, I should note, when she had the option to take a female guard’s clothes at the CBP facility... she didn’t.
But ultimately, when I look at Grace, I see someone whose gender is “Warrior” or “Soldier”. And it’s so wonderful to see that so purely represented on a character we’re meant to perceive as female. So, please believe me when I say I don’t want to “take away” what Grace means for other people. 
And, for the record, I do mostly default to using she/her pronouns for Grace, because that’s how she’s canonically referred to. But just for fun--try this on for size: Using “they/them” pronouns for Grace. They (Grace) came back in time to protect Dani. It rolls off the tongue, right? It feels nice. Let’s re-try a couple of sentences from above: 

- “multiple times I mistook the back of their tank top for the back of a binder, even though they clearly weren’t binding” 

- “Grace’s Augments are about their ability to be a soldier. They were Augmented in order to hunt Terminators... Everything else is secondary to that, and their mission to protect Dani”
- “Grace only introduces themself by name after Diego shouts “HEY LADY” in the factory before dropping an engine block on the Rev-9 ... Maybe they find that particular reference annoying or even offensive, but also, maybe they don’t really identify as a woman. They’re just... Grace.”
And finally: 

Can you imagine the poor sod who tried to make fun of Grace for having a “girly” name? lmao rip
9 notes · View notes
nerdygaymormon · 6 years ago
Note
Ugh triggered In seminary we played a Kahoot game to study for our final, and I was reminded about the “principle” that only men and women can marry each other. Do you know about any doctrine/patterns that refute this? I want to be able to marry in the temple, but since I’m LGBT, I can’t ever see that happen.
The current doctrine is that a man and a woman may be married and sealed in a temple, their marriage may last into the eternities and is needed for exaltation.
In my opinion, this is doctrine for cisgender straight people, there is an absence of doctrine for LGBTQIA people. I don’t know if this church will seek and receive additional knowledge regarding LGBTQIA people and our place in the gospel, but I have a hard time believing that God created us in our diversity and then fails to provide for us in The Plan.
Even the doctrine about marriage for straight people has changed considerably. Jesus said divorce is only allowed in the case of adultery and if they remarry then the person that married them is also an adulterer. Our modern church does not forbid divorce and lets divorced people get married and sealed. In the early days of this church we encouraged polygamy where a man and multiple women may marry and be sealed (men can still be sealed to multiple women, just not married to more than one at a time). Church leaders used to teach that polygamy was required for exaltation. Even the 1978 announcement of the restoration of priesthood blessings for people of African descent was accompanied by a statement that interracial marriages are still discouraged (thankfully interracial marriages are now seen as fine).
I do have a hopeful story, in 1980 a trans woman (who had surgically transitioned prior to joining the church) was married & sealed in a temple. She had permission from President Kimball and a Seventy performed the ceremony. They knew she was trans and President Kimball said he’d received revelation specifically for her case.
In the Bible are several other hopeful stories.
Adam & Eve - Adam is told it’s bad for a human to be alone. Another human is made from him (I know the story is allegorical, but this would mean they have the same DNA, including XX or XY or XXY chromosomes). It is the humans who introduce the concept of gender, but “heterosexuality” as we think of it was a result of the Fall
Ruth & Naomi - They lived together, they were each other’s most important relationship. They made a formal commitment to each other that sounds rather similar to what is said in modern marriage ceremonies. They raised a child together. Ruth married a man while living with Naomi. This story provides a lot of hints they could be same-sex partners, bisexual, or with the addition of the husband it could be they’re polyamorous. Very intriguing.
David (who killed Goliath) and Jonathan - This is often portrayed as best friends, but the language is more like romantic interests and some of the details hint that they actually married and this union was blessed by God.
Daniel (from the Lion’s Den) - He was a prince who was captured by Babylon and made a eunuch. He developed a relationship with the male guard in charge of the eunuchs and this was blessed by God.
The Roman centurion and his “servant” - The language indicates this was a relationship of a sexual nature and Christ healed the servant and was amazed at the centurion’s faith. I think this is the closest we have to how Jesus feels about same-sex relationships.
Eunuchs - These are men who aren’t able to reproduce. Often they’re made eunuchs on purpose so they can serve in the King’s house (and not impregnate his wives), but there are also eunuchs who are born this way, who become a eunuch due to accident, and also just by their desires but not any physical impairment. At first they were banned from worshiping with Israel, but then Isaiah says they’ll be blessed above others. Jesus later mentions them in saying that they’re an exception to the rule that marriage is between a man and a woman.
I also think a careful reading of the scriptural texts about same-gender sex is mostly that straight people shouldn’t do it and not to do it as part of the worship of false gods.
Not only that, but some things seem to favor same-sex marriage and against a strict gender binary.
There are not that many mentions in the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants or Pearl of Great Price about these things. Which could be seen as an indication about the relative level of importance God puts on them compared to the sins of the rich and powerful and the need to take care of the poor and marginalized, and about loving our neighbors and God.
I don’t know if our church will change its stance on LGBT topics, especially marriage or transitioning. And if it does, it may well take many decades (or more). You’re not required to wait for the church to catch up to any personal revelation you have.
70 notes · View notes
the-seas-song · 7 years ago
Text
Tolkien Gen Week Day 5
DAY FIVE: diversity How does diversity affect Tolkien’s characters and your interpretations of them? Does a disability or orientation affect relationships with other characters? Have you lost sleep thinking about hobbit race relations? This is the day to consider all the other factors that go into a character’s life.
Work has been insane lately, so unfortunately I wasn't able to write everything I wanted to for this amazing week, but I really wanted to make sure I got this one done.
This is mainly a thank you post. First, I want to give a big thank you to @starlightwalking for creating and running this week. A lot of time must have gone into it, and I've had a great time.
I love all forms of love, and one of my favorite things about Tolkien's works is that he highlights a large variety of emotionally intimate platonic relationships. Thank you Tolkien. And also thank you to everyone who worked on the films, for not only portraying those in the texts, but actually adding and expanding the amount of deep platonic relationships.
As someone who is gray aro/ace, another one of my favorite things about Tolkien's works is the diversity in racial sexualities.
Elves only fall in love once in their life (technically it is possible for them to fall in love a second time, but we are only given two cases in all of Tolkien’s works, and both times there was a greater power at work). The foundation of elven-kind is memory and emotion. Their souls control their bodies. Elvish memories remain crystal clear, no matter how many decades or centuries pass. They never fade, even the slightest bit. Connected to memory is emotion. Elves feel things in a clearer way. They are ruled by emotion. They can literally just lie down and kill themselves with their mind, if they wish. Also, because of this clarity, they know from the beginning if they are feeling romantic-love or friendship-love for someone. There is nothing more important to an elf than their relationships, of any kind. Their anti-possessiveness goes so far that they will not even say 'I have two children’.
Tolkien says in LACE that almost all elves marry, and marry young. However, the entire legendarium contradicts that. Over half the elves we meet very marry/are never said to be married, and almost all of those that do marry do so well into their centuries and millenniums. Feanor and Nerdanel are literally the only elven couple that we are told married young.
Also, who could ever forget the tragedy of Beleg's death? “Thus ended Beleg Strongbow, truest of friends, greatest in skill of all that harboured in the woods of Beleriand in the Elder Days, at the hand of him whom he most loved; and that grief was graven on the face of Túrin and never faded.” - The Silmarillion
We are also given a tantalizing hint of one deep female friendship: “Fingolfin’s wife Anaire refused to leave Aman, largely because of her friendship with Earwen wife of Arafinwe (though she was a Noldo and not one of the Teleri). But all her children went with their father.” - The Shibboleth of Feanor
Another thing I rarely see people mention is Tolkien explicitly separating sex and gender:
According to the Eldar, the only 'character' of any person that was not subject to change was the difference of sex. For this they held to belong not only to the body but also to the mind equally: that is, to the person as a whole. [cut] Those who returned from Mandos, therefore, after the death of their first body, returned always to the same name and to the same sex as formerly.
[cut]
For the [souls] of the Elves are of their nature male and female, and not their [bodies] only. - LACE
Because their souls control their bodies, there are no trans elves. However, the fact that Tolkien took pains to explicitly say this for elves, throws the door wide open for all of the other races!
We're also told that about two thirds of dwarves are naturally aromantic, and those who aren’t only fall in love once. So, another gray aro/ace race!
There are so many amazing fanworks out there that diversify Tolkien's works even more.
Throughout my years of being a fan I've met a fair amount of purists, and there's nothing wrong with being a purist. Most of them are lovely people. I am, however, a firm believer in Roland Barthes's The Death of the Author (found here) theory. The great thing is Tolkien was too:
The Lord of the Rings has been read by many people since it finally appeared in print; and I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them. As a guide I had only my own feelings for what is appealing or moving, and for many the guide was inevitably often at fault. Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer. But even from the points of view of many who have enjoyed my story there is much that fails to please. It is perhaps not possible in a long tale to please everybody at all points, nor to displease everybody at the same points; for I find from the letters that I have received that the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved. The most critical reader of all, myself, now finds many defects, minor and major, but being fortunately under no obligation either to review the book or to write it again, he will pass over these in silence, except one that has been noted by others: the book is too short.
As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches: but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The Hobbit.
[cut]
Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.
An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous. It is also false, though naturally attractive, when the lives of an author and critic have overlapped, to suppose that the movements of thought or the events of times common to both were necessarily the most powerful influences. One has indeed personally to come under the shadow of war to feel fully its oppression; but as the years go by it seems now often forgotten that to be caught in youth by 1914 was no less hideous an experience than to be involved in 1939 and the following years. By 1918 all but one of my close friends were dead. Or to take a less grievous matter: it has been supposed by some that 'The Scouring of the Shire' reflects the situation in England at the time when I was finishing my tale. It does not. It is an essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset, though in the event modified by the character of Saruman as developed in the story without, need I say, any allegorical significance or contemporary political reference whatsoever. It has indeed some basis in experience, though slender (for the economic situation was entirely different), and much further back. The country in which I lived in childhood was being shabbily destroyed before I was ten, in days when motor-cars were rare objects (I had never seen one) and men were still building suburban railways. Recently I saw in a paper a picture of the last decrepitude of the once thriving corn-mill beside its pool that long ago seemed to me so important. I never liked the looks of the Young miller, but his father, the Old miller, had a black beard, and he was not named Sandyman. - LotR Foreward
And:
The Lord of the Rings as a story was finished so long ago now that I can take a largely impersonal view of it, and find 'interpretations' quite amusing; even those that I might make myself, which are mostly post scriptum: I had very little particular, conscious, intellectual, intention in mind at any point.* Except for a few deliberately disparaging reviews – such as that of Vol. II in the New Statesman,3 in which you and I were both scourged with such terms as 'pubescent' and 'infantilism' – what appreciative readers have got out of the work or seen in it has seemed fair enough, even when I do not agree with it. Always excepting, of course, any 'interpretations' in the mode of simple allegory: that is, the particular and topical. In a larger sense, it is I suppose impossible to write any 'story' that is not allegorical in proportion as it 'comes to life'; since each of us is an allegory, embodying in a particular tale and clothed in the garments of time and place, universal truth and everlasting life. Anyway most people that have enjoyed The Lord of the Rings have been affected primarily by it as an exciting story; and that is how it was written. Though one does not, of course, escape from the question 'what is it about?' by that back door. That would be like answering an aesthetic question by talking of a point of technique. I suppose that if one makes a good choice in what is 'good narrative' (or 'good theatre') at a given point, it will also be found to be the case that the event described will be the most 'significant'.
* Take the Ents, for instance. I did not consciously invent them at all. The chapter called 'Treebeard', from Treebeard's first remark on p. 66, was written off more or less as it stands, with an effect on my self (except for labour pains) almost like reading some one else's work. And I like Ents now because they do not seem to have anything to do with me. I daresay something had been going on in the 'unconscious' for some time, and that accounts for my feeling throughout, especially when stuck, that I was not inventing but reporting (imperfectly) and had at times to wait till 'what really happened' came through. But looking back analytically I should say that Ents are composed of philology, literature, and life.
[cut]
That of course does not mean that the main idea of the story was a war-product. That was arrived at in one of the earliest chapters still surviving (Book I, 2). It is really given, and present in germ, from the beginning, though I had no conscious notion of what the Necromancer stood for (except ever-recurrent evil) in The Hobbit, nor of his connexion with the Ring. But if you wanted to go on from the end of The Hobbit I think the ring would be your inevitable choice as the link. If then you wanted a large tale, the Ring would at once acquire a capital letter; and the Dark Lord would immediately appear. As he did, unasked, on the hearth at Bag End as soon as I came to that point. So the essential Quest started at once. But I met a lot of things on the way that astonished me. Tom Bombadil I knew already; but I had never been to Bree. Strider sitting in the comer at the inn was a shock, and I had no more idea who he was than had Frodo. The Mines of Moria had been a mere name; and of Lothlórien no word had reached my mortal ears till I came there. Far away I knew there were the Horse-lords on the confines of an ancient Kingdom of Men, but Fangorn Forest was an unforeseen adventure. I had never heard of the House of Eorl nor of the Stewards of Gondor. Most disquieting of all, Saruman had never been revealed to me, and I was as mystified as Frodo at Gandalf's failure to appear on September 22.1 knew nothing of the Palantíri, though the moment the Orthanc-stone was cast from the window, I recognized it, and knew the meaning of the 'rhyme of lore' that had been running in my mind: seven stars and seven stones and one white tree. These rhymes and names will crop up; but they do not always explain themselves. I have yet to discover anything about the cats of Queen Berúthiel.8 But I did know more or less all about Gollum and his pan, and Sam, and I knew that the way was guarded by a Spider. And if that has anything to do with my being stung by a tarantula when a small child,9 people are welcome to the notion (supposing the improbable, that any one is interested). I can only say that I remember nothing about it, should not know it if I had not been told; and I do not dislike spiders particularly, and have no urge to kill them. I usually rescue those whom I find in the bath! - Letter 163
Tolkien's loathing of allegory is well known. However, most don't talk about the fact that his fundamental reason for loathing it is because it enforces the domination of the author over the freedom of the reader - “I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”
So, as we continue to love these works and create our own, let's never forget that Tolkien himself believed in our agency.
P.S. I have to share this quote from Letter 66. It's too funny!
A new character has come on the scene (I am sure I did not invent him, I did not even want him, though I like him, but there he came walking into the woods of Ithilien): Faramir, the brother of Boromir – and he is holding up the 'catastrophe' by a lot of stuff about the history of Gondor and Rohan (with some very sound reflections no doubt on martial glory and true glory): but if he goes on much more a lot of him will have to be removed to the appendices — where already some fascinating material on the hobbit Tobacco industry and the Languages of the West have gone.
11 notes · View notes