#think of the trans potential too.. much to think about

[kylo-skywalkerr]

OK so I rambled a bit about this on a prev reblog of mine but I've been in search of good songs for my Kylo Ren playlist and I'm shocked that Mama by My Chemical Romance isn't on them!! What song is more Kylo!!

The paternal guilt, the angst about being a bad man, being disowned by a mother for your actions but she still cries when she finds out you're dead! The drama!! The regret!!! It's Kylo!

Ohhh I just got a fun idea for a fic. Would that actually be something anyone's interested in? I've beat my writer's block and am itching for prompts.... it just wouldnt be Kylux.

BUT I also did do a Kylux oneshot that I'm posting shortly, it's on the angstier side but I like angsty Kylux.

So much to write, so little time.

[lucabyte]

transfem loop + siffrin... you agree

i does agree.... i does in fact ... write a 7k word essay on the subject..... if you would like to perhaps click that link and read it if you were not already aware...... kisses u on the forehead......... sorry its that long but i had to cover all of my bases you know how it is with textual analysis when you're trying to draw a distinction between "headcanon" and "reading of the text" because those are different things.... to meeeeeeee.......

[anendoandfriendo]

You've seen "excluding neurodivergent people is ableist" and now understand "neurodivergency is disability" but now get ready for for this one:

Neurodivergency can be disability but not every single neurodivergency is, actually. Yes, even those who technically could qualify for a diagnosis under the DSM or ICD may consider their neurtype to be beneficial to them, actually. And some neurotypes can be adjacent to the DSM and ICD without actually falling into them!

Neurodivergency can be disabled but in the way all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.

The people seeing themselves as more abled for a neurotype that's disabling to you are not your enemies.

Break free of your chains, stop letting the DSM and ICD, the biggest perpetrators of ableism, define us and our communities.

[mejomonster]

i'm stressed for the day the govt decides to make pronouns illegal, by which the law will actually be implemented as "if someone decides you don't look like the gender THEY think you are, you will be charged with a crime"

and how in some workplaces like mine, where people show their preferred pronouns in work emails, that'll result in many people with digital email trails that could get them arrested (which of course means trans people in the workplace get charged, people who look cis and use he/him and she/her in their emails to be supportive probably will just be told to stop putting it in their emails)

and like. i know i probably can't do anything, except maybe stay in the closet. i know the workplace is not guaranteed to fucking warn their employees to maybe remove the digital proof of their pronouns if there's a law at risk of existing soon. and i know people's gender identity is really personal and important to a lot of people, including cis people. But i kind of wish there was a widespread trend in these workplace situations of EVERY (or at least a majority) of cis people putting "they/them/their" in their email signatures. The cis people (particularly those who look very gender conforming) will be the ones in the least danger of being charged with a crime. They are at very low risk of being charged with a crime, so they're the perfect people to break the law by saying their preferred pronouns are "they/them" and then taking the law to court if such a law restricting preferred pronouns passes. And if a trans employee is charged with a crime, the cis employees all using they/them can say their trans coworker is only doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING ALL THESE CIS PEOPLE ARE (using a pronoun someone thinks doesn't align with the gender they're assumed to be), and then saying either ALL employees need to be charged with a crime (which can then go to court) or none of them should be. Yeah that would require solidarity... I know I can't convince a bunch of cis people to start putting "they" as a pronoun in their emails (or some other pronoun that would result in them breaking the same 'preferred pronoun' type of law like "ze/zim"). But god, I wish I could.

I think about this because in the last few years, my state tried to make a law against using preferred pronouns in schools and government jobs (you know... which likely won't charge any cis person using the pronouns that match their gender even though that's a preferred pronoun too). And now that my state govt is a majority republican, they'll probably try to pass it again. I worry about all my coworkers with massive email trails, because they were TOLD to tell people their preferred pronouns, because the workplace said it would respect them, but I doubt the workplace will Protect them if it's no longer legal. My workplace had the shittiest answer when I raised my concerns, they said "don't worry about it until it happens"... once it happens, a bunch of trans people will be breaking the law by existing, and they will not have had the chance to protect themselves in advance (and their workplace will have done nothing in advance to protect them - such as warn them not to leave proof of their preferred identity after X date, and promising the workplace won't consider any pronouns said before X date to be breaking the law as far as reporting goes).

[angel-derangement]

how would you talk CS lewis into trans acceptance? just wondering because this is theoretically the coolest concept i can think of

ok buckle up.

In my experience it is not actually all that difficult to convince someone who is christian but holds the character of god to be of higher importance than a strict historical literalism view of the Bible that sex and gender are different. This is because it’s blatantly true and people who are of that persuasion are more likely to be able to comprehend blatantly true things, and much more empathetic to the experiences of others ie. listening to a trans person’s life story.

We know that cs Lewis did not hold a strict fundamentalist view of the historical literalism of the Bible, as he was open to the idea of evolution as a process guided by God (this forces you to interpret the creation story as somewhat allegorical, which yknow. It is. because it’s made up.) in fact historically it’s very rare for people to actually hold this view strictly in the way that we see today from conservative evangelicals. Even Martin Luther, their main guy, thought the epistle of James kinda sucked and wasn’t really right.

from sex & gender are different it’s a short hop to gender as a social construct - something these people usually understand due to renegotiating biblical views of women wearing head coverings or not wearing any jewellery. from there it’s sometimes possible - not always, but sometimes - to get them to understand that a person may experience incongruous sex and gender, and that this is resolved by living as a different gender to the one they were originally assigned based on sex.

The important thing to note to them at this point is that this does not erase their previous experience of living socially as their assigned gender, nor are they so deluded as to believe it magically makes them cisgender. At this point the analogy of biological father vs adoptive father is very useful, both being real fathers and indeed reflections of God the Father.

You can also raise to them “why is God depicted as male if he’s not a human?” and put to them the idea that people choosing their gender presentation is a reflection of God’s image in them - existing in a created state while still creating their mode of identity using the soul and spirit he gave them. Didn’t Paul change his name from Saul when he gave his life to Christ? In some ways, a gender transition can be seen as a transformation gifted to that person by God, the same way God gifts all of us with transitions throughout our lives, from child to adult, mother to grandmother, condemned to redeemed, hopeless to hopeful.

Then you can say that this is just another choice God puts before all of us: whether to marry, what job to get, what church to attend, what gender will you live as. And in all choices, as in all things, a person may glorify God. Thus if a person is trans, their identity is no different to any other chosen or re-formed identity, and we can love them by understanding that, respecting it, and protecting them as a sibling in Christ.

Idk maybe it’s crazy, and there are points along this that many Christians would fight against for many reasons. Most of those reasons though are sheer conservatism and an unwillingness to allow minor scriptures to be understood as culturally rooted. If that’s someone’s position then they are always being unequal with how they choose to renegotiate scriptural relevance ie. they are choosing to be transphobic because they just want to be, and you are going to get nowhere with them.

But cs Lewis was a kind man, who valued camaraderie and joviality and rebirth and love. I know he’s dead so it’s irrelevant. But I like to believe he could’ve been a hashtag ally.

[p2ii]

haunted by the atlas/astro sibling relationship that only exists in my head

[little-klng]

I really think society as a whole needs to work on better deradicalization strategies. So far the one that works best for me is "relate [unreasonable hatred] to [thing you both don't like]", sort of like how conflict management works. It's not you vs me, it's you and me vs the problem. If you've got better ideas/strategies/studies drop em lol

[jankwritten]

first psychiatry appointment done. feeling....weird about it.

(venting in the tags. cw for what might be transphobia but i'm not entirely sure lmao)

[nix-that-rad-lass]

I gotta be real, and I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I think trans men are the most valid men.

Women just do it better 🤷‍♀️

Plus since female is default I guess you could consider that FTM is much more of a biological capability than MTF.

Not to say you can change sex, but rather, I think that trans men are much better able to transition and pass, and having been raised and treated as women, tend to be more capable of empathy.

This is not to excuse the rampant issues of gender ideology or the medical mistreatment and abuse of dysphoric women and girls.

[steveyockey]

To be aware you might be trans but unwilling to do anything about it is to create endlessly bigger boxes within which to contain yourself. When you are a child, that box might encompass only yourself and your parents. By the time you are a gainfully employed adult, that box will contain multitudes, and the thought of disrupting it will grow ever more unthinkable. So you cease to think of yourself as a person on some level; you think not of what you want but what everybody expects from you. You do your best not to make waves, and you apologize, if only implicitly, for existing. You stop being real and start being a construct, and eventually, you decide the construct is just who you are, and you swaddle yourself up in it, and maybe you die there. There is still time until there isn’t.

This reading of TV Glow’s deliberately anticlimactic, noncathartic ending cuts against the transition narrative you typically see in movies and TV, in which a trans person self-accepts, transitions, and lives a happier life. Owen gets trapped in a space where he knows what he must do to live an authentic life but simply refuses to take those steps because, well, burying yourself alive is a terrifying thing to do. The transition narrative posits a trans existence as, effectively, a binary switch between “man” and “woman” that gets flipped one way or another, but to make our lives so binary is to miss how trans existences possess an inherent liminality.

Humans’ lives unfold in a constant state of becoming until death, but trans people are uniquely keyed in to what this means thanks to the simple fact of our identities. You can get lost in that liminality, too, forever trapped in a midnight realm of your own making, stuck between what you believe is true (I am a nice man with a good family and a good job, and I love my life) and what you know, deep in your most terrified heart of hearts, is real (I am a girl suffocating in a box).

And yet if you want to read the film as being about the dangerous allure of nostalgia, you’re not wrong. I Saw the TV Glow totally supports that interpretation, too! But in tempting you with that reading, the film creates a trap for cis viewers that will be all too familiar to trans viewers. Somewhere in the middle of Maddy’s story about The Pink Opaque being real, you will make a choice between “This kid has lost it!” and “No. Go with her, Owen,” and in asking you to make that choice, TV Glow is simulating the act of self-accepting a trans identity.

See, the grimmer read of the film’s ending truly is a nihilistic one. It leaves no hope, no potential for growth, no exit. Yet you must actively choose to read that ending as nihilistic. If you are cis and the end of I Saw the TV Glow left you with a gnawing sense of dissatisfaction, a weird but hard-to-pin-down feeling that something had broken, and a melancholy bordering on horror — congratulations, this movie gave you contact-high gender dysphoria.

In an infinite number of possible universes, there is at least one where I am still living “as a man,” embracing my fictionality, avoiding looking at how much more raw and real I feel when I “pretend” to be a woman. I think about that guy sometimes. I hope he’s okay.

Consider, then, my cis reader, that TV Glow is for both you and me, but it is maybe most of all for him. I hope he sees it. I hope he breaks down crying in the bathroom afterward. I hope he, after so many years locked inside himself, hears the promise of more life through the hiss of TV static.

Emily St. James, “I Saw the TV Glow’s Ending Is Full of Hope, If You Want It to Be,” Vulture. June 4, 2024.

[amorousdoobie]

would my family accept me if i came out? experts say "no"

dad would not, has sent photos of me when i was a kid in a sundress and floppy hat when he suspected that i was having those feelings a few years ago

mom would not. probably would act supportive but definitely inwardly i would be her "little girl". even though when i am most comfortable dressing i look like fucking Jesse Pinkman

sibling 1 maybe? but they dont talk to me except for at xmas and thxgiving and such.

sibling 2 i hope and think so! but we dont keep in touch at all so :')

sibling 3 maybe, leaning toward no though. or outwardly accepting but secretly thinking "yeah right ur a girl ive known u ur whole life". plus i tried broaching the topic a while ago and they kinda,, well it didnt go how i might have hoped.

sibling 4 i'd hope, but hard to say. probably would still call me "girlieeee/girl/etc" but that's how she talks to everyone (i think). most likely to come up w a funny nickname for me though

ugh and i dont even want to think about my extended family. i have a couple trans cousins that ive never met and they're doing alright i think, but. wait i havent even met most of my extended family why am i worried

[narutocharacterpolls]

ROUND THREE

UCHIHA SASUKE vs TENTEN

Reasons for submission under the cut

Sasuke

he is trying so hard to do what he is supposed to, even succeeding at it, only for everything to be a lie

he's authentic and driven and he doesn't care what other people think, if he believes something he will go ahead and do it, unafraid of paying the price

Sasuke was right about everything

he went through so much and never gave up, it's very inspiring and means a lot

Fortnite Sasuke

despite everything he can't help but love

his relationship with Itachi is one of the most heartbreaking and beautiful sibling relationships, genocide aside it's very relatable

he looks just like Mikoto.....

he's beautiful!

he has so much compassion for others and will do what he can for them, but still does not compromise his own beliefs and goals to do so

he's so personal to [submitter] and has been the sole reason of making it through hard times

love is stored in the Sasuke

true heroine or the Naruto series

all his outfits slay

the whole manga wouldn't even exist if it weren't for him

kind, compassionate, driven by love, fucking iconic

trans masc icon and legend

the revolutionnnn

he is an emo icon

a communist

a transgay legend

[submitters] family is generationally effected by genocide so Sasukes justice means the world to [submitter]. Sasukes love means EVERYTHING to [submitter]

he is full of love

very strong

excellent gay representation

owner of the worlds most special eyes

the most relatable Naruto character

a snarky lil bitch :)

he went thru so much & gets too much hate for someone who only wanted revenge for his murdered clan

cat boy

femme fatale

kept going despite all the trauma he went through

flawless observation skills

analytical, intelligent

never let anyone push him around or manipulate him

full of love and kindness

pacifist at heart (refuses to kill innocents)

sought to destroy Konoha

serves cunt in all his outfits

friend of animals

killed Orochimaru because he felt like it

Tenten

her main jutsu is just throw so many knives at you and I respect that

her weapons mastery/sealing jutsu had so much potential and it never got the treatment it deserved

team Gai supremacy

[ohnopeh]

me trying to find the words to explain how important ian's reaction to mickey getting married is cause!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

once he finds out about it he compares himself to her. asks mandy if mickey loves her, if she's pretty, asks how she is as a person and even get blown by her thinking she maybe is better at sex than ian.

he's scared terry managed to ''fuck the gay out of him'' and wants to know if he's forced to marry her.

ian won't go to school, leave the bed and stop thinking about it. every time ian has felt any sort of deep emotions in a relationship has only been with mickey.

he ran away because mickey got married.

whe was so ashamed of going to the psych ward thinking mickey would be put off by it.

was miserable whilst saying ''this might be the end with mickey.'' to his family

held onto mickey's hand when he showed up at night and could finally rest.

its no wonder ian decided to break up with him, he loved him too much and wanted mickey to be free.

when ian broke up with caleb he was mostly focused on being mad for being cheated on and questioned about his sexuality

he got with trevor cause he was being pushed to by trevor himself with his ''you're scared cause im trans'' and being judged for his lack of lgbtq+ knowledge. when he cheated on trevor and came back, he only did so that he could distract himself from leaving mickey behind once again. he only used trevor for sex as a way of coping. ive never seen ian being heartbroken by trevor not wanting him back to the point of not leaving his bed.

he didn't care about worrying trevor with his bipolar and trevor didn't really care to check if ian's med were working or not. but with mickey? he was scared of getting married cause he didn't want mickey to be stuck with ian's illness,

during their marrige he tried so hard to make his and mickey's life better and accepted with fondness mickey's worries about potentially being triggered

they're soulmates

[thyfleshc0nsumed]

Much has already been said by other transfeminists on the "they hate us all equally" idea that many TME trans people fall back on when trans women speak on the specific ways in which we are targeted, and within the last few days, I've received a number of messages similar to this:

Frankly, I'm not even sure what has spurred this on--and this is the least aggressive and most direct of them--but many of them are not just the standard affair of transmisogynistic slurs and threats, rather they are posed as a defense of not just women, but trans men as well.

I don't believe that it is trans men or transmasculine people sending me these--though of course I could be wrong--so why do they highlight trans men within these messages?

The answer to me is obvious: within the trans man, the transmisogynist sees (correctly) the potential of an ally to their ends. Does the average radicalized transmisogynist look highly upon trans men and treat them with love and respect? I do not think so; these people are driven by disgust and indignation and view transsexuality and self-determination of gender and sex as degenerate, after all.

But motivated reactionaries know, if not understand, the mechanisms through which systems of power operate. For an ideology to be made manifest or maintain its reign, it does not require large segments of a population to be committed ideologues; that segment only needs to be amenable to the ideology and closed off from opposition.

So, while the radicalized transmisogynist is also a general transphobe, they know well that there exists stratification within their out-group and will happily incorporate sub-groups they also see as impure if it benefits their fundamental goal more than it damages it.

I think about early developments of whiteness. Did the 17th century propertied English of Virginia view their European-descended underclass as equals? Of course not. But when it became clear that material solidarity between the European underclass and Black slaves threatened their minority rule and their monopoly over expansion further into Siouan and Algonquin land, the propertied minority identified the essential components of their rule (chattel slavery and displacement of Indians) and became willing to grant privileges to the non-English Europeans so long as it solidified that rule. They codified this stratification into law over the course of the century. The European underclass, though still an underclass, now had a stake in this system. The propertied English had to give something up, but in exchange, they received new allies that allowed their fundamental aims and methods to remain unchanged.

So yes, perhaps the radicalized transmisogynist views the trans man as degenerate, but they understand that trans men have a stake in keeping trans women below them--denying this stratification helps uphold it.

Men who refuse to acknowledge that patriarchy exists still benefit from it and further its existence, regardless of whatever marginalizations they may face. Does patriarchy harm men too? Supposedly so, but only really in some psychic, damage-to-the-soul sort of way. The fundamentals of patriarchy is the positioning of women below men, even within a shared oppression. So to the transmisogynist, an allyship with trans men does not harm their essential aim: running trans women off of the earth.

[zipper-neck]

Trans Rules of Engagement

By Florence Ashley

Strong communities make us all safer. As anti-trans movements gain in power and influence, holding space for each other through our flaws remains critical. Yet the very conditions that create our need for community care make it hard for us to care for each other. We are raw, wounded, traumatized, and hypervigilant. We make mistakes brought on by fear and hurt. We lash out at each other when we do wrong, often partaking in pile-ons facilitated by the synchronous nature of online interactions. Whether we realize it or not, we often exclude trans people from community when they need it most.

I have lost count of the number of trans people I have seen cast out of online trans spaces for misdeeds both major and minor—far too often with my help. I sometimes find myself wondering where they are now and whether they are still alive. Because, as Kai Cheng Thom has taught us, social death often means real death for trans people. Trans communities are life-sustaining in a world that hates us so, so much. In a world that wants us dead. We have lost too many people not to stop and think about how we can foster life among each other.

This goal I have for myself—that of fostering life—motivates the following principles and rules for engaging in online intra-community conflicts while preserving the life-sustaining spirit of our communities. Countless times have I failed to heed these principles and ignored these rules. This failure, which many of us share, is precisely why I now want to lay these principles and rules down on paper. If only as a reminder of my aspirations. The principles and rules are meant to be adopted for oneself, not imposed onto others. Their purpose is to foster productive engagement, not create even more conflict and rigidity. I hope that this will be a living document, and invite you to make your own version if you would like. Borrow what is useful, supplement with what is needed, alter what can be improved.

Some, and perhaps all, of the principles I acknowledge are false, hence the need for a living document. Each of my suggested rules have exceptions. In setting them out, I am staking a claim as to the sort of myths and half-truths that are necessary to sustain life in a world that wants us dead. We must treat them as true if we wish to foster life-sustaining communities and survive the hellscape we belabor.

Principles

1. We are all flawed, traumatized humans at the end of their rope. Many of our actions say more about the conditions we live under than who we are as people.

2. No one is disposable. No one is unsalvageable.

3. Life holds greater value than being right or comfortable. Hurt is preferable to death.

4. No one should be deprived of community.

5. Harm does not require further harm. Punishment does not equate protection or healing.

Rules

1. Do not depart from these rules, unless you have to.

2. Morgan M. Page’s Rule: Try to avoid criticizing other trans people in public. The world does it enough already.

3. Favor in person or private conversations: Addressing someone’s comments or actions in person or privately is typically more constructive and effective. It allows you to communicate more cogently and with more nuance problems in someone’s actions or words and because it is less likely to make them react defensively from a place of trauma or fear.

4. Take your time: Few things require an immediate response. Responding while caught in a surge of thoughts and feelings is often unproductive. Ask yourself how much harm was done, versus how much we are reminded of an earlier harm. Ask whether your response is rooted in misperception or potential biases towards the person due to race, disability, gender, or other marginalized identities. Consider whether their words or actions reflect a different kind of thinking or communication style, a lack of access to education, or limited access to progressive communities and norms. You can respond tomorrow, once you have collected your thoughts, talked to others, and gained perspective.

5. Don’t mob: Be aware of group dynamics. Ask yourself if you are connected to this person and in community with them. Avoid jumping into the fray when others are already criticizing the person. Do not invite others to join in and mob them. Withdraw if others join in, and kindly ask people to stay conscious of mobbing dynamics. Mobbing rapidly grows out of proportion.

6. De-escalate: Focus on de-escalating conflicts. Ask what people mean or want, and why. Ask them for clarification or elaboration if needed. Ask yourself if you know enough about the context of the situation. Distinguish the action from the person, and acknowledge that it is normal to respond defensively or aggressively to public criticism and mobbing. People are traumatized, mentally ill, and are scared of losing the little social support they have. As a result, conflict can trigger a fight-or-flight response in both those who are criticized and who criticize, which leads to escalating conflict and ends in a loss of community. Dropping the conversation to return at a later date is preferable to escalation. Often, I find it best to limit myself to three replies in conversations that aren’t constructive.

7. Respond proportionately: Responses to words and behaviours should be proportionate to their harm, and reflect a need for healing and protection rather than punishment. When we speak from a place of hurt, we can understandably but unfortunately forget the measure and impact of our response. Use language that reflects the nuances and gradations of harm rather than a coarse good and evil binary. Cutting all social support and community banishment are rarely a proportionate response, even for someone who doubles down and does not apologize. Responding proportionately is asking first and foremost what response sustains rather than dissolves life. Especially when it comes to words, it is better to under-react than to over-react.

8. Ensure support for everyone: Check in on those who are criticized and those who criticize them. Remind people that we are all in this together, and that banishment is not how we work as a community. Everyone deserves to have their needs met. Do not shun or reproach people who offer support to those who were criticized or called out. Distinguish supporting a person from enabling their behavior.

9. Hold space for people to grow: Allow space for people to be accountable, change, and move on from previous conflicts. Do not hold past behavior over people’s head, nor dig up past misdeeds to fuel present conflicts.

10. Resolve conflict and harm as a community: We must ask how our communities enable and cause hurt and harm, and find ways to transform the conditions that create them. Holding accountable, problem-solving, and conflict resolution are functions that should be taken up by the collective, not isolated and unsupported individuals.

11. Center those most hurt or harmed: Focus on supporting and empowering people who are hurt and harmed rather than on punishment. Ask what they need to be safe and integrated in our communities, while committing to support for everyone; what they need to repair their relationship to the person who hurt or harmed them. Focus your involvement on bringing people together, fostering dialogue and mutual understanding, and restoring a sense of community togetherness, rather than deciding who is right or wrong.♦

[kiophen]

genuine question, do you think callout posts are inherently evil? like if someone's doing some weird shit and hiding it i think people would want to be warned about that at least. just try to discourage harassment as much as possible

The existence of a callout posts means that the targeted person will be harassed if enough people see it. There is no amount of "don't harass anyone mentioned in this doc/video" disclaimers that will prevent that. The post is now potentially a permanent record that anyone can cite for years into the future. You are now at the whims of unknown strangers to be banned from communities, kicked out of creative projects, or be blocked by friends, at any time with no warning. I would consider this to be harassment, but to people who don't know about how these things usually go down they would be seen as righteous whistle blowers.

No matter what you actually did, if your awkward interaction with someone was too sexual, or if you stated a shitty opinion about a complex topic, or if you misjudged someone's boundaries, or if you engaged with kink in a way that made someone outside the scene uncomfortable, you are now a predator. I have seen firsthand the game of telephone starting from "this person did/said something sexualized on an online platform where teenagers could have been present," to "acted creepy around teenagers," to "regularly sexually assaulted children," to "pedophile".

Callout posts do not actually stop the person from "doing weird shit". It depends on what you mean by "weird shit", but if you mean "secretly draws/engages with Bad Porn", which is what a lot of callout posts are about, I implore you to recognize that it is truly not your business to know every private action someone takes just because you follow them on social media. This applies to awkward interactions people have in private too. Sometimes it's patterns of abuse, but a lot of the time it's interpersonal drama that is not anyone else's business.

If by "weird shit" you mean that someone has demonstrated ongoing patterns of real emotional/financial/sexual/etc abuse, and it's something that cannot be handled by any other means (either privately or with legal action if relevant), then in those cases a callout post can potentially do more good than harm if it reaches the people that need to know about it.

The level of long-term mental anguish that a target can go through is absolutely no fucking joke. A callout post has the potential to be a gun to someone's head, especially if they're socially/mentally/physically disadvantaged to begin with, which conveniently describes the most likely people to be targeted with high profile callout posts. [This is because: 1.) Our communities are wayy more likely to self-police than the rest of the internet and 2.) there are groups such as kiwifarms that love when a trans girl does something they can suicide bait her with and they also love it when we infight, isolate, and attack each other.]

I don't think callout posts are inherently evil, but they do nothing to make the target not continue their unwanted behavior. The only good function a callout post can serve is to warn potential future victims. If there are no victims, no behavior that will DIRECTLY lead to someone being victimized, no scam being uncovered, no patterns of abuse being shared, then the only victim is the target of the callout post. Everyone else involved is just gawking at gossip and/or contributing to suicidal levels of anxiety to a stranger.