#the most cishet guy thing about them

[lvl100hummuswarrior]

top ten pieces of yuri that are required reading for petrigrof

every pearl episode

burn pygmalion

alice isnt dead (if i remember correctly what i took from it 5 years ago)

i cant think of another one send post

[snekdood]

wish i could slap the apathy out of trans channers

[website-com]

since pepper was asking for it something that girls do that always makes me think 'cool gender' is not change their names despite it being historically masculine and re-defining the name through their identity and relationship to it.

[iboughtyouviolets]

If you have ever been around a cishet wyt boy (let's face it, they aren't MEN with that attitude) that has been needlessly cruel. You too may have been a victim of JoeyMcFlyfuck.

[ocean-breeze-pier]

A very specific subset of transandrophobia that drives me insane is where as a nonpassing trans guy (mind you so I do experience misogyny still and have throughout most of my life) cis women when they’re arguing with me will treat me the exact same as a cishet man the second they find out I’m trans. Ever since getting dragged into pride month discourse with cis lgbt women, this keeps happening to me. They tell me I’m tone policing “like a typical man” when I say I’m upset about being misgendered (by the woman who misgendered me. These kinds of comments didn’t start until she realized I’m trans). When I defended lesbians bc I’m seeing a lot of them get hated on and god forbid I stick up for people in our community especially those who often have an overlap with transmascs, I have someone tell me that “lesbians don’t need a man to save them”. My words are interpreted in the least charitable way possible and I become a substitute for cis women’s hatred of men. And they can get away with it bc hating men is the norm. EVEN THOUGH I EXPERIENCE A LOT OF THE SAME THING THEY DO.

[genderqueerdykes]

there really is a cultural pressure for transmascs & men to detransition, and it comes from all sides. it comes from the queer community too, not just terfs and cishet transphobes.

it took me a while to realize why transphobic people and transandrophobic queers utterly despise trans guys & mascs who are over the age of like 25- it's because it pisses them right off that we've resisted their attempts to make us detransition. it makes them so angry to see they were unable to groom that person into a life of self-shame and repression. it really seems like MOST people believe that trans men will just detransition eventually in life? people NEVER think about older trans men, only teenage trans boys and trans men in their very early twenties.

when i was involved with my local punk scene i was addressed with condescension, almost everyone around me didn't accept transmasculinity as a legitimate identity and thought that we would've transitioned by now in life. i encountered folks who would talk about transmasculinity with subtle disgust that made me feel like i was doing something wrong, and people who expressed overt disgust, saying in plain english that they were disgusted by breasts and vaginas because they were gay men. all along the way i was literally mocked for not having a penis, and one of my roommates started treating me differently once they found out i didn't have one (because they were attracted to me)

i've been on T for 9 years, and been out as a trans man for a bit longer than that, and i noticed as i've aged i've also attracted a lot of folks who have tried to deter me from identifying as a trans man, either through directly telling me that trans men are inherently dangerous, or by implying that women or another gender are safer, quieter, calmer, "less traumatizing to be around," etc. one of my exes told me they were terrified to date me (despite literally going out of their way to do so for over half a year) because they were scared i would be transphobic to them because i'm a transmasculine lesbian.

i received pressure from online friends to either detransition and become an intersex butch woman, or to something feminine adjacent or nonbinary. for years i dealt with a few friends who kept subtly hinting that i should stop identifying as a trans man or trans masc because of how awful transmascs are- going as far as to sending me screenshots of transmascs speaking, complaining about them and calling them whiny, annoying. talking about how all transmascs are entitled, how all transmascs take things too personally, how we complain too much, and so on.

people make no effort to make space for transmascs and men. i met 0 transmascs in my local punk community that i was able to stay in contact with. none. i met a few in passing but none that actually were introduced to me in a capacity where i could actually try to befriend them. it really felt like other punks in the scene were desperately trying to keep the transmascs apart at times. excuses were made as to why i couldn't hang out with other transmascs i liked, but i was constantly being forced to befriend transphobic cis gay men and transandrophobic transfemmes who outwardly expressed hatred and disgust of us. it really felt like it was on purpose... almost as if other members of this community wanted our attention, but never wanted us to give each other attention or a sense of community. like we were objects, not people to be included in the community for real. satellite friends, if you will.

i'll be honest with you. i was at my lowest at this point. i realized i wasn't just a trans man and that i'm a genderqueer person who experiences multiple genders, including womanhood and an "other" gender, which was great. however now i was being forced to completely stuff down being a man for the sake of other people. instead of folks telling me they'd rather not hang out with transmascs, folks rather just attempted to guilt me for identifying as such in the hopes i'd stop identifying that way. i was being told daily that trans men and mascs are inherently violent and terrible to be around. i was in discord servers where transmascs were being kicked constantly for getting even slightly upset about transandrophobia, or being unfairly targeted by staff.

it's violence, but nobody wants to call it that. i pulled myself out of there and am now able to contact other transmascs and trans men who are proud of who they are and have elevated me back into a headspace where it's okay to truly be myself. just keep in mind that if you feel like you're in that situation, you're not alone. people who attempt to groom others are often very subtle it's not always up front. they will start slipping in hateful sentiments very slowly and make you feel like maybe they're the ones who are actually right.

it feels good to be an almost 32 year old trans guy. there's nothing to be ashamed about there. people project their feelings on to my gender and that has nothing to do with me. it has nothing to do with you, either. people will just project on to you for whatever reason- hatred is usually the motivator there. if you encounter folks who keep trying to badger you out of identifying as your gender, no matter who you are, transmasc, transfemme, transneutral, trans anything- they are not good for you. they are not your friends. they do not accept you as you are and you deserve so much better.

[petr1kov]

it's a little funny to think about how guys from boy bands don't get much respect from other men, considering that being popular with women is one of the biggest indicators of success among cishet guys and boy bands and their members are practically designed in a lab to appeal to the largest amount of girls and women possible. that should, in theory, make these guys seem really manly to most men, but that's rarely ever the case, and it's not that strange once you realize that being truly attractive to women is not really a priority for them, even when they act like it is. the boy band members are popular with women, sure, but not in the 'right' way. boy bands don't 'conquer' girls, they market themselves to girls by doing things that women actually like, usually through presenting a sensitive and romantic persona through their lyrics and public image. so basically, the fact that they are made to please women and teenage girls specifically kills any possible credit they could have in this sphere because it puts them in a perceived 'subservient' position which is incompatible with the macho ideal

[cripplecharacters]

What exactly defines a token character as a bad representation choice and not as a "background character" who happens to be disabled? And can a disabled character be the only disabled character but still good representation?

I know having relevant disabled characters is important, but when, besides the cast members who influence the plot, you have one of those scenes where a one-off character needs to be there, like when the autistic protagonist needs a ride in the middle of the road and a little person stops to help, or when the wheelchair user main character wants to talk to the magic council about a certain situation and the attendant is a blind person with a cane who checks the information of a braille book, is it safe from tokenism?

Hey!

For this post I will use "representation" to imply good/decent representation, not just the act of XYZ minority technically appearing on the page.

There's definitely a lot to discuss when it comes to tokenism, and there are a lot of different criteria that you can use to define what exactly it is.

So I'm gonna start with the main definition of what would differentiate a "token" from an unimportant character (=one that doesn't influence the actual plot) who just happens to be disabled: how you go about the fact that they are in your book(/comic/etc.).

If you put in the description of your work that it's "disability rep!" because there's this one guy in a wheelchair in one scene, that's tokenism: using a minority to simply boost/promote something as "diverse". That's the most annoying occurrence of it, there's so much media that people recommend as "XYZ rep" and when you look into it, the "rep" is a side character that shows up in two episodes and has like a line of dialogue. Sad!

To use one of your examples, tokenism would be if you claimed that your work has "dwarfism representation" in it because of that one guy who helps the main character in one scene. It's... just not that. That doesn't mean it's bad; if every single background character who wasn't a cisHet white abled Christian man (etc.) was supposed to be deep and thought-provoking then no one would be writing them, because that's not what a background character is supposed to be.

But - you could commit a tokenism with a character even if they are just a background extra who shows up once. Tokenism often goes with the fact that the token character could be swapped out for a non-minority one and nothing would change, since the key here is that the author doesn't really care: it's all just to say "hey, I got XYZ in my book!". So if you were to write a background character that you explicitly mention has disability X, but then they do something that a person with that disability wouldn't be able to do - that's probably a token (if not, it's still a badly made character). It's there to "represent" a group, but it doesn't make sense and there is no point so to speak because the author just doesn't care.

In that way, many disabled characters are just tokens - because the writer is writing an abled character, but keeps calling them disabled. When's the last time anyone has seen a character with albinism who was blind or low vision? What's up with all those deaf characters who read lips and speak orally so well that you literally forget they are even supposed to be deaf? Why is that "tragically unable to walk" character... walking for the entire duration of the book? They're just tokens done with no care nor research, it's all diversity points and quirky aesthetics. Everyone wants to be "inclusive", no one wants to actually have a disabled character who experiences disability.

Another thing with background characters is what role they serve. Most of them are fine - cashier has a skin condition, guy ordering a drink uses a speech generating device, mom of an annoying kid doesn't have a leg, cool. But sometimes it's worth to just ask "why am I making this specific character, whose disability has no impact on the story, disabled?". That is to say that if you need a prodigy piano player and your idea is to make them totally blind who always wears sunglasses, or to make the generic murderer have a big burn scar on half of their face, you're repeating a stereotype. "Role" also encompasses what happens to them. Does the one disabled guy just... die, and that's all? That's a token.

Those are the main things I'd avoid when it comes to background characters. Don't claim that they are what they aren't or represent what they don't, and if you want a disabled character - even just an extra - then either commit or just don't do it, and keep in mind where you're putting them in the first place.

Can a disabled character be the only disabled character but still good representation?

They sure can, but they just aren't, usually at least. The problem with single character representation is that it puts a big burden on this one character: to represent a whole community. That's a lot. I've found myself in this exact spot before: small cast, one character is disabled, and I try to make the whole thing better and more authentic... every single time the result was adding more disabled characters, even if their roles were smaller. It's about the potential contrast.

There are choices that you can do when you have multiple characters of X minority that you should probably avoid if there's just one of them. If I see a work that has three blind characters and one of them wears sunglasses, my reaction will be "oh, cool, they have photophobia like me". If there's one blind character, and they wear sunglasses, my assumption will be that that's what just the writer thinks all blind people wear.

(Even though, that singular character could 100% also be photophobic. My assumption here is based on my experience, because that's how it usually goes.)

In that case you can find yourself in a place where you either need to subvert a bunch of stereotypes (some of which are based in fact!) or address it in one way or another in your work. That character could say "oh, I wear sunglasses indoors because even artificial light really hurts my eyes", but in order to do that, you need to be aware that this is a writing trope in the first place. Not to mention, if you do it too much, it starts reading as some sort of disability PSA. There's a fine line to everything, and the fewer characters of a particular minority you have, the harder it is to navigate it in a way that feels natural to actually read.

Sometimes the occurrence of just a single disabled character also raises some questions. Where's everybody else at? There are some exceptions to that (e.g. stories with a very limited character count) but generally speaking, everyone knows someone who's disabled in one way or another, especially if they're disabled themself. Books tend to make disabled people seem as a rare phenomenon, but that's really not the case.

Sometimes it borders on nonsensical worldbuilding - all those disabled characters who only get their mobility aids/meds because they Know A Guy (or are that guy)... I always ask myself, "what about all those people who don't know this one specific guy? what about everyone who lived before and after this one specific guy?", and I don't think the authors ever consider that. Unless the world population count is in triple digits at most, your character won't be the only disabled person. Writing in a way that subconsciously implies that they are is to me just another form of tokenism, because they're not only the only disabled character in the story, they're also presumably the only one in that universe overall.

This is just a lot of paragraphs to say that you probably aren't ever fully safe from tokenism unless there are multiple disabled characters who have at least somewhat important roles in the story - and even then, they can still be badly written, just in different ways.

Sorry for the long post but I hope this helps,

mod Sasza

[velvetvexations]

Chiming in on the whole "do tmascs/the transandrophobia community actually harass tfems on the scale that is claimed" thing, I've been wondering that for a while too, especially since back when [Popular Trans Blogger] was dealing with The Most Normal CEO Ever I saw literally EVERY SINGLE major voice in transandrophobia circles immediately drop everything, put aside all the harassment and hate they had faced, make it clear that trans people being harmed by cishet society comes before discussing deeper theory, and basically non-stop post about how she didn't deserve that and openly critique tumblr's transphobia and how it hurts tfems despite the fact that that user and her followers had been consistently vile to transmascs. Like they all jumped up to add their voices against the banning, it was so fucking clear they were able to prioritize protecting trans people no matter what, and no one ever really talks about it because they also don't gloat about putting the swords down for the greater good. It's just something they know needs to be done and they won't paint themselves as heroes or martyr for it.

On the other hand, I've never in my entire life seen a big TRF or anyone who travels in those circles ever stick their neck out when tmascs are experiencing harassment and transphobia, not once. Not even when it leads to the same unjust bans that tfems face(which do happen, at similar rates to tfem bloggers like the idea that the trans bans are a tfem only thing is simply not true). Like I've blogs that are constantly posting about how "if you never post anything about supporting trans women then you're probably a secret transmisognist" turn around and respond to people pointing out that they never post anything even vaguely supportive of tmascs(not even talking about discourse just the usual "trans men are valid and deserve support" positivity stuff that goes around) who are on their "side" by saying "um I'm a trans woman and this is my personal blog so I don't have to say nice things about trans men ever and it says absolutely nothing about me that I never have anything kind or nice to say about even the transmascs that are on my side/valid in my opinion and actually it's bigoted for you to demand I say nice things about other trans people fuck you kthxbye" and I just. What??

I know that there have been some cases of tmasc/transandrophobia bloggers harassing a trans woman, but like. It's pretty rare and usually only a couple of people. And that's still bad ofc but the scale is different for sure. In terms of big, influential tumblr users I swear every single time a popular tfem gets deactivated all the transandrophobia bloggers jump to their defense, meanwhile TRFs just gleefully go around attacking every trans guy who so much as breathes in their direction and calls you a transmisognist if you point out that it's fucked of them to have a double standard about trans rights. Or acts like "I said something bigoted and other members of my community got mad" is harassment. Like [Popular Tfem Musician] was def getting Harassed but I watched the whole thing unfold and while there were a few shitty tmascs chiming in, overall the harassment was led by an entirely different group who was mad about something unrelated, they just happened at the same time so everyone figured ALL the harassment was coming from tmascs when it very much was not.

(Also tmasc/transandrophobia bloggers are also constantly adding "if you're a follower and I see you bothering the person I'm talking about I'll report and block you myself" they like care a lot about all trans people and will show tf up for even ones they disagree with or who have directly harmed them when push comes to shove. [Popular MLP Tfem Artist] is still getting accused of harassing other trans women despite her constantly instructing her audience to leave everyone alone. And I have def seen way more transandrophobia bloggers call out any tmascs or other trans people on "their" side get ignored and deplatformed if they prove to be bad actors. I don't see TRFs doing that like. Ever. Like they go "take our the trash in your community" to tmascs but pretend they can't read when someone asks them to denounce people who openly harasses tmascs. Or just makes excuses for them because surely we can't actually harm a trans man, it doesn't count.)

But yeah I fully assume the reason TRFs say no one ever harasses tmascs but that they harass tfems all the time is because they simply do not think harassing trans people is wrong so long as it's directed at the correct target. I mean why would the "trans men don't have real problems" crowd ever actually say anything nice about them or help them when they're being harassed or tell their followers to leave them alone? It's just really sad to watch, big tmasc bloggers are not harassing people the way the TRFs want everyone to think, and they certainly don't harass other trans people the way TRFs do, but they get burdened with the harassment accusations and no one thinks to even check if that's actually what's happening.

10/10, I have nothing to add.

[tiktaalic]

catching fire dash simulator

finnicksgirl Follow

my streams have been cutting all season omfg what is going on

caps4finnick Follow

cinnagirl3000 Follow

anybody heard from cinna lately?

plutarcheology Follow

Plutarch Heavensbee circa 2282

revolutionarykatniss

As if it’s not ENOUGH that yall wanna fuck the most morally bankrupt man alive who is more than complicit because he gets paid to live in luxury to ORCHESTRATE the deaths of innocents so that they’re a spectacle and don’t have the option to die even semi peacefully. as if that’s not enough. You wanna fuck him when he’s ugly?

caesarflickerwoman Follow

anyone else still thinking about how caesar and peeta were kinda ..

czrflckmn

Aren’t you the one who had the week long meltdown about peeta being overfamiliar with him

caesarflickerwoman

Well you see I’m gay and a man now

theeclove Follow

already tired of this fucking season of everlark -_- idgaf about the fucking fog

siblingvictors

DISTRICT ONE GONNA SEND THEM A CANCELLATION NOTICE!! #CASHMEREGLOSS4EVER

czrflkmn Follow

everyone looooooves to act like NOTABLE cishet peeta is so gay w caesar as if his gay cohost isn't right there.... slaying in a wig..... sending yearning glances caesar's way right before the camera cuts......

johannadykeson Follow

tbh she’s got the WORST taste in allies idek why i continue to stan. girl MAGS?

#my girl going to get slorn :/

katnissgirlsmakedo

She is choosing with her HEART she chose to save peeta in the games REMEMBERRRRRRRR she’s literally a lovergirl to the core

#lovecore #heartcore #truelove

lucygraydotcom Follow

Caesar flickerman kidn if a laughing gnome. Reblog

finnickforever Follow

I’ve supported finnick through a lot and defended them and I’ve always been proud they're from my district but honestly they went way too far by doing the salute during the interview. I can only hope that they just got caught up in the moment with everyone else doing it and obviously it’s a stressful situation but I don’t think I can continue endorsing them. I’ll be changing my url this week.

divorceekatniss Follow

hey guys i know times are tough for everyone and the capital has really cracked down but my mutual @divorceepeeta got flogged the other day and could really use some help. v3nmo here. anything helps #signalboost #mockingjay

disabledmags Follow

Tbh the baby is the saddest thing I've ever heard </3

peetaspride

Another citizen falling for capital propaganda. It's so glaringly apparent that this is made up to draw in views. The tributes undergo extensive medical examination prior to the games. They would NEVER let a pregnant woman compete.

disabledmags

As if killing children has ever stopped them before?

#We all saw him fall to protect her stomach before they even started the victory tour #Is it that ridiculous to believe two newlyweds fresh out of a life or death situation would celebrate a little carelessly?

peetaspride

If you think even the marriage is real you're stupider than I thought. Peeta spends every interview begging us to see his truth. The capital is shamelessly silencing him and "the baby" is a distraction.

peetasbabymama Follow

URL CHANGE!! faggotpeeta->peetasbabymama

cupcakeeverlark

this isnt funny. peeta's a real person with real feelings. it will never be funny to call someone a f***** as a joke. how would you feel if my url was f*****peetasbabymama?

peetasbabymama

ok

district420

isnt cupcakeeverlark literally prez snow's 12 yr old granddaughter lol

tendinghiswounds

OOMF IS 12???????????

everlarklovechild

the age is the problem here?

marriedeverlark Follow

Canon url 🎉🎊💅😁🥰♥️

beeteemp3 Follow

New content of my favorite tribute 😁😁😁

3ffietrinket

Girl there’s a 96% chance they die ?

peenick Follow

getting reports from the presidential banquet that Peeta looks gay as fuck

3v3rlark Follow

ik peeniss has been flagging w the rehearsed speeches but did anyone else see the way they looked at each other in the censored district 11 speech

rues-song

you’re STUPID she’s a capital pawn AND i fucked your mom while you were busy looking for illegal streams

senecacraneofficial Follow

rip seneca you were so babygirl </3

plutarchbaby69

so now you think we can’t fuck old men?

#this fandom is so ageist #this is prob what I get for blogging about thg tbh since # it’s literally about kids. Some of you ppl need to grow up

[drdemonprince]

I keep seeing the posts about male socialization and idk it makes me feel weird because I identify as transfem and I *do* believe I had male socialization. I find it easier to identify with and understand male groups and to feel involved in the while I feel less at ease understanding how women feel and think even though my personal view of myself leans more towards a feminine identity. All these posts make me doubt that I am truly "transfem" and that even if I am, that I am fundamentally transfem in a different way than most other transfems I run into. Is there any sources or writing out there that either provides a counter-perspective or at the very least points to nuance on this subject from a transfem lens? I wish I didn't feel so alone with these feelings.

Your feelings and experience do not make you any less legitimate as a transfeminine person. A lot of trans women rightfully and understandably need to counteract the notion that they're oppressive privileged males or whatever by asserting, as clearly as they can, the many ways in which their socialization was a female socialization, with all the double-standards, demanded emotional labor, sexual predation, etc that entails -- but the very need to assert these things is due to the culture's twisted misconceptions about what gender even is and how it operates.

It's not as though a young person only gets the socialization of the binary gender to which they were assigned -- they get mandatory cishet socialization, and they see what is expected of the "other" gender, and that impacts them, and the standards for that other gender also influence how they are interpreted and seen.

And so I do think, to a certain extent, that when trans people assert that we actually didn't get socialized as our assigned gender at birth, we got socialized as the correct gender, actually, we are unfortunately ceding ground to the transphobes on a couple of key points. One, we're conceeding that there is a singular binary socialization that the two genders each get, which are separate from one another and always exhibit specific features, and two, that a person's socialization as a young person is a key determinant of their gendered experience, privilege, and identity forever, no matter what happens after they are young.

And you know, both those things are totally wrong. There is no one female socialization. I've written about this before, but I wasn't raised to be feminine. I was raised the way working-class girls are raised, which is to be no-nonsense, unfrivolous, serious, sporty, and capable -- a wife and mother, but the kind that never wears a skirt or cries in front of people. And there is no singular "male" socialization either -- I cite a few trans femme people in this piece who experienced themselves as having some male privilege before they transitioned, and some more typically "male" experiences, while also quoting a number of trans women whose lives went the exact opposite way. I assert in the piece that their experiences are theirs to name, and that there's a number of different ways we might each understand and categorize them personally -- especially when we take into account how much gendered socialization is dependent upon class, race, immigration status, diasporic status, and much more.

My view is that however you think your live played out, and whoever you find community alongside, you're right. I'm about to answer a similar ask about this from a trans masc perspective, but I'm a guy who has a ton of women friends and always have. I grew up mostly with girls as my closest buddies and we did things like playing pretend and having slumber parties and doing makeovers. I could chalk this up as a "female socialization" experience I guess if I wanted to. But I also grew up with a lot of gay boys, and I am a gay man, and guess what -- a lot of us grow up with predominately female friends. I don't think I have some essential feminine quality because my friends kept insisting on putting eyeshadow on me when I was ten. The fact I was bad at sports and couldn't be the tough, no-nonsense person that my culture expected me to be was gonna affect me whether I was a boy or a girl. And my upbringing was significantly different from that of one of my very best, oldest friends, whose family owned a successful business and were able to buy her a car and a horse and shit.

You're not betraying anything or lessening your own transfemininity by resonating with some typically "male" experiences or for having close male connections. Lots of queer women do! Just like I have plenty in common with lots of women! We don't say that cis women aren't women because they grew up tomboys, or had a ton of brothers, and the same is true of you. Even if you don't think of your younger self as "a tomboy" or even as a girl. You don't have to ascribe to the narrative that you were always one gender and always moved through the world with that identity. To demand that all trans people do so is respectability politics -- we cannot and should not require that all people be trans in the same ways. I have written before that transition to me feels at once both pre-ordained AND a choice that I made. You can say that you lived as a boy for some years or were a boy if that feels right to you, or that you had certain privileges while also suffering from dysphoria and disconnection; it's your life and you know it best and what serves you.

I wish I had narratives from trans women writers to direct you to, but for the most part the trans women who I've heard express feelings like yours have been in the support and discussion groups I've been in, and in private conversation -- I think because the socialization experiences of trans femmes are so unfairly politicized. I hope if any trans femme people see this have anything to share or any words to say that they will!

[carelesscuriosity]

yeah this? sums up my feelings entirely. glad to see other people annoyed with these choices because jfc did the movie make some changes that actively made the story so much worse to the point I don’t even think the 3 hour cut would fix it. i was saying this to my friend as we watched it, but it felt kinda like they made the movie more palatable for straight/general audiences in a lot of ways. Like it was Love Simon-ified: cutting of all all other queer characters (ex the removal of Nora’s queerness), changing his parents to still-married, making the only other queer character a villain, Alex’s speech about coming out, the homophobia is limited to one or two characters who are asshole brother and old guy who “just wants to keep him safe,” refusal to engage with any of the political messaging of the original book, and a bunch of other little things. As someone who really enjoyed the book, the movie just felt like it sucked a lot of what was good out of the story.

So, in preparation of the movie coming out next month, I reread Red, White & Royal Blue. I just finished it, and then I rewatched the trailer for the movie, and tbh, I have some concerns.

The thing I love so much about the book is the emotion. Alex and Henry are complex people with deep emotions. Confident on the outside, but struggling and nervous and anxious on the inside. Sure, the trailer looks fun, but I'm really hoping the more vulnerable sides of Alex and especially Henry are going to be shown in the movie.

The trailer also makes it seem like Henry doesn't like Alex either, at the beginning? Like, at the beginning of the book, the fact that Henry never really started out their interactions with antagonism like Alex did stuck out to me so much. Henry himself even says it! We know that Henry liked Alex the whole time, and it's shown through the fact that he always tried to be civil while Alex was the one who started their conversations with snark and sarcasm. That's why Alex enjoyed the moments when Henry would let a bit of fight come out. That's why it was such a noticeable thing to Alex when Henry snarked back at him during his first visit to England post-wedding.

In the trailer, it makes it seem like in the beginning, Henry doesn't like Alex just as much as Alex doesn't like Henry, if not more so. Movie Henry seems so openly antagonistic towards Alex, especially in the cake scene, and tbh it just feels wrong to me. The failure to portray Henry's feelings for Alex and his reluctance to participate in Alex's antagonism like the book does (especially considering we were seeing Henry through Alex's pov) makes me worry about whether or not Henry's more complex emotions will be shown in the movie at all, and Alex's too for that matter.

Also, I noticed that in the scene where Alex and Henry talk in the kitchen at the palace during Alex's fisrt visit to England post-wedding, it seems like they took out what was important about that scene and replaced it with surface level antagonism and snark to really sell the whole 'rivals to lovers' thing or something. It's like they're trying to convince us that Henry sees Alex just as much of a rival as Alex sees Henry, when that's just not the case. In the book, that's the scene where Alex really starts to see Henry for the first time, even if just for a moment. Not the put together Prince of England, but the sleep rumpled, pajama-clad insomniac who just wants some ice cream.

In the move trailer, it shows Henry wearing a dress shirt and tie, and his tone is snarky when talking to Alex, when in the book, Henry is genuine and unsure of himself. This is another time when we see that Henry has never really tried to be antagonistic towards Alex out of nowhere. In the trailer, it seems like Henry is going to be acting in the opposite way.

I'm not saying the movie has to be a word for word exact portrayal of the book because I don't believe that. A good adaptation will inevitably have to change things, but it only works if the changes make the story better, or at least if they make sense. Right now, I can't see the benefit of changing Henry's character so much. The Henry that I saw in the trailer, at least at the beginning of it, honestly doesn't feel like Henry at all to me.

The last third or so of the trailer, especially the clip of (who I'm assuming is) Bea asking Henry if he loves Alex, gives me hope that they'll get into the more emotional sides of these characters, but tbh I'm still kind of worried.

(Also, side-note, I hate the fact that June's character was cut entirely. She was there for Alex when he needed her, and her character gave us more insight into the complexities of the first family. She showed us that kids of divorce can see things differently when it comes to their parents, and as a child of divorce myself who has had differences of opinion with my sibling, I loved seeing that in the book with June and Alex. And, of course, there was her whole dynamic with Nora. I hate that she won't be in the movie at all. I hope they don't also cut the fact that Nora is queer.)

I don't know, I was skeptical of the movie at first after just seeing the teasers (though, tbh, I'm always skeptical of book to movie adaptations at first. Maybe it's the Percy Jackson fan in me), but after the trailer came out, I had more hope. Now, after rereading the book and having all the details fresh in my mind, I'm worried again. I know that trailers are made of clips that often times make more sense in context, so I hope the movie itself gives us more than the trailer implies. It makes sense that they'd want to mostly show the happier, more fun sides of things in the trailer so people will want to watch the movie.

I get that they might just be trying to go for a fun, not super deep, silly, comedic movie kind of vibe, but tbh, as fun and silly as rwrb is, it's also so much more than that. Some of my favorite parts of the book are the more serious parts. The parts where we see Alex and Henry's anxiety and insecurities. I really hope the movie shows at least some of these moments.

I'm definitely still going to watch the movie once it comes out, but I'm kind of concerned about how the story, and especially the characterization of the characters, is going to be portrayed. Hopefully, I'll end up being concerned about nothing. The last third of the trailer suggests that this will be the case, and I really hope it is!

I think the movie can still be enjoyable even if it doesn't show us the deeper and more nuanced sides of these characters, but can you blame me for hoping to see the reason why I fell in love with the book in the first place, the deep emotions of these characters, portrayed on screen?

(Tbh, I kinda lost track of my thoughts here. I think I'm concerned about Henry's drastic change in character more than anything else. It's easy to believe that there are more emotional scenes in the movie that we haven't seen hints of yet because obviously they can't show everything in the trailer. Henry's characterization, on the other hand... we've been shown two different clips of him that explicitly imply that he will be much different than the Henry we see in the book, at least in the beginning. Again, context is everything, so maybe it'll make more sense in the movie, but I can't imagine what context could be given to make those clips of Henry character accurate. And tbh, imo, there's no excuse for replacing soft, pajama-clad Henry in the kitchen scene with a dressed, snarky version of him)

(Also, the election isn't mentioned at all in the trailer? Tbh I think the book could have integrated the political parts a bit better than it did, but I still enjoyed it, especially at the end with election night. I guess if they set the movie in current day, an election won't make much sense, but the election and the stress and responsibilities that come with it add so much to Alex's character, and I honestly hope it's still included in the movie)

[forsaken-headcanons]

Cracks knuckles. The hyperfixation is getting too strong, gotta beam queer headcanons at these guys.

007n7 ; Transmasc, He/Any. Especially any pronoun that is similar to he/him with a different spelling (hx/hxm , h3/h1m , hy/hym , ect.) Probably bi or aroace spec, but hx don't got time for all that. (Raising a kid.)

Chance ; Canonically nonbinary, He/They. I'd like to add neos and xenogenders to that. That bitch uses gambling and bunny based genders and neos. Maybe gun ones too. What exactly? Don't know yet. Probably pan, but he never really picked a label. So he'll just say unlabeled most of the time.

Guest 1337 ; Trans vibes... I don't know in what way though. Maybe transfem? She has transfem vibes to me, She/Her. She hung around too many trans people, and boom, egg cracked /silly. I don't know her orientation, she just really loves her wife.

Builderman ; Gender apathetic, probably genderqueer, mostly uses he/him, but doesn't really give a shit. If you use something else, he'll just roll with it. He's got other things to do, than worry about something like that. Also unlabeled, because again, to busy to care. Dude is just existing and living his best life.

Taph ; They/Them and emojipronouns. Definitely uses xenos, don't know what though... And they don't use emojis because they mostly communicate with emojis, common misconception, they do it because they like emojis and seeing people's faces twist up at them. Definitely bi. They just have the vibe.

Elliot ; Dude, he doesn't even know what she is. He's just tryna make sure her teammates eat his pizza, and she makes it through the round /silly. Uses He/She. No preference most of the time, but will sometimes ask people to use one set over the other in certain cases. Mostly when he thinks people use one of her sets more than the other. Orientation? Fucking tired. Again, busy pizza worker man, she ain't got time for it.

Dusekkar ; Mirror pronouns. He'll use he/they as aux pronouns if needed, but she actually uses mirror pronouns. Agender. At least aromatic, maybe asexual. She just. kinda figured out he was aro and left it there.

Shedletsky ; Genderfluid. Any pronouns but also pronounfluid. Like technically she uses any pronouns, so you can't misgender him, put their preferences on what ix's favorite sets are and what feels most comfortable changes. He knows his sexuality is more complicated than just bi, but she never really looked into all that, so ix just says bi.

Noob ; Genderfluid <3. Along with they/them, ze uses neos, often prefers neos. Things like ze/zir, xe/xem, dae/daem, ae/aes. Basically, any non noun or emoji pronoun. Ae will just say dae use they/them though, since it's easier. Queer. Just. queer.

Two Time ; Points at canon. No complaints here. Nonbinary, they/them. Will sometimes use other pronouns. Sometimes they/them just doesn't fit right at the time. Typical doesn't last longer than a day or two. AroAce spec, maybe gray or demi? Azure's the only person they've ever really liked.

John Doe ; He's cishet to me, he/him. Or maybe transhet... I just know he's a guy (or guy esc) who likes women. (Especially his wife. He really loves his wife, even if he can't recall her.)

1x1x1x1 ; Her genderfluid nature captivates me /silly. BUT. He's also pangender and genderflux. They are literally every gender all the time. She just moves between which one she feels most connected to, and how much he's connected to it. Any pronouns. Literally couldn't care about attraction, they're too busy being fueled by rage to worry about that.

Azure ; They/He/It, either genderfluid or flux. Maybe genderfaun? Genderfaun. They haven't settled on a sexuality label. He used to say straight, since it likes girls, but since their relationship with Two Time, he isn't sure anyway. Technically he knows it can still identify as straight, but they just feel weird using the label since then. Then it got Forsakened, and hasn't had the time otherwise to worry.

Jason ; Transmasc nonbinary, He/Him. I do not care about anything the movies tell me. I don't know the other Roblox game he comes from. He's so fucking transmasc coded. I will die on this hill. Literally could care less about sexuality, but if it has to be labeled, gay or bi work best. Maybe even both. He doesn't know, doesn't care.

Noli ; They/He, bigender. I don't know what genders make up his bigender identity, they're just bigender. Sexuality is complicated and tied to his gender in weird ways. He likes women one specific way because he's [gender], and likes men a different way because they're [gender]. So they'll literally use many, many contradictory labels because of this. He's winning at life.

Guest 666 ; Agender and genderfluid at the same time. All pronouns, no preferences, but will let you know if he thinks you're only using one set. She uses all, and would prefer if people used all of their pronouns. Make things up, assign faer things. Beast doesn't care, just don't use a singular set. Like noob, I think ey just says queer. Sexuality is a complicated thing that red never really got around to tackling, so.

Mafia ; He/Him but in a distinctly genderqueer way. I don't know how to word it. His gender can't really be explained by normal terms. A xenogender could probably describe it, but who knows. Also queer. Honestly? I think everything about him can just be described as queer. Definitely could have better / more accurate terms, but he likes using the term queer best, so it's what he uses.

-- While I'm not giving them separate things, his "boys" are also queer. I say "boys" because at least one of them is transfem. She doesn't really care she's a boy though. All of them in a poly relationship. They all love each other. That's all.

Jane Doe ; Cis, she/her. But she has the biggest fucking bi energy around. She just radiates pure bi energy, it's actually insane. She could pull anyone. I believe this with all my heart.

I don't know how much since any of these make. I just had to get my ideas out of my brain / brainstorm ideas for these guys.

All of these are so peak. I love them all.

[ink-flavored]

Roachification and Eroticizing Transmasculinity

You can read this on my Neocities site, along with more of my writings both fiction and non-fiction.

Hi. I’m of the opinion that people don’t eroticize transmasculinity enough.

People sexualize trans men and mascs, but not our transitions. So long as we fit a very narrow threshold of androgynous twinkiness, it’s totally fine to be sexualized and objectified. But any transmasc who isn’t a twink? A transmasc who doesn’t meet the appropriate standards of thinness, whiteness, and ambiguous tomboy-ish masculinity? Or who, God forbid, isn’t exclusively a bottom and submissive? It’s as if we don’t exist.

Trans men and mascs are sexualized for the ways we refrain from transition. A transmasc can bind, wear men’s jeans, and have short hair, and still be acceptably fuckable. But I know too many guys who were shamed by their “supportive” partners for wanting to go on testosterone, because it would make them too masculine, ruin their attractiveness. Countless transmascs are told their goals for transition are disgusting, especially when it comes to phalloplasties and other types of bottom surgery. Too many of us have been shamed out of HRT, top surgery, bottom surgery, or even exploring ourselves in diverse sexual ways, because wider society tells us that transmasculinity taken “too far” is destined to make us ugly and unfuckable.

Considering there are a lot of places today that continue to treat women and people assumed to be women as though their physical appearance and fuckability is the most important thing about them, it’s no wonder that so many transmascs are susceptible to this fearmongering. Being an unattractive woman gets you criticized by your family, your friends, your partners and potential partners, your co-workers, and confidently rude strangers. Especially if the transmasc in question was considered a “beautiful young lady” before coming out, why would they want to transition? Even if it would make them feel happier internally, their external life would get materially worse. Shouldering dysphoria against this burden sounds like a good option—a better option, even, than becoming unworthy of affection for being who you are.

There are plenty of ways to combat this regressive, transphobic attitude. Overthrowing patriarchal and white supremacist standards of gender and sexuality, of course, but that’s not something we can do overnight. For the purposes of this post, I’m going to advocate for roachification as a way to reclaim transmasculinity and eroticize our transitions like we deserve.

Now, like a lot of terms trans people have reclaimed for our sexualities, the idea of roachification started as a transphobic term to describe “what happens” to someone going through a transmasculine transition. If you feel like being upset, you can go on Urban Dictionary and find a definition neatly sketched out that reiterates all of the above-described fearmongering in a single sentence:

“the process of a ftm or trans masculine person metamorphisizing from a beautiful girl to the most disgusting, vile, greasy, horrific boy there ever has been, in extreme cases; an incel.... or sid from skins.”

Even disregarding the transphobia inherent in the idea that an unhappy but “beautiful” cis girl, is more valuable than a happy but “disgusting” transmasc, I think this person is just making up a strawtrans to get mad at. The incel accusation makes me laugh—the famously open, accepting, gender expansive incel community. The community of cishet men who are so misogynistic they disparage the idea of being kind to anyone they think is a woman. Just overflowing with trans people, I’m sure.

Getting away from the transphobia, how does one reclaim the idea of roachification? I believe it lies in accepting every part of transmasculine transition, including the parts that may, actually, be perceived as ugly, gross, and/or a downgrade from a previously-attained cis womanhood. Allow me to explain.

Fundamentally, anyone going on any sort of HRT is going through puberty a second time. It’s being a teenager again, which is why so many trans people go through a sort of “second adolescence” if they transition later in life. You get to discover yourself all over again, and that’s a beautiful thing! But, just like being a teenager, there are things that make you feel weird, uncomfortable, or insecure.

Considering testosterone here: your skin breaks out, you gain weight, you grow hair in places you’re not used to, you get hungry, and you get horny. Speaking only for myself, I had to up my snack budget because I was destroying family-sized bags of chips by myself. I would wake up in the morning, masturbate, go to work, masturbate as soon as I clocked out, and then one more time right before bed (okay sometimes I still do that). My skin was already oily, but it’s greasy now. There’s the inside joke in that the hair on your ass grows in before T even touches your facial hair—and when it does grow in, it can be patchy, uneven, and weird looking. Your voice cracks make you sound like you’re 13 and your body odor smells way stronger. Transition can be awkward and uncomfortable, and, yes, you might even feel a little gross.

But why is that bad? The journey to becoming more of who you are might be a little messy, but I think that’s a perfect excuse to play in the mud.

Consider roachification as the gendered opposite of bimbofication. For a transmasc who is moving from a status of “beautiful young lady” to “gross, sweaty man” it can be hard to release the fear of losing that conditional acceptance, but a great way to combat that fear is to indulge in it. Lean in and explore the “ugly” parts of transition. It might turn out that you like slouching around with a hand in your pants, gorging yourself on snacks and your brain-melting media of choice, throwing on whatever you picked out of the laundry pile this morning, and forgetting to shower for a few days. You’ll realize you kinda stink. Maybe you like that, too.

Roachification is about playing in the mud. It’s about reveling in the behaviors that are supposed to disgust you. It’s about the hedonism of the base instinct, doing what your body desires with absolutely no higher functioning involved. It’s the idea of moving from an uptight, controlled appearance that you can’t relax into, even when you’re alone, into the kind of vulgar bliss that comes from sitting in the same spot all day and rubbing one out without washing your hands. Your dick is calling and that’s the only thing that matters, after all. And when you’re done, you sit in your dry cum for a few more hours before getting up to clean off—and, hell, might as well jerk off in the shower while you’re at it.

If transition turns you back into a teenager, roachification is about embracing your inner teenage boy who has full run of his parents’ basement. It’s about being sloppy, gross, horny, and not caring that you’re acting that way. The greatest balm to any insult is being able to say “lol, so what?” and roachification puts the power back in your hands. To enjoy being disgusting, vile, greasy, and horrific. To become what you always feared, and realize you like it better.

Obviously, I didn’t come up with the idea of roachification myself. I am not the first person to make any of these observations, and I will certainly not be the last, but the longer I’ve sat with these thoughts, the truer they feel to me. The more I think about this kink, the more important it is to me.

I love roachification as a way to show a transmasculine person finally being able to relax out of femininity. Not just leaving it behind, but being too lazy to pick it back up once the masculinity “takes over.” Now that you’re comfortable enough to be lazy, dirty, and self-indulgent, why would you ever go back? I love a transmasc leaning into who they are—including, perhaps especially, if who they are is smelly and sweaty and hedonistic.

As for myself? I love my transmasculine transition and everything it does to my body. I even love the things I thought I’d hate, because the fearmongering got to me too. It was only by transitioning did I realize just how wrong that transphobic “advice” was, so now I’m more than happy to indulge in my “ugliness.” Being smelly, greasy, hairy, and horny has never felt more liberating, and it’s only going to “get worse” by these people’s standards. Frankly, I welcome it.

Transmasculine sexuality shouldn’t be confined to the narrow box mainstream sexuality has decided it needs to fit in. Trans men and mascs deserve to become who we are, unapologetically, and every aspect of transmasculinity deserves to be captured in perverted amber. We deserve to make our transitions as erotic as we damn well please, regardless of who jumps out of the woodwork to complain that we were prettier when we shaved. We deserve to be human beings, with the full range of beauty and ugliness that can be attributed to any person.

At time of writing, I’m still early on in my transition, just over a year on testosterone. I’m growing hair and a bigger clit and a bottomless stomach. I hope I get even more disgusting by next year.

[voidpunkpal]

catching up on docs streams, and he's talking about religion/spirituality and how it guides people's beliefs etc. he mentions how (generally) people like to be outraged by things [that dont affect them], like who other people are, and then immediately says 'if you're lgbtq you'll know what im talking about'

and i absolutely do. and its so wild to me how he just. drops that in. then starts talking about how it shouldn't matter who you are, how you can still do be incredibly religious and respect queer people, that the most important thing is that your beliefs don't hurt other people. how you should respect pronouns, that being 'indoctrinated' into being queer isn't a thing.

all whilst he's mining for diamonds using a freaking mega tunnel bore. like its any other conversation you might have

which it certainly is, for me. but a 40 something cishet man? not your standard casual conversation topic, not usually. and even though i already knew he was a supportive guy, hearing a conversation like this outside of an explicitly queer space, unprompted by a queer person. just solidifies what kind of person he is. and gives me faith that even outside of queer specific spaces, important conversations are happening, its not just us protesting and yelling into the wind, no one giving a shit. and its happening in some pretty unexpected places. which id say is pretty neat. its nice to have some hope for a change.

(all that to say, this is a docm77 stan household)

[myversacepyjamas]

I was talking to gina (@litsy-kalyptica) about the dan and phil dynamic and why i personally vibe with their content so much and it boils down to one thing:

They are not a couple that makes youtube videos, they are a comedy duo who love each other.

There are lots of content creator couples out there and most of them are very thoroughly not my vibe. Couple vloggers (a subset of family vlogger) are all over these days and always make me feel like a third wheel or unfortunate stranger stuck in the same row on the plane as the worst people imaginable while they alternate between filming and completely ignoring each other.

Dan and Phil have this wild and incredible life that is very enmeshed and intertwined and it still barely touches their creative output compared to what your average van life couple or ttc couple or femme for femme lesbian couple who talk about eyeliner or blond christian cishets who got married at 17 show. These guys are out there on tour because entertainers go on tour. They write and produce their shows, they approach even a shared gaming channel as a creative endeavor, they lead with ideas, and when they do share their lives with the audience, it is because they've deemed that information either imperative, funny, or both. We know "open can" because it's funny, not because they are trying to sell us a smart bin by positioning themselves as lifestyle influencers or couple goals. They're accomplished comedians, video producers, performers, voice actors, radio presenters, entertainment correspondants, bestselling authors, they've gone on multiple world tours, won awards, been on red carpets, and they love the fuck out of each other. I know some people recently have been saying we should know less because they make more blatant homosexual and self-referential jokes but man, we dont actually know *shit* compared to the chronic oversharing of people like shane and ryland.

And you know what? I love that. Hats off to Dan and Phil, can't wait to see another corner of an unidentifiable room in your house sometime. Congrats on 15 years of collaboration and being in a polycule with nord vpn and dragon city.