#she means it in a non gender specific way

[gengor]

I think my most unpopular takes among people who have a more sympathetic view on Edelgard, but enjoy the blue lions characters, is that I don’t think it’s very likely any of them would defect.

While it might be in some of their best interest to defy the kingdom, the blue lions were specifically written as the characters who are inclined to uphold the system.

I just think that a person who chooses to serve an institution that they know is flawed or is actively hurting them is a very real type of person, and is, in fact, the average person irl. I think I’m gonna start doing breakdowns of all the blue lions one by one to explain what I mean by this. I’m gonna go ahead and start with one of my favorite examples— Ingrid.

Part 1: chivalry

“Knights, I suppose. I do what I can to live like one. And I hope to die like one too…when the time comes.” - one of Ingrid’s expedition quotes

Chivalry and Knighthood are very important themes to the azure moon route. And their politics are woven into the fabric of the monarchy. It’s no mistake that Felix is to Dimitri what Ferdinand is to Edelgard, and Lorenz is to Claude.

But while Felix serves as the oppositional character to chivalry, Ingrid foils this by being an embodiment of it.

Ingrid is a character who is hurt by the system as a woman whose family values her solely for her ability to have a richer man’s child. She understands that her life is made worse by her place as a woman, and although she wants to break free of that, she can’t envision anything that isn’t just subjugating herself to a different set of rules. Ingrid strives to be disposable in a male gender role rather than a female one.

She reveres knighthood and the code of honor in death—which is often propped up as an ideal for non royal men. So while her endings where she conforms to gendered expectations are tragic, I would argue that any ending that sees her knighted is also far from a feminist tale.

And I think what a lot of people miss about this aspiration of hers is how glued it is to her grief for Glenn and the subsequent romanticization of Dimitri.

Ingrid is one of the few characters who cannot engage with criticism of Dimitri’s excessive violence. If you seek her during the exploration time within the heights of Dimitri’s recklessness she will never once acknowledge the sinking ship they are all on. For many characters, it’s common that they only retroactively acknowledge Dimitri’s instability after he apologizes and says he wants to do better. Most of the army will give you some sort of acknowledgment that Dimitri hasn’t been a perfect leader during the “kings triumphant return” chapter.

Yet Ingrid never does.

And while she does argue with Dimitri within their supports, it is only because Dimitri expresses discomfort at the rationale that places him on this pedestal to begin with. It is the only thing he can say that she cannot affirm. And toward the end of the support chain, she’s rationalized his aversion to knight codes to fit a more digestible narrative for herself. If Glenn’s death for Dimitri was the gold standard, then it means Dimitri has to be the perfect heir worth protecting with her life. She *has* to figure out how his disagreements with her can fit neatly into the narrative of Glenn’s heroic death. If she doesn’t do this, she would be forced to grapple with the possibility that someone she cared for died tragically without meaning.

I would argue Ingrid is an unreliable narrator to herself here when she claims she has moved on. If her requirements to process death involve retroactively deeming death to be good, then she is still rationalizing a random tragedy.

And this is something we see her do in her last support with Felix. I think there’s a subtle kind of horror in the conclusion of her Felix supports. She could be very well justified in lashing out at him over his repeated misogyny, but what she sees as the most important issue to correct is his aversion to chivalry.

She positions herself in a way that’s hard to combat because she is simultaneously arguing that she is *not* falling in line with any propaganda while also pushing the idea that Glenn died honorably in a way that’s worth imitating. Instead of framing this as a lesson in obedience to authority, she gives more a ‘friendship is magic’ vibe.

But the thing is, Glenn likely *was* influenced by the culture surrounding chivalry. The only characterization we have of him is that he adhered deeply to the ideals of chivalry (Dimitri claims Glenn and she are ‘very alike’ in that regard and Felix tells us that Glenn used to read him knight tales) Glenn was also child soldier, specified to have been around 15 at the time of his death. The man who raised Glenn will also state outright that he would have held his son responsible had he survived.

And it doesn’t appear to just be an isolated instance with Ingrid and Rodrigue. This kind of rhetoric is very common in the kingdom, popping up within npcs as well.

All that’s to say that Ingrid’s desire to become a knight is steeped in her baggage surrounding Glenn and cannot be copy pasted to another country so easily without breaking her character.

Being a knight under a different banner wouldn’t be the same because Ingrid doesn’t want to do many of the questionable things military personal are ordered to do on a regular basis, in fact she has an active aversion to it.

But she views her inclinations to disobey Faerghus authority as the wrong choice, a weakness she ought to instruct out of herself in order to be an ideal knight.

Part 2: Gender

So I see a some criticisms leveled at Ingrid’s character in relation to Glenn that I want to acknowledge.

I think it’s very fair to criticize the idea that she is defined through her grief for a boy she was in an arranged engagement to. I can see why some would write off her character as being just another misogynistic portrayal of a woman and move on.

But I think what saves this plot line (to me) is the implication that she idealized Glenn as someone she wanted to *be* more than marry. I really appreciate that when asked directly about whether she would have married him, she implied that she wouldn’t have.

I think there’s something to be said about the interpretation that Ingrid is an incredibly repressed sapphic or possible aromantic.

The only man she expresses romantic interest in is Dimitri, which is likely an extension of her reverence for him as a royal ideal, more so than it is a genuine interest in him. To me, her expressed interest in him undermines her claim that she has let go of her past idealization of being his knight. She is still prioritizing him first and foremost before herself, which is the heart of the issue.

I think Ingrid as a person is just very susceptible to the idea that she should fulfill some kind of established roll within the existing system instead of breaking free from all of it. This is why she only sees her life as only having two paths forward— knighthood or motherhood.

And even within the latter, which is more widely understood to be regressive, Ingrid will still make excuses for the people who attempt to reduce her to her ability to bear a nobleman’s child.

There’s a lot to be said about her hesitation to condemn her father for putting her within an arranged marriage. And within Houses, I think her Byleth supports, combined with her paralogue, communicate this well. But I think the most blunt example of this can be found in her Mercedes Hope's support

In response to Mercedes asserting that Ingrid’s family loved her unconditionally Ingrid says, “I wouldn’t go that far.”

I think it’s important to assume Ingrid’s perspective on her family is the most reliable account of them. If she says they didn’t love her. They didn’t love her.

She is a woman enduring objectification at the hands of her father. And even if she herself hesitates to name it as abuse that is textually what this was. Mercedes is projecting her own love for her brother onto these men who she has never met before.

Yet even still, her conclusions within many support chains end with her reaffirming a gendered status quo on herself. The same is true of support chains that end in her performing an expectation of femininity.

Part 3: Xenophobia/Racism

So I think Ingrid's racism is not an isolated, uncomfortable trait of hers. It is an extension of her patriotism.

When Glenn died, racism was just one of the multiple propaganda pieces that Ingrid fed herself to create a more digestible narrative.

Within her Dedue supports Ingrid seems to be grappling with the possibility that she was wrong to buy into this narrative. I think it's notable that the only thing that pushes her to reconsider her bigotry against Dedue is that he shares an unhealthy reverence for Dimitri. And within this flawed start-up, she is still expecting a victim to engage with her in an open discussion on whether or not he is a person.

Ingrid seeks to hold him somewhat responsible for not educating her on racism enough. And yeah, I don't have a lot to say on this, it just sucks.

I don't think Ingrid ever fully moves past this bigotry, which is in part due to the creators not actually knowing what an anti racist narrative would look like.

I've said this before, but it's worth stating here too.

Ingrid is far from the only racist person in Fe3h. Most of the narratives around racism end up with the characters reaffirming racism.

But within Ingrid's case, I think it makes narrative sense that she would still show signs of bigotry. Because within all aspects of her life, she doesn't escape the system.

And I know that within her gender, this is the writers themselves doing misogyny. I don't think they intended Ingrid's arc to be a tragic one. And I wouldn't fault anyone for disregarding the narrative value of this on the basis that it's not meant to be tragic. I've personally just come to love the blue lions as accidental tragedies because, regardless of intent, it just feels real. I think Ingrid is one of the few that I could see potentially realizing the flaw in her thinking someday, but it does her writing a disservice to imply that this could be a quick and seamless transition for her.

[xxsinisterbunniexx]

Hello hope you are doing well :)

Would you be able to do headcanons of the creepy pastas taking care of y/n during their period?

Depending on how comfortable you are with it, maybe with the the y/n being trans/non-binary and their period causes gender dysphoria? If not that’s perfectly okay!

Bye bye!

Okay SO sorry this took me so long! But I’m on spring break starting today so I’m gonna try to get caught up on requests while I’m on break :3

♡ How the creeps take care of the reader when they’re on their period ♡

Characters: Jeff the Killer, Ticci Toby, BEN drowned, Eyeless Jack, X Virus, Tim/Masky, Brian/Hoodie

So like I’m ngl…. I like didn’t know what to write for a trans/non-binary reader so I just wrote AFAB. I wasn’t really sure what they could say/do to support you and I asked my friend about it (she’s MTF tho) and she told me it’s more just about listening and being there (in regards to how other people can help with dysphoria). So here are my general thoughts:

I think the creeps would not give a fuck if you were trans. But I mean that in a way of like, they wouldn’t look at you any differently. I think it would be something they wouldn’t really think twice about and they would just accept you as you are. They would listen to your feelings though if you wanted to express them and they wouldn’t judge.

Jeff

☠︎︎ ︎he’s just generally not involved

☠︎︎ like not that he doesn’t care but more like he feels like you know what you need to do and he doesn’t need to intervene

☠︎︎ he would go and get stuff for you at the store but like you’d have to send him specific pictures of what you wanted

☠︎︎ would get you like ibuprofen if you were like seriously writhing in pain

Toby

✘ literally “babe I’m in the pad aisle what pussy size you wear?”

✘he’s just so misguided but he’s trying

✘like you’d send him pictures of the exact tampons/pads you need and he’d still get the wrong ones 😭

✘he also just like doesn’t know how pain feels but he doesn’t like seeing you upset

✘would lay next to you and press his hand on your lower stomach cause it helps the cramps

BEN drowned

⚠︎it’s probably like one of the only times that seeing pain doesn’t please him

⚠︎he wouldn’t really know what to do though

⚠︎like pats you on the back, there there

⚠︎he would get things you needed but only if you asked him to do so

⚠︎otherwise he’s kind of just awkwardly there

Eyeless Jack

𖤐like not only does he give a fuck but he knows exactly what to do

𖤐like gets you midol, a heating pad, the right brand/size of tampon/pad

𖤐the type of fella that puts a pad in your underwear while you’re showering before bed just to get it ready for you

𖤐he would do anything really to make you more comfortable and would never make you feel embarrassed about it

X Virus

☣︎lowkey him and Toby share a brain cell and so they’d both be like “oh why god why did you curse our women?!”

☣︎on the real though, it’d displease him to see you in pain, and he’d try to formulate a drug that covered all your symptoms

☣︎if you were a proxy and didn’t have access to birth control or other stuff to suppress your periods he’d find a way to get some

☣︎like trust he gets all his crazy chemicals from somewhere, he can defo get his hands on some birth control

Tim/Masky

꩜Tim is generally not super familiar with it at first and doesn’t know what to do

꩜after being with you for a while he gets it down though

꩜makes note of the stuff you need and will make sure you don’t run on supplies

☆Masky does not really care LMAO

☆like he wouldn’t be mean to you or anything he just wouldn’t treat you any differently while you’re on your period

Brian/Hoodie

𖣐Brian tries, but like Toby he’s just a bit misguided

𖣐but he makes an effort to learn

𖣐he’s honestly still not the most comfortable with it

𖣐but he still helps you and would get you stuff you needed

☹ hoodie is so mean 😭

☹ like he honestly would make fun of you sometimes rip

☹ like if you’re pissed off, “are you on your period?”

I am sorry if this was disappointing (ToT)

[chocolatepot]

Hi! Can you elaborate on "Fuck GRRM's committment to 'historical realism' without knowing anything about medieval social history"? I would love to know about what GRRM gets wrong about medieval gender roles, specifically.

So Cersei learns at an early age that she has no agency, her only value is producing heirs and is barred from traditional routes of power so she has to use underhanded methods such as influencing men with sex or using underhanded magical means. I would love an explanation on why this doesn't reflect medieval queen consorts and noble women irl.

Sure! The basic summary is: GRRM "knows" the things that everyone "knows" about the middle ages, which are broad stereotypes often reflective of a) primary sources that deserve a critical reading rather than being taken at face value and b) the judgements of later periods making themselves look better at the medieval period's expense.

As Shiloh Carroll argues, building on the work of Helen Young, “readers are caught in a ‘feedback loop’ in which Martin’s work helps to create a neomedieval idea of the Middle Ages, which then becomes their idea of what the Middle Ages ‘really’ looked like, which is then used to defend Martin’s work as ‘realistic’ because it matches their idea of the real Middle Ages.”

Since you're mainly interested in Cersei here, I'd strongly recommend a book: Queenship and the Women of Westeros: Female Agency and Advice in Game of Thrones and A Song of Ice and Fire, edited by Zita Eva Rohr and Lisa Benz. It's an excellent read and speaks to exactly what you're asking about. The tone of the book is very positive and non-judgemental when it comes to GRRM and his depictions of women on the whole, but I think some of this is rhetorical positioning to not seem like "mean angry academics jumping on fiction for not being accurate," as the actual content turns the reader to thinking about how much agency and power medieval queens had in different European societies and how little of that worked its way into GRRM's worldbuilding.

It's true that women typically didn't inherit titles and thrones in their own right, and that they were usually given in marriage for political/dynastic reasons. However, they weren't seen as brood mares whose only duty was to pop out sons: both queens and noblewomen had roles to play as household managers, counselors, and lieutenants, actively participating in the ruling of their domains and in local and international diplomacy (women in political alliances were not just pawns sent to a powerful man's bed, but were to act as ambassadors for their families and to pass information back and forth), and they had to be raised with an understanding of this so that they could learn to do it. Motherhood was very important, don't get me wrong, but it's a mistake to assume as pop culture does that a wife's foremost duty being to provide heirs for her family meant that she was ONLY seen as a mother/potential mother.

Catelyn is a great example of what was expected of women in these positions. But in the books, Catelyn is basically the only woman who inhabits this role, and the impression given is that she's exceptional, that she's just in charge of the household because she's so great at it that Ned allows her to be his partner, and that he listens to her advice because she happens to be a wise person in his orbit - and also that Ned is exceptional for giving so much power to a woman, because in the world of ASOIAF, it takes an especially good man to do this. In GRRM's view of the medieval world, realpolitik and the accumulation of power are the most important things, so men in Westeros are extremely unlikely to give up any authority to their wives, even though this is historically inaccurate.

Cersei, on the other hand, is supposed to be a more realistic depiction of what would happen to an ambitious medieval woman. There's a chapter titled "Queen of Sad Mischance: Medievalism, “Realism,” and the Case of Cersei Lannister" in the book I've rec'd, and it deals with why this is problematic extremely well. (This is the source of the quote at the top of this post.) In it, Kavita Mudan Finn argues that Cersei embodies pretty much every medieval trope for the illegitimate wielding of power by a woman. She underhandedly gets people killed for opposing her, she seduces men into doing her bidding, she advances her family's interests and her own at the expense of the realm. She's made sympathetic through fannish interpretation and Lena Headey's performance, but in the text she's an evil woman doing evil things. Even when she gets to be regent for her son - a completely legitimate historical position that allowed women to handle the levers of power almost exactly like a king - she continues to do shitty things and not be taken seriously because she's just not good at ruling.

But even before then, from a medieval perspective she had access to completely legitimate power that she didn't use: she'd have had estates giving her a large personal income, religious establishments to patronize (giving her a good reputation as a pious woman and people she'd put in high positions being personally loyal to her), artists and writers to patronize as well, power over her household, men around her listening to her counsel. That she doesn't have that is a reflection of GRRM either deciding these things don't really exist in Westeros in order to make it a worse world than medieval Europe and justify Cersei feeling she had to use underhanded means of power, or not knowing that they were ordinary and unexceptional because he has a good working knowledge of the politics of the Wars of the Roses but little to no knowledge of social history beyond pop culture osmosis, and, imo, little to no interest in actual power dynamics.

There are a lot of books I'd recommend on this subject. There's a series from Palgrave Macmillan called "Queenship and Power" and nearly all the books in it are THE BEST. Theresa Earenfight's Queenship in Medieval Europe is a very readable introduction to the situations of queens in European societies across the continent. She also has a book, Women and Wealth in Late Medieval Europe, that also addresses non-royal women's power. I'm also a huge fan of English Aristocratic Women, 1450-1550: Marriage and Family, Property and Careers, by Barbara Harris, which really emphasizes the "career" aspect of women's lives as administrators and diplomats.

[genderqueerdykes]

2024, yet another year where I see my local city's pride fest have a day specifically to "celebrate femininity" (called "She+ Fest") and then have no such day dedicated to a celebration like that that for masculinity, or gender neutrality/gender beyond the binary spectrum folks. there is a non-binary pride flag on the poster for this event, and yet it's only for feminine people. there's a lesbian flag on the poster, and yet it's only for "femininity", meaning butches will feel alienated and not want to attend.

it actually made me just want to cry because yet again masc & neutral/other gendered queers are made to feel like we're nothing special, like we're nothing worth celebrating, like we're meant to just blend into the crowd and be background noise, like there's nothing to be proud of and like we don't need community. if this event is for lesbians, where the hell do the butches go? where the hell do the femmes who aren't women and don't want to be seen as one go? why do we claim to love lesbians and then RACE to leave out butches and non woman identifying lesbians as fast as we fucking can?

the big issue here is this is yet again leaving masc and other gender queers with nowhere to go. no space to occupy. no way to meet each other in a concentrated and guided fashion. its great to uplift feminine people and women, i'm not complaining about the existence of this event; what I'm saying, however, is that it's glaringly apparent what people are implying by having an event only for "celebrating" femininity and then having so such events for other trans people. the message is deafening and hurts like hell.

to the people who say "the generalized pride events are made for you, why can't you just celebrate in those?" my answer is this: WHY do we need a day specifically dedicated to femininity, then? why can't femme queers celebrate in the generalized events, too? why are non-binary people only being recognized in a feminine context? why are we making it easy for feminine people to interact, but not masculine or gender neutral people? why do masc & neutral people have to wade through a sea of people to find other people just like us, but we create space after space for "feminine" nonbinary people and women. please create spaces for masc and other gender queers. we are begging you. we are tired of being told we're oppressors or that we're inherently dangerous to femme queers and women. we're sick of being told we don't deserve to be celebrated, or that we are nothing special.

our community can't keep going like this. masc & neutral queers need community, too. we need to be able to find and support each other, too. how is it 2024 and we're STILL only acknowledging non binary identities in a feminine context. our community is suffocating. masc & other gender queers are drowning. include EVERYONE and allow EVERYONE to find support from people just like them. this shouldn't be something we afford to just femmes and women. fuck out of here.

[notebooks-and-laptops]

Anarcharisms, LGBT+ characters and cultures and How I'd Write Taash's Storyline

Taash was one of my favourite characters in DATV. As somsone who is genderqueer, genderfluid and still exploring all that, I also really appreciated their story. In our world today, its vital that stories about non-binary and trans characters are told to wider audiences. However, once again, the softening of Thedas; its culture and its people, led to kinda shitty writing.

So lets get it out of the way: it feels anachranistic when Taash says 'non-binary'. This isn't to say that you can never use modern LGBT+ vocabulary in a fantasy world; fantasy worlds are fantasy and you can do whatever you want with that. But Dragon Age has never used these terms before; words like gay, non-binary, trans; they haven't existed in the Dragon Age universe. Instead, Dragon Age in the past has opted for explorations via in-world cultures such as the Qun having a specific word; aqun-athlok.

I kinda think this has attitude has some rather uncomfortable undertones that just weren't thought through: being non-binary, genderqueer, genderfluid, these things have always existed. But implying the need for modern vocabulary about them, reinforces the idea that LGBT+ identities are 'modern', 'current' that they never could have existed before these words were coined. The fact that Dragon Age didn't use the word gay but does non-binary it just...makes me feel a little bit like they thought they could ask us to imagine gay people in a world before the term gay was invented, but didn't have that same idea to show us how non-binary people could exist before we had modern terms for them.

Dragon Age has also in the past hinted at nuanced ideas of how various cultures might see gender and gender identity. The Qun for example, based on what both Iron Bull and Sten say, appears to see gender identiy as tied to your 'role' or 'job'. Meanwhile, Tevinter has Maevaris, who has thrived and inhereted a seat in the magisterum while still being trans but seems to experience some prejudice from conservative magisters.

This game wacks nuance out the window and opts instead for a softening of everything (see my post here for more on that). So despite Taash's storyline supposedly being about exploring their multi-cultural heritage, there isn't actually a lot of space for exploring any culture at all in Thedas throughout this game.

But here's my pitch on how I'd fix it:

Firstly, I'd make it so that there was a specific word that Tevinter had for being non-binary that the Qun doesn't. Much like how it pans out in the game, Taash could meet with shadow dragons, realise this and explore it, and find it fits. They would still use they/them pronouns and state as such.

But then, when Taash came to tell their mum, I'd have Taash's mum say that she always thought that Taash might be aqun-athlok because they fight. This would push forward that idea of gender-identiy in the Qun being completely different to how Southern Thedas sees it, with it largerly being attached to your job.

Taash would then explain no, they are [insert Tevinter Word Here]. At which point, the point of contention would come from the fact that Taash has adopted a Tevinter word and identity. This would mirror the way conservatives in some countries across the world see/frame LGBT+ issues as a western concept. Taash's mum would have a problem with this especially because Tevinter and the Qun have been at war for centuries (something you'd be hard pressed to realise in this game despite the fact that it feels like it really should have come up at some point but I digress). This would then tie this plotline with Taash's exploration of their heritage and culture and what it means to be qunari.

I'd also make it so that theres no neat 'they' in qunlat. This would again mirror how some languages are more gendered and thus non-binary people have that to deal with. This again would link to a real world issue, but would feel like it was exploring cultural issues in thedas, not softening anything. Taash's mum would be upset that there was no way to refer to Taash in their shared tongue that she currently knew of.

Finally, instead of having the scene where Isabela teaches us how to be a good ally which feels...well. Written poorly? More tell than show? I'd scrape that, and instead have us meet a very cool non-binary qunari who is actually from the Qun and follows the Qun. Taash could connect with them, and see that Qunari DO have a non-binary identiy (maybe they use neo-prounouns that work in Qunlat) that its okay to be qunari and be non-binary and that people have done it before them and will do it after them.

These are tiny changes, but it would make the culture in Thedas feel so much more vibrant and real, and explore how things actually function in the world, you know? It would make gender-identity tie in deeply with this world we've set up and known for years, and it wouldn't feel anarchanistic.

[zvezdacito]

Diasomnia sexuality (and some gender) headcanons I just wanted to yap about for no reason:

Malleus: Demiromantic Bisexual

-> There's that joke that he doesn't gaf about gender as long as it's Yuu, but (for the demiromantic part) I also like the idea that he's ride-or-die, sentimental and clingy for anyone he gets close to. So generally the only difference for how he cares about people is the type of attraction + specific boundaries (can be slightly possessive in a different way for a romantic interest? Idk)

-> Also not really sexuality but I see his gender as that "I'm probably nonbinary but I have a job so idrc about that rn" tweet but for being the next king In general I think being acespec & nonbinary would be extra perplexing for bro since he never stopped to think about personal identity stuff like that for too long (too duty-pilled🥀)

-> Being dense about regular emotional experiences + actual difference in the norms of attraction and gender add to the gap of understanding between him and others

Lilia: Bisexual (not really a sexuality but he's also polyamorous)

-> This isn't sexuality again but I also think transfeminine Lilia is cool, I genuinely believed that Lilia was just a woman with a really deep voice the first time I saw him (I was watching him vs Leona in Book 2 out of context). There's no way to easily explain this in English but by this the specific identity i see him as is basically 'bakla' in the Philippines. It is really its own gender identity in our culture and isn't a "direct equivalent" of any one anglophone label, but for the sake of non-filipinos i guess you can just understand this to mean i see Lilia as "nonbinary transfem in the Filipino way"👍

-> I think it would align with his story in a good way with how she's maligned by the senate and such, how even as a soldier Lilia was coloring her hair for style. It's also like that thing where a guy who was already considered obviously effeminate and "one of the girls" atp (I see Meleanor as kids playing with Lilia in typically "girly" ways and encouraging his cuteness/hair styling) comes out later on as actually a girl/fem nonbinary

-> General Lilia is this is that type of situation where a transfem person can't really go all out with their expression because current life-threatening circumstances require "masculinity" or their focus to be exclusively on external matters (in this case its Lilia being a lowly bat soldier in an active war. Similar to Malleus, an idea of patriotic obligation stops him from really questioning or exploring since the country needs "strength" and "unity" in these times, there was also just really little time to wonder when you're fighting for your life everyday). But after retiring Lilia is able to realize she likes being perceived as cute and begins going all out in her appearance👍

Lilia edit with the article this headcanon reminds me of:

Silver: Aroace

-> Thought it would be a kind of cool subversion of the usual fairytale prince archetype Silver is made to emulate, where romance is the greatest and purest love and marriage is THE happy end. I think it aligns with Silver wanting to spend his life "repaying" the kindness of Malleus and Lilia; if they asked him to think about gertting a family of his own in the future, I think he'd just say the true love he's found in life is already them. A knight who dedicates his lifetime devotion to familial love instead

Sebek: Gaylm

-> One of bro's most notable character gags is glazing another man at every opportunity so yeah /j. Also fsr I just can't see him as a man romantically with a woman no matter what lol

(THIS ISN'T OBJECTIVE THOUGH this is just how I personally sense his vibes. Go crazy fellow fem yumes and OC artists. You are the pillars of this earth)

⚠️ My only disclaimer is that I am cisgender so the gender headcanons are only me relating the characters to scholarly articles on transfem experiences/from personal accounts of transfem and nonbinary people online and irl.

Another reminder that these are all headcanons made by viewing canon in a specific way, not me saying they're definitively any of these identities. You can still have cis or male malleus and lilia if you prefer that😭

That is all. Thank you for reading👊🔥

[casscainmainly]

A lot of debates have been going around on what is Cassandra's sexuality, some people said that she is a lesbian, others claims that she's asexual, but some said that she's bisexual.

What do you think her sexuality is based on previous love interests or previous runs of the early years from 1999 and early 2000 to today along with the out-of-continuity story?

Questions on Cass' sexuality are highly dependent on the person! For Cass in particular, the majority of takes about her sexuality come from Horrocks' run in Batgirl (2000), which is ambiguous and open-ended. There are multiple amazing readings that see her as aro/ace, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, questioning etc. So I'm not going to give a definitive answer here, and these thoughts are all my own - nothing I say here is meant to invalidate anyone else's interpretation.

Preamble aside, I don't think of Cass in a specific label tbh. I don't think she would have such an identitarian view of sexuality - that is, she wouldn't think of herself as 'a lesbian', even if she exclusively likes girls. That's not to say people can't call her a lesbian, or that she will never call herself a lesbian. I just think her sexuality is more fluid, and more exploratory, than a single category.

She does experience heteronormativity. Despite her upbringing being what it was, as soon as she entered the world she would've been exposed to heteronormative ideals, compounded by her love for reality TV, her main romantic ideal being DickBabs, and being around TimSteph. This heteronormativity of course influences the way she falls in love with men, in particular the whole Kon situation, which I read (as most people do) as comphet. The Cass-Kon thing though is also about Cass parsing out friendship from romantic feelings, so it's not really that straightforward. Meaning that while I don't think Cass ever felt anything for Kon, the comphet-ness of that relationship does not invalidate (to me) her feelings for other men.

I think that Cass has been legitimately attracted to men before, though really only Tai'Darshan. Tai is really important to Cass' awakening sexuality, so I like to think that she did love and care for him. Do I think they would've dated? Probably not. But there was something there that's not present for Cass-Kon, or other minor crushes like Cass-Sal, Cass-Javier, Cass-Dr. Shin etc. Thinking of out-of-cont texts, her relationship with Erik in Shadow of the Batgirl is also genuine to me. Also also I see the man in Batgirl (2000) #2 as Cass first 'crush', so I think she is genuinely attracted to men, but not frequently and in highly specific circumstances.

As for women, obviously as a StephCass lover I see Cass as being head over heels for Steph. I also think lesbian!Cass readings are popular because she has so much chemistry with every woman she meets: Rose, Brenda, Harper, Christine, Cela, literally every one of them has fun romantic undertones. (HarperCass, in particular, feels very romantic in B&R: E). She also has a fun ship with Xanthe who's non-binary. So Cass for me is Not Straight, and experiences attraction to other genders besides men. These are non-canon but there's only so many times you can hallucinate your best friend caressing you platonically okay?? Even though I think she can be attracted to men, I believe she's more attracted to other genders on the whole, particularly women.

All this to say I enjoy discussions on Cass' sexuality, but I view them more as 'readings' of her than definitive conclusions. In other words, there are asexual readings of CassKon, bisexual readings of TaiCass, lesbian readings of StephCass etc. that are really valuable and can coexist. The most boring reading you could have is her being straight tbh, so any other reading I find highly fascinating. It really depends on what ships people like, how they interpret Cass' sexuality exploration in Horrocks, and sometimes what they personally identify as. And that's the fun of reading + interpretation!!

[cultkinkcoven]

really can’t stand people who refuse to even try with neopronouns or understand therians because to my autistic brain it is so fucking simple and I feel like it’s actually everyone else that are over complicating shit.

We came up with a couple terms to describe a couple ideas of self. He, she, they. I don’t use neos, but I do use he and they. I use he because I am masculine aligned and I use they because I am also nonbinary and not entirely masc. I don’t have any feelings towards myself that do not feel human.

But some of our gendered pronouns aren’t even enough, and on the realest note, my gender is probably somewhere between boy slut and freak, but I usually just keep that to myself. If someone feels like these words aren’t specific enough to them, fuck yeah make another one. Are you kidding me? You explored your own identity enough to have come up with a special custom term that perfectly describes you? That’s so fucking cool dude.

If a neurodivergent person with CPTSD feels extremely inhuman because of their psychology/ trauma or real world experiences with discrimination, (wow you mean the person everyone treats differently doesn’t feel very human?! that’s crazy!) but they do however have a very easy time relating and communicating with cats through their nonverbal social cues, if they feel comfortable and expressive wearing a tail and ears, and think of themselves as “cat”, okay??? cool? Cat is a homie, tf. Why wouldn’t I want to be friends with cat, cat seems to know how to have fun.

If a neurodivergent person with DID has multiple altars that are littles, and because of some experience, they experience their little as an animal, a puppy, or baby bird, …. okay??? cool??? I’m not really in any kind of position to tell chick that chick can’t fucking exist, and honestly it’s really none of my business how a system manages their littles. “oh they’re probably mentally ill” okay??? And perhaps they are? They’re still living are they not? They still exist, yes? So am I going to go out of my way to make their existence more difficult? I don’t really see the point!!!

If a neurodivergent person with antisocial personality disorder has never felt connected to humanity whatsoever and simply does not want to be referred to by human terms, it’s really not my place to debate about it.

It doesn’t even have to be that serious. You’ve always identified strongly with fairies? Be a fucking fairy dude. No one can stop you. You feel like you’re an elf? Okay! No one can control you, you are whatever the fuck you are regardless of how anyone feels. You can reinvent yourself tomorrow. Why tf not.

Is it really that hard to dynamically adapt language? Like, when people tell me they don’t know how they could possibly use xi xim or xe xer (pronounced with a Z) in a sentence, it tells me that they literally have a lower capacity for learning language. Like they’re not smart enough to apply pronoun grammatical rules to new words, they can’t even fathom the concept of a new word because they somehow believe that words aren’t made up by people but just pop magically into existence. You don’t have to get neopronouns but if you’re telling me you seriously cannot figure it out, I’m genuinely going to think you’re slightly dumb (unless you’re dyslexic, you get a pass I know it’s rough out here for y’all lmao)

It’s not that I think every case of neopronouns is easily explainable and super simple, because it doesn’t even have to be.

It’s more so that, with 7 billion fucking humans on this planet, it’s really not a surprise to me that some of them express their identity through non human terms. As someone with autism I can understand that, even if I don’t feel the exact same. There is always going to be some weird person who goes by knife/knives or bun/bunny. Im kind of just happy they’ve found something they can feel comfortable within. I genuinely cannot bring myself to care enough to argue with someone about it.

The whole “so I can identify as an attack helicopter?” thing is so stupid because if you were being genuine you could identify as a damn fighter jet. But y’all ain’t ready for that conversation because everyone who is passionate is too cringe for y’all to handle.

[the-cat-and-the-birdie]

ATSV Fun Fact!! - Mumbattan Cultural Details

Gayatri & Inspector Singh follow the Sikh Religion

Have you ever heard of Punjabi Sikhs?

If you don't know - Sikhism is a religion that originates in northern India, specifically Punjab.

The turban Gayatri's father wears - along with his last name 'Singh' implies that her father is most likely a Punjabi Sikh.

I notice this the first time watching ATSV and was like 'wow that's so cool :)'

It only hit me today that 'Oh wait I don't think a lot of people know about this very-specific, rarely-mentioned religion maybe i should say something,'

And because I LOVE yelling about world culture, LET'S GO!!!

[a SHORT essay where I explain the basics of Sikhism, a religion built on equality and justice. And details in The Singhs design, and exactly why Sikh Representation matters]

So What's Sikhism about?

Often mistaken for Muslims - Sikhs are actually a non-Abrahamic religion, with 20 million followers worldwide.

But even with so many visible practicing members, most people know very very little about this beautiful religion!

Sikhs believe in equality and unity - and defending the oppressed. Their book of faith, The Guru Granth Sahib Ji, is called 'Guru' for a reason - Sikhs see the book as not just a code of conduct, but as a living, breathing teacher for every practicioner;

From Wikipedia on Guru Granth Sahib: Sikhs since then [1708] have accepted the Guru Granth Sahib, the sacred scripture, as their eternal-living guru, as the embodiment of the ten Sikh Gurus, the highest religious and spiritual guide for Sikhs. It plays a central role in guiding the Sikh's way of life.

The Guru Granth Sahib is the spiritual leader of Sikhism, and it's treated as such.

That's why in Gurdwaras - their place of worship - it's treated as such, being clothed and held in ornate structure, constantly fanned throughout it's readings (the fan you can see in the left picture).

They believe that by following the Guru Granth Sahib Ji, they can cultivate compassion, peace, and harmony in their communities, while diminishing 'Mara' - concepts like hatred or violence.

Sikhs believe that every Sikh should revere themselves as champions of unity. And because of this many Sikhs have the same last name -

Kaur for women (Meaning Princess) and Singh for men (Meaning Lion).

Having the same last name also does away with the Indian caste system, making it another point of equality.

In ATSV Gayatri last name is Singh. However from my understanding, her name would most likely be Gayatri Kaur in reality.

I think they kept her last name as Singh as a deliberate choice to keep her initials as GS, like Gwen Stacy.

So is Gayatri Sikh?

Maybe - most likely.

But we can't be sure. Mainly because of her hair.

Gayatri has a short bob haircut, and while that might not seem like it matters, it does!

In Sikhism there are the '5K's - different aspects Sikhs wear to show their faith.

Notice the first one?

'Kesh' is the practice of leaving ones hair completely uncut. That's why you may see a lot of Sikh men with long, long beards!

And hence, the large turbans.

It's done as respect for God's creation - leaving it unaltered.

[Fun Fact! - Rastafarians, a Jamaican religion, also don't cut their hair for this reason. Think Bob Marley. Rastas call God - Jah]

So, Gayatri having short hair means she doesn't keep Kesh.

However, Sikh is a super accepting and open religion, and it's main focus is on acceptance of difference, not conformity - so she could entirely follow the faith without doing all of any of the 5Ks.

Also, if you're curious about the steel sword K - Kirpan, yes that's a thing!

Sikhs of all genders are encouraged to carry a small ceremonial blade with them.

Instead it's a symbol of the commitment to fighting for what's right - and defending those who cannot defend themselves.

A Kirpan can ONLY be used to defend the life of yourself or others, which is incredibly rare.

Why is this all so rad, cool, and important?

If you haven't noticed by now, Sikhism is a religion driven by justice. Not just in theory, but in really life as well.

That's why you may see many Sikh police officers and politicians, even here in the West. Most of them wearing the emblem on their turbans.

In fact, Canada has SO MANY Sikh politicians, that in 2019 they elected 18 of them.

For centuries Sikhs have been dedicated to justice, and developing systems of support, whether that be political involvement or feeding those in need.

The biggest Gurdwara (a place of Sikh worship) The Golden Temple feeds over 100,000 people A DAY.

For FREE.

It's a practice called Langar. A communal meal anyone can enjoy. And of course, Langar food is vegetarian.

Making Inspector Singh a Sikh - and showing him saving people and being warm to his daughter on screen is great representation for a community so often overlooked! Despite the fact they are over 20 million practicing Sikhs.

It's a great detail for Indian and Punjabi representation in specific. It accurate shows their beliefs and commitment towards helping others, no matter the cost.

And from what we can tell, this choice came later in development. We know this because ALL of his concept art shows him with a turban, not keeping Kesh.

It seems like someone later on down the line said 'Wait if his name is Singh I think he's Sikh and if he's Sikh then we're gonna have to redesign him and make that obvious oops'.

That, dear audience, is why you always have an Anthropologist in the writing room. Or some amateur anthropologist like me :)

-------------

I hope you enjoyed reading this, I really enjoyed writing it!! Sikhism is one of my favorite religions and if you have never heard anything from the Guru Granth Sahib I HIGHLY recommend it, it's very optimistic and compassionate. Sikhnet(.)com is also a great resource!

I have no idea if this will pique anyone's interest, but I hardly ever see Sikhs reflected in media and I know many many people may confuse them with Muslim, especially since many women Sikhs keep kesh and cover their hair as well.

But if you ever wanted to know the difference, here it is! If you read this far, thank you SO MUCH. And if you're a Sikh and reading this, I LOVE YOU SO MUCH.

As usual, here's a photo of Hobie for your travels.

BYE.

[transmutationisms]

from a non-academic, i find parts of comphet to be useful (heterosexuality becomes compulsory when you’re raised in a heterosexual society) but the foundations . suck. what do we do with theories like this, that have touched on a truth but also carry a lot of garbage? can we separate the truth from the founder?

i have to be slightly pedantic and say that i don't think rich's essay is an example of this phenomenon. my central issue with her formulation is its bioessentialist assumptions about human sex and therefore also sexuality. if i say "capitalism includes economic mechanisms that enforce heterosexual behaviour and exclude other possibilities", then what i mean by "heterosexual" is plainly not the same as what rich means—and for this reason i would seldom formulate the statement this way, without clarifying that i am talking about the enforcement of heterosexuality as a part of the creation and defence of sex/gender categories themselves. so rich and i do not actually agree on the very fundamental premises of this paper! rich was not the first or only person to point out that economic mechanisms as well as resultant social norms enforce heterosexual pairings; i actually don't even think the essay does a very clear job of interrogating the relationship between labour, economy, and the creation of sex/gender; she means something different and essentialist to what i mean by sex and sexuality; and i think her proposed responses to the phenomenon she identifies as 'compulsory heterosexuality' are uninteresting because they mainly propose psychological answers to a problem arising from conditions of political economy. so, in regards to this specific paper, i am actually totally comfortable just saying that it's not a useful formulation, and i don't feel a need to rescue elements of it.

in general, i do know what you're talking about, and i think there's a false dichotomy here: as though we must either discard an idea entirely if it has elements we dislike, or we accept it on the condition that we can plausibly claim these elements and their author are irrelevant. these are not comprehensive options. instead, i would posit that every theory, hypothesis, or idea is laden with context, including values held and assumptions made by their progenitors. the point is not to find a mythical 'objective' truth unburdened by human bias or mistakes; this is impossible. instead, i think we need to take seriously the elements of an idea that we object to. why are they there? what sorts of assumptions or arguments motivate them, and are those actually separable from whatever we like in the idea? if so, can we be clear about which aspects of the theory are still useful or applicable, and where it is that the objectionable elements arise? and if we can identify these points, then what might we propose instead? this is all much more useful, imo, than either waiting for a perfect morally unimpeachable theory or trying to 'accept' a theory without grappling with its origins (political, social, intellectual).

a recent example that you might find interesting as a kind of case study is j lorand matory's book the fetish revisited, which argues that the 'fetish' concept in freud's and marx's work drew from their respective understandings of afro-atlantic gods. in other words, when marx said capitalists "fetishise" commodities or freud spoke about sexual "fetishism", they were each claiming that viewing an object as agentive, meaning-laden in itself (ie, devoid of the context of human meaning-making as a social and political activity) was comparable to 'primitive' and delusory religious practices.

matory's point here isn't that we should reject marx's entire contribution to political economy because he was racist, nor is it that we can somehow accept parts of what marx said by just excising any racist bits. rather, matory asks us to grapple seriously with the role that marx's anthropologically inflected racism plays in his ideas, and what limitations it imposes on them. why is it that marx could identify the commodity as being discursively abstracted and 'fetishised', but did not apply this understanding to other ideas and objects in a consistent way? and how is his understanding of this process of 'fetishisation' shaped by his beliefs about afro-atlantic peoples, and their 'intelligence' or civilisational achievements in comparison to northwestern europeans'? by this critique matory is able to nuance the fetish concept, and to argue that marx's formulation of it was both reductive and inconsistently applied (analogously to how freud viewed only some sexuality as 'fetishistic'). it is true in some sense that capital and the commodity are reified and abstracted in a manner comparable to the creation of a metaphysical entity, but what we get from matory is both a better, more nuanced understanding of this process of meaning-making (incl. a challenge to the racist idea of afro-atlantic gods as simply a result of inferior intelligence or cultural development), and the critical point that if this is fetishism, then we must understand a lot more human discourse and activity as hinging on fetishisation.

the answer of what we do with the shitty or poorly formulated parts of a theory won't always be the same, obviously; this is a dialogue we probably need to have (and then have again) every time we evaluate an idea or theory. but i hope this gives you some jumping-off points to consider, and an idea of what it might look like to grapple with ideas as things inherently shaped by people—and our biases and assumptions and failings—without assuming that means we can or should just discard them any time those failings show through. the point is not to waste time trying to find something objective, but to understand the subjective in its context and with its strengths and limitations, and then to decide from there what use we can or should make of it.

[lasirenatarot]

{18+}What turns them ON about you?❤️‍🔥

Pick -a-card reading.

*intended for your specific person in mind, but can be used for future spouse if you modify the question. If traditional gender roles don’t apply to your situation convert the words to feminine&masculine energy.*

->Pile 1

{Brad and Angelina}

{cards that fell: king of fire; mirror; justice; the world;5 pentacles;ace of swords; 7wands; ace of swords;2 wands}

This pile is really interesting, this person loves earning you in a way, feeling emotionally $ubmi$$ive, like you have control over them in all aspects without even touching them.

You may be bossy,this is definitely a turn on for your person. Ironically you chose the Brad&Angelina pic, and the situation being painted with those cards is exactly Mr and Mrs energy.

They enjoy a push and pull dynamic. If you try to dominate them I feel like they would also enjoy it👀 (even if they seem sceptical at first).

Arguing may be a turn on of theirs, puni$hing them with your absence or other ways when they don’t act accordingly; (that includes the makeup $£x after.) May sound toxic for some, but they may be one of those people that start little arguments for the smallest things sometimes, on purpose, so you two can ‘make up’ and they can ‘apologise’ by being good and pleasing you however you want (you know how) after..

They like when you’re acting kinda bitchy & like you’re ‘the prize’ they need to earn, but the key here is to do everything in moderation and not be mean&rude 24/7.

Your confidence may be a turn on for them. When you’re seducing them on purpose and then pulling away &acting like they can’t have you..(yet), because they should work more and ‘be better’ to get your attention. Your person needs constant passion to feel stimulated.

->Pile 2

{Vincent and Monica}

Cards that fell: 2fire,the punishment,earth,the priestess, 9water,king of water, 9swords,10chalices,knave of chalices,9pentacles,2pentacles }

This person loves the fact that you seem to have no restraints around them, you are quite open emotionally, in tune with your emotional side and know how to balance it well. (earth sign moon/venus energy).

Getting dolled up for them is sth they would probably appreciate- nice dress, hair & makeup done..

It may be a turn on for them knowing only they can have you in ways other people cannot.(you can tell them some bs like ‘yOu’Re tHe bEst I eVer Had..’ etc😂😂 it doesn’t matter if it is actually true, it would make them feel like a God.)

Praising them may be a turn on as well, it would make them feel more dominant, more in their power. Letting them take the control in bed, as well as non-$€xu@l situation would also be a little turn on for them, again, it would make them feel appreciated.

Knowing they can be the person that is capable of fulfilling all your needs is something very important to them. This pile is heavy on the praise k/ink, they need to feel desired&needed.

When you attend to them & their feelings, have obvious feelings for them ( i feel like this is important to mention, they may have been in a relationship where they’ve felt unappreciated, unwanted, not desired enough by their previous partner. The partner might have used them in a way.)

$€xting and writing notes to keep the anticipation during the day when u’re not together may work on them.👀

->Pile 3

{Jane et Serge}

Cards that fell: the moon, justice, the tower, 8pentacles, 10wands, 8fire,6air, 4swords, the world, king of air, ace of fire, temperance }

It will be hard to explain this energy but bare with me:

This person probably likes what I like to call more « bright » women- women who are confident&feminine, such who love the spotlight and getting lots of attention. ( in my mind is this scene where Jessica Rabit where she performs..)

People who are sensual & confident but not arrogant may be just their type.

A situation where they can feel turned on by you is for example if (hypothetically speaking) you’re in a group setting with some ppl who do not like you, they are passive aggressive with you, but you choose not to reply with the same energy and remain kind&graceful.(they may feel the urge to protect you and stand up for you in such situations) When you act like a « damsel in distress » basically, and they can be your « savior »..

A turn on for them I feel like it would be a situation where you’re ‘feeling yourself’, for example if you’re dancing in the club and they happen to be there as well and see you doing that.. $educing them in public places where you can get caught (or public $\€x)

Another turn on for them would be for you to ‘put on a show’ for them (you can decide yourself how, ex. give them a lap dance or sth, beautiful lingerie, a special dress..). They probably like the concept of « femme fatale » type of women who can ‘turn their life’ around.

This may not resonate for all, but if you are from a different culture/country, this may also be a turn on for them.

Decks used: ‘$£xual magic’ oracle deck by Lo Scarabeo; ‘Manara’ €rotic tarot deck by Milo Manara/ Lo Scarabeo;

That was all from today’s PAC.

thank you for reading! Hope it resonated.💞 Don’t forget to follow for more.

-La Sirena.💋

[sapphiresaphics]

I wanna talk about this moment from Blue Eye Samurai.

For those who don’t know what the show is about, Blue Eye Samurai follows the story of a half-Japanese half-White woman named Mizu who disguises herself as a male samurai and travels across Edo-period Japan in the late 1800’s to fulfill his quest for revenge.

The show deals a lot with the ways in which men and women’s rights were very different during this time period. Travel, for example, was heavily restricted and women were not allowed to travel at all without a male escort and travel pass.

Gender is also an important role in the show. Mizu is a woman, but she lives her life exclusively as a man, even going so far as to use male pronouns. And while this disguise affords him many privileges, it’s also made clear that deep down he wishes he could present as a woman and have womanly desires. Mizu (which means water in Japanese) bounces between the gender roles and struggles to find his/her place in the world’s expectations.

Which is why this little 10 second scene at the beginning of Episode 4 is interesting to me.

While looking for an inn in a town, Mizu and his apprentice Ringo are passed by these traveling flute players wearing straw baskets on their heads.

Mizu stops one of them and gives them money, bows, and moves on.

It lasts barely 10 seconds and I think for most people this is just a little bit of flavor to make the world seem populated and alive.

But knowing Japanese history this takes on a separate interesting meaning regarding Mizu’s gender identity.

These flute playing basket wearing travelers are the Komusō. Wandering non-monastic Buddhists.

They wore woven basket like hats that covered their faces. The idea being that wearing such a hat removed their ego. It also afforded them anonymity and concealed their identities.

The Komusō of this specific time period were almost exclusively Ronin and Samurai making pilgrimages to spiritual sites and temples. As such, this afforded them a lot of rights by the Shogunate government such as free travel through cities.

So this 10 second scene of Mizu paying their respects to the traveling Komusō takes on an interesting dimension, doesn’t it?

Mizu is a woman and a woman is not allowed to travel without a male escort of some kind, if at all. Disguised as a male Samurai Mizu is afforded a lot of privileges he would not have as a woman. But these traveling monks, who likely also are Samurai, are allowed to travel freely too. But only at the cost of their entire identity being concealed.

I find the fact that the creators took the time to learn about these monks and use them as a way to comment (however briefly in the scene) on Mizu’s struggles with identity. Mizu paying respect and giving the Komusō money is a way the show acknowledges how aware Mizu is of his identity.

And I just think that’s really neat!

[annabelle--cane]

tma s1 thing I just caught- in martin and sasha's statements, they both have a moment where they're describing the creature they encountered and stop themselves from using a gendered pronoun and go to "it" instead.

I could see those… thin, silver worms crawling in and out, and their black tips twitching as they squirmed through that… pitted… meat. I mean, it wasn’t human. It can’t have been. Sh-She… It took a step towards me and as it did so the worms began to writhe out of every hole and cavity, falling to the floor in a cascading… wave and starting to crawl towards me with… with alarming speed.

+

I didn’t want to call him Michael; it didn’t seem to fit somehow, and the way he said it made me think that it definitely was not his name. Still, it wasn’t like I had any other name for him. No, not for him. For it.

but martin doesn't refer to jane by pronouns for a while after that passage, and the first time he does is when he's having his "oh god was she just a sick woman I left to die" moment, and after that he reverts to using she and her pronouns for the rest of his statement. conversely, sasha uses it and its for michael the whole way through her statement after that, except for, debatably, this one line near the end. both the snarp and rq official transcripts have is down as "its," but I distinctly hear "his."

I looked up to see Michael, reaching into my shoulder. Its fingers were long and distorted as they reached through my skin, cutting it like paper. I screamed. After a few seconds, it withdrew its hand. Held there was a single silver worm, wriggling pathetically in his grip. I hadn’t even felt the thing burrowing into my arm.

to me these differences are interesting from a few angles, both from the martin/sasha and jane/michael sides of things (also just for clarity I'm going to use she/her for jane and he/him for michael going forward in this post).

michael consistently self-describes as non human, or slightly human but only begrudgingly and against his will, and to sasha's knowledge michael was never human at all, whereas jane is more simply a normal person who got creaturefied, so "it" and other traditionally non human language may just be a better fit for michael's reality than for jane's, but I also think the specific places where sasha and martin switch back to traditionally human pronouns are telling. in michael's case, it is the moment where sasha sees that he's directly saved her life, even though he did so by using a distinctly inhuman aspect of himself: his distorted hands. in jane's case, it's when martin contemplates whether she was in need of help and he abandoned her, and after contemplating that he doesn't try using "it" for her again. sasha re-humanizes michael when he is being vitally helpful, and martin re-humanizes jane when he thinks about her as vulnerable.

I also think martin trying to see jane as non human and not managing to keep it up even a little bit speaks to his reoccurring issue of being inconsistent in whom he dehumanizes and at what times. he wants to see jane as a monster when she's in his line of sight and scary and gross, but once he's away from her and conceptualizes of her as being theoretically vulnerable, he can only see her as a person.

[casscainmainly]

can you dive more into bruce’s dislike of cass’ femininity?

Sure!! To preface this, gender and Cass is a really nuanced topic that has a lot of interpretations, all equally valid. This is just my own interpretation, and is mainly situated in early Batgirl (2000). I also recommend reading my gender and sexuality posts for Cass' persepctive on her relationship with gender. But since I've gotten a couple questions about it, I'll cover specifically Bruce's evolving opinions on Cass' gender here.

Beginning

From Batgirl #1, Puckett establishes Bruce's view of Cass: she is like him. Both Barbara and Bruce (and Cass herself) acknowledge this, and it allows Bruce to understand Cass in a way Babs doesn't. This isn't gendered yet, but the seed (that Horrocks will pull on) is there - Bruce closely associates Cass with himself, meaning he focuses on the ways they're similar and ignores the ways they're different.

This similarity is comforting not just for Bruce, but for Cass as well. They are equals - they have similar fighting abilities, philosophies against killing, ways of expressing themselves, etc. She doesn't have to hold back, not with him. Both of them wanted her to be 'like him'.

Bruce does not want Cass being taken "away from [him]". "You want me to think she's like you," he tells David Cain in #5. His biggest fear is Cass being like someone else, and not like him.

The Threat of Stephanie Brown

This recurring motto - 'you're not like them, you're like me' - crops up again when Bruce talks about Stephanie in #38. I've discussed how this makes Cass think she lacks something in femininity, but for Bruce this is him drawing a line between Steph and Cass. Steph is a 'girl', treated like one by Bruce: incompetent, not to be taken seriously, belittled. But because Cass is 'like Bruce,' she can "never" be like Stephanie. Cass being like Stephanie challenges not only Bruce's views of both women, but also his own highly cherished belief that him and Cass are the same.

Steph's feminine presence threatens Bruce and Cass' relationship, kicking off a series of issues where Bruce desperately tries to suppress Cass' gender and sexuality.

Vacation

When Cass encounters Tai'Darshan (a boy love interest) and lets him go, Bruce agrees to send Babs and Cass on a vacation. His motivations are extremely murky: Babs implies it was a set-up to get Cass into action again (justified by a panel of Bruce evilly smirking), but a panel right after has Bruce looking sad:

From #40: "You don't really give a damn about Cassandra, do you?" The juxtaposition between these two panels - one with Bruce (sans mask) smirking, and the other with Batman brooding - suggests he does care about Cass, but he struggles with how. For the first time he's realising that Cass isn't like him, that she's a girl with all that girlhood entails, and it frightens him. The cowl (Batgirl) allows him to ignore what's underneath, but Cass is coming through more and more.

But when Babs mentions Kon, the struggle goes out the window.

Thi anger is funny in a girldad way, but it goes to show how much he cannot stand the thought of Cass exploring her sexuality. It's not just that he doesn't want his little girl to date - it's that somehow, Cass embodying her girlhood will separate her from him forever.

Loss

Babs explicitly points out Bruce's feelings in #42. Though she couches it in non-gendered terms ("school, a job"), it's no coincidence that it's specifically a gendered thing - "falling in love" (with a boy, Kon and/or Tai) - that Bruce is reacting to. So far Bruce has threatened Cass away from Stephanie (her first female friend), Tai/Kon (love interests), and has repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction in Babs (Cass' mother figure). He tries to limit any relationships that allow Cass either feminine solidarity or expressions of her femininity.

Bruce sees girl!Cass as fundamentally opposed to Batgirl!Cass. Batgirl is like him - Cass is not. She's "distracted. Unfocused. Unreliable..." That last adjective is super interesting, because it frames Cass' explorations of gender as an insult against him. Cass becoming more girl-like is making her "unreliable" to Bruce, making her harder to trust.

"If you've got better things to do than being Batgirl, Cass, just say so." This can be read as an ultimatum, but also as a genuine question. He's asking if she wants to be like him (Batgirl), or go her own way (Cass). When she picks Batgirl, he tells her "no more trips to Kansas." To be like him, she must give up her explorations of gender/sexuality.

Firing

In the aftermath of a trip to Tai's hometown (during which he dies), Cass grows increasingly distant to Bruce.

Bruce finally realises that Cass is not like him - that her differences, most vitally expressed in her girlhood, means she needs something different from him. "She no longer tells us what she's doing..." Bruce still associates Cass exploring her gender as disloyalty to him and his symbol, but this time he acknowledges that maybe that disloyalty is a good thing.

Then we have maybe the most interesting part:

Bruce's "I wouldn't know" is a response to Babs' second dialogue, but it's interesting to read his words as also a response to the first. Because Bruce wouldn't know what it's like to give into hormones, to "have sex, take wild risks, misbehave". Of course he's had sex, but his life is so consumed by his mission that Bruce has limited opportunities to explore his gender. In a way, Bruce's repression of Cass' femininity reflects his repression of his own gender exploration.

The Fight

In #50, Cass and Bruce get into a fight, during which Babs questions whether Cass is trying to "kill" or "kiss" Bruce. In the broader context of their gender struggles, this fight is the culmination of Cass and Bruce figuring out their gender expressions and sexualities. I'm reading this not as a romantic kiss, but as a symbol of sexual release - of defying sexual and gendered repression.

Bruce finally explicitly asks Cass who's she loyal to, and Cass points to the Bat. For Bruce, this choice symbolises that Cass is still loyal to Batgirl/Batman, but also her own person; he finally understands how Cass is like him, but also unlike him, and that her (gender) difference doesn't make her any less able to wear the symbol.

This fight is often analysed from Cass' perspective, but it was clearly important to Bruce, too. It was the turning point in his treatment and understanding of Cass - after this point, their relationship never hits the same lows again, and Bruce starts treating her like her own person (cultiminating in the Batgirl (2008) adoption). In Gabrych's run, Bruce leaves Cass alone and doesn't stop her from searching for Shiva, a huge difference from the way he previously handled her feminine relationships and soul-searching.

Ending

So I guess to say Bruce hated Cass' femininity (which I wrote in a previous post) is an oversimplification; it's not purely misogyny (though that was a part of it), but his longing for her to be exactly like him that caused him to try to repress her gender/sexuality. Her femininity was a marker of difference, a sign she was not completely subsumed in him and his symbol. However, Horrocks' run also shows how Bruce changes and grows, learning to accept Cass as his wonderful daughter.

I hope that answers your question!!

[olderthannetfic]

https://www.tumblr.com/olderthannetfic/765950159275409408/well-ive-finally-seen-a-het-guideverse-thing?source=share

i think its so funny (and by funny I mean completely predictable) that het writers keep not only borrowing the fanfic tropes but specifically tropes invented by queer people. But also the other part of this the het omegaverse and now het guideverse its all basically a new way to present the whole 'i sold myself to one direction' 'sexual slavery' 'kidnapping' tropes.

So for me its funny (now actually funny) that so many het writers apparently even with the boom of dark romance and stuff are uncomfortable with straight up writing their desired kink but are more comfortable dressing it up in faux fantasy/sci-fi setting and selling it as romantasy or whatever.

Just say you're into non con! But no it's easier to say I'm into romantasy than I'm into non con.

And yeah of course the entitlement is off the roof in those spaces. Honestly there's so much unchecked queerphobia in all m/f ships and het romances that I won't be surprized if we actually got another Addison Cain because now since the straights got their hands on this trope its no longer "gross" and "icky" of course. It's now a trope in the romance genre and you voicing any concerns about the way people talk about gender and queerness in those spaces is now misogyny. And the romance girlies will of course rally to protec their favorite romance writer.

They did learn that lesson very well, of brushing any criticism aside as misogyny.

--

Romantasy spaces can be irritating, but I do think a lot of the point of Good Girls Don't tropes is for the reader to also not have to admit to being horny or horny for noncon. Of course there's that fig leaf of sff biology made them do it... or he thought she was a prostitute because reasons.

[askanonbinary]

Hey, im looking to understand more about non binary people. I am strongly feminist and support equal rights etc, but im stuggling with understanding an aspect of people being non binary. What is the difference between being able to present and exist freely in any way one wants, while still being male or female, and being non binary?

I have been wondering if it is the standards and expectations of each gender that is too limiting, making people feel like they have to break out of the gender to be the way they want. It seems i might get pushback on this, which is okay. But i wonder what the difference is between being a man or woman who dresses and acts in any way they like, and a non binary person?

The one worry i have about the internet "culture" of different and specific gender labels is that especially girls who dont feel like they fit in society's very limiting definition of "girl" will remove themselves from the gender rather than be a part of widening the definition.

Could you give me your thoughts on these things?

So I went and looked at your blog and you seem like a normal person, rather than a bigot, so I'm going to take this earnestly and introduce you to what I call "Dome Theory."

Okay, so think about gender in two parts. There’s what is called the “activity of gender” and there’s what is called the “feeling of gender.” The activity of gender would be your participation in things like masculinity and femininity. So as a woman, wearing makeup or dresses. As a man, enjoying sports and physical tasks. This is really limiting, you're right. And when people come up against the limits of it, that might send them to question the feeling of gender. The feeling of gender is a little more complicated though. Because you can feel like your gender for a number of reasons, most of which will be hard to put into words… but you don’t have to participate in the acts that correspond with your gender to feel that.  So you don’t have to be feminine to be a woman or masculine to be a man. Which is a space a lot of people find themselves in when they question, rather than deciding they don't feel like a woman.

I think understanding what I mean, though, requires a bit of understanding of what it means to "feel" your gender. So to explain, I like to go with a metaphor I call “the domes.”  So you know how in the Hunger Games, the games are based in these domes that have their own geography, ecosystems, climate, terrain separate from The Capitol outside?  Well imagine that like gender.  

So for simplicity’s sake, I’m going to focus on men and women and I’m going to reduce the action of gender to one behavior. Just know it’s obviously a tad more complicated. So there are these two domes that have different geography, ecosystems, climate, and terrain based on the action of doing that gender. So let’s say women swim and men climb trees.  So the “woman” dome would have lots of water and docks and you learn to swim. It would be warm so that swimming is comfortable… that kind of stuff. Now, you could be good, bad, or mediocre at swimming (being feminine)… but if you feel like you belong there, that’s your gender.  The feeling of gender is how you feel about being placed in that dome.  A cis woman would be put into this dome as a baby and she wouldn’t feel wrong about being placed there… so she grew up learning to swim and didn’t feel bad or wrong about the climate or geography or terrain of your dome… It didn’t feel *wrong* to her.  That’s how she got her feeling of gender. But let’s say there'a a trans guy.. He would have been placed in the same “women’s” dome with her when he was a baby but he felt off about it. 

Say perhaps he wasn’t good at swimming. Or maybe he was but he just didn’t like it. Or maybe it wasn’t the swimming that bothered him, it just felt too hot in there. Or maybe it was something else.  Whatever it was, he looked outside of the dome and saw a dome right next to him where people climbed trees to get around. They swung on ropes to get from tree to tree and it looked so cool!  

They built houses and stores up in the trees.  There was water to drink and use, but not many people swam in it too much. the forest was dense and beautiful. He decided to take a trip over there and try out that dome. The second he walked in, it felt like home. He could be good, bad, mediocre at climbing tress, he could still swim… but for the most part, that dome just felt like home to him. It felt right. He felt off about being put in the woman’s dome, so he went looking for another place to be. 

Now, for nonbinary people, there are an infinite number of possibilities for domes. Your dome could be about any one thing, it could be about 3 things and really niche, it could change, you could just be out in the open. That's me, I made my own way in a non-binary open space. But we could have so many different domes for those of us who aren't in the man dome or the woman dome. And this, I hope illustrates what takes place in the questioning phase and how someone could find they don't fit in the very small bit of femininity/womanhood, which might lead them to question... but that isn't what the identity of nonbinary rests on.

Does that make sense? Do you have any follow up questions? I encourage discussion

-Mod Zoe Leo