#understand and respect the definition of the label as people mean it Here on tumblr

[mejomonster]

Any other trans friends i could use ur personal knowledge input. Ill also look this up though so don't worry im assuming like the definution of bi theres gonna be varied overlapping definitions

(So pre warning these first big paragraphs are preamble on what ive heard as far as more recent definitions, it can ALL be skipped down to my question. Basic summary is: DEI taught about gender identity, gender presentatuon, and sexuality spectrums and how they dont necesarily match the way stereotypes would expect as each Individual experiences those 3 spectrums their own way). Okay so the last time i got proper formal definitions taught was a Diversity Equity Inclusion training. Which was eons ahead of what my schools ever taught but it was still not all encompassing. Training included mentioning: sexuality is a spectrum, pansexuality and bisexuality are being able to feel attraction to multiple genders, heterosexuality and homosexuality are attraction to one gender, asexuality as an umbrella term for people who experience no sexual attraction or various levels different than the other sexualities, queer is an all encompassing umbrella term that lgbt people may use but a person outside the community should not use to refer to a person unless specifically asked to (and its also a label various academic texts use to describe lgbt elements discussed). Also the romantic attaction spectrum was mentioned, as like the sexuality spectrum but not necessarily matching it for any particular person (as in one can be bisexual and demiromantic, homoromantic and asexual, not just say bisexual and alloromantic). Training mentioned gender identity is a spectrum (and nonbinary is an umbrella term, as is genderqueer, for various identites that dont identify as men and women, agender includes people who do not identify with genders - basically gender is diverse as human experience, as with all other points).

Gender Presentation is a spectrum, and they do NOT have to match up (such as a butch woman, a feminine woman who goes by he him, a feminine man who uses he him, a masculine looking man who wears dresses basically in terms of clothing hair pronouns social activities any person can embody any kind of traits along the masculine to feminine spectrum - and may also align them differently as in a country woman may see "girls dont cry!" As a feminine associated expectation while an oldest son might also see "boys dont cry" as a masculine associate expectation to his own life experience, i could go on forever but basically clothes/hobbies do NOT equal gender identity. Pronouns do NOT necessarily equal gender identity). So like. The trainer my nonbinary coworker used examples like them using the pronouns they/he/she and prefering to dress more masculine but still using they/she/he and sometimes really enjoying dresses and still using they/she/he, of how some butch women may prefer he him or she her and theyre women If they simply identify as women, women who wear pants and no makeup and go by she her, men who love makeup and go by he him, some of my coworkers realized that day they prefered they/them (presentation) even if their gender identity was man or woman. Basically the point is Presentation is diverse. There is no one to one perfect list of traits to define what each gender identity "must be." Youre your gender identity because you are that gender, it feels right for you. You express and present yourself how you want, and that doesnt necessarily align with masc for men or fem for woman or androgynous for nonbinary, those are just the basic things strangers might assume. And the person labelling themselves understands more than you. (So in this case like gender nonconforming presentation would be a man who wears glam makeup or woman who never wears makeup, a nonbinary person who leans heavily into clothes that arent associated with androgyny, im not explaining well but i hope u are kinda getting my point).

Anyway my point was Gender Identity (im a guy a girl im nonbinary im agender), is not the same as Gender Presentation (the spectrum of human traits society vaguely interprets as masculine feminine and androgynous and where each individual lands in terms of presenting themselves such as clothing, hair, hobbies, social traits, etc)

Now my question Im really confused about:

Im nonbinary im bi. Im also a few other things and sometimes just saying im queer makes my life easier.

Im a bit confused about what transmasc and transfem as labels mean. Because i can only interpret the words on my current knowledge by guessing the masc and fem in the words Either relate to Gender Identity, or Gender Presentation. The words obviously are for trans people. But i have no idea at all where a trans butch woman falls in this scale, or a trans man who dresses very femininely, or nonbinary people like me who embrace masculinity and femininity a lot (and hey its okay if maybe nonbinary ppl like me just dont fit inside these terms).

Is the masc and fem in those labels referring to "man-spectrum" gender IDENTITY and "woman-spectrum" gender IDENTITY?

So this would mean maybe transfem: trans woman, any nonbinary or genderqueer person who relates slightly more to feeling the gender of woman, this would include trans butch women, and nonbinary people with beards etc who present visually very masculine but identify slightly more with women

Transmasc: trans man, nonbinary or genderqueer person who relates more slightly to the gender of man. This would include feminine trans men who wear dresses and makeup, include nonbinary people who Present visually very feminine but identify slightly more with men

OR is the masc and fem relating to gender PRESENTATION? Which would mean the terms include any trans person of any gender identity, who mainly presents masculine or mainly presents feminine

Transfem: trans women who are feminine presenting, trans men who are feminine presenting, nonbinary people who are more feminine presenting visually (feminine presenting as in clothing, hairstyles, hobbies etc that generally are interpreted by others as feminine)

Transmasc: trans men who are masculine presenting, trans women who are masculine presenting, nonbinary people who are more masculine presenting visually

Can you see where im getting confused? Depending on if masc and fem are refering to gender identity Or presentation, a trans butch woman is transmasc or transfem. So would a trans butch woman be transfem for transitioning to a woman physically, or transmasc for physically presenting masculinely and being trans. Would a nonbinary person who medically transitioned taking testosterone who wears dresses and makeup be a transmasc (for being a trans man) or transfem for being a trans person who presents feminine fashion choices. And im assuming the labels dont include nonbinary people that dont really lean one way or the other but like... if a nonbinary person is included in the terms is it based on the gender they more closely identify to on the spectrum (which for some of us is None, is multiple, is gender identities not within man or woman), or in the terms it is based on their visual presentation (which again! Nonbinary people can be androgynous, can embrace masculinity and femininity, can embrace one more than the other, can present our selves in ways meant to exclude those categorizations).

Tldr: is the masc and fem in transfem and transmasc refering to gender Identity or gender Presentation?

(And i suppose part of my confusion is like. Unfortunately in my social media experience over the last 10 years i saw the rise of "are you afab or amab" which screamed unpleasant unnecessary attempts to drag us back to "but what were u before transition" bullshit, and then recently in the "girl dinner" "boys are academia girls are shopping" and the lgbt community similar memes "lesbians are cottagecore gay men are clubbing" "transmen are so bob the builder transwomen are so my little pony" its giving Gender Expectations. Its giving: old school traditional limiting gender requirements on people if they want to conform to traditionalist norms. Its giving girls are stupid and soft abd emotional and boys are strong and smart and analytical - which isnt true by the way, you can be any traits regardless of gender identity you are. Ive been seeing a lot of "transmascs are army clips" "transfem are delicate jewelry" memes lately and its just like... aside from the fact im already sick of reinforcing gender stereotypes in a broad way. The memes are also confusing me because im like okay so is this implying trans men MUST be masculine, and transwomen MUST be feminine? Cause if its about gender identity, then that sure feels like thats the implication. I dont necessarily think the actual labels imply that necessarily, but i do think the memes of this nature just like ALL the widespread gender-stereotype memes imply some shit about expectations i do not like seeing reinforced as much as it goes around)

[doukeshi-kun]

regarding beandaifuku

hello, people. as you may have known, i have deactivated my old blog (beandaifuku) since about a month ago or so. i really appreciate the love and support received for the blog and the memories created there. as it was my first time creating in tumblr, i am grateful that fun memories were created there, as well as the amount of friends i've made from there

i understand that it was hypocritical of me to delete that blog when i did say i will just keep it archived when i first moved here because i understand the feeling of having works you like deleted. firstly, i am sorry for that. so, i created a collection in AO3 where i have archived some of my works from beandaifuku to there. aside from that, i also have reblogged a few fics and works such as the headcanons to a side blog. you can visit them with these links

AO3 collection

@keshi-medley

as of why i deactivated the blog in the first place—it is mainly because i want to fully move on from it. the writing, the works—they are quite immature writings, so to speak. there are works that i am NOT proud of and i do not want to see it existing. i know it won't fully get deleted since some people did reblog the works, but at least it will just stay in that bubble.

i have archived some fics but i definitely will not archive ALL works or drabbles i have done. because then, what's the point of deleting the blog if i'm just gonna have all works stay up.

and honestly, i also don't see the point of keeping it up when i do not even use the blog anymore. the blog was also infected with (porn)bots liking and following. and quite a number of my fics were flagged unfairly with community labels. as of now, i am very comfortable with my not-so-new identity and blogs.

now, onto some other things.

i know some people probably noticed my attitude on vampire!nikolai AU. frankly said, i have 100% moved on from it. i lost interest with it. generally, i do not really reblog those posts about writers and readers discourse/opinions—usually about how readers should at least give some comments or appreciation for the works a writer has done. i never talk about it, but that doesn't mean i don't care. in fact, i was heavily affected by it in the old blog.

that happened with vampire!nikolai AU after its so-called hype has passed. i was still enthusiastic about it as there were a few people giving asks about it. but that enthusiasm was not reciprocated, which led me to lose interest about it totally. i have completely moved on and i have other AUs i want to explore and write about, such as my latest ongoing series, Trash Sugar Magic.

on a side note, just saying, one of the reasons i'm not sick of stalker!au despite it has basically ended a few months ago is because some people literally analysed the fic and its details—which is like my favourite type of discussion. trust me, your enthusiasm towards a writer's work will keep their enthusiasm alive too.

i really appreciate people who love and find joy in my old works. i definitely am. it was a hard decision for me to deactivate it either since i know people are still tuning in. matter of fact, i have contemplated it for months and started by slowly taking down/privating the stuff i have posted there. and for that, i am deeply sorry.

these are all the information i could share. i honestly do not want to talk about it and keep the rest of my reasons private. but i hope you guys understand and respect my decision. i have no plan of deactivating doukeshi-kun and/or cherikolya. the worst i do in this blog are just blocking people indiscriminately and deleting old insignificant posts.

tldr; i deactivated the old blog because i have moved on and i don't want to see the fics i'm not proud of stay up and my enthusiasm wasn't reciprocated which led me to lose motivation and interest to continue on with certain AU.

[ariddletobesolved]

of preferences and headcanons.

Hi! I know I haven't posted real content in over a year, but since I've been on Tumblr the past week, I can't help but notice a discourse happening on Helsa tag.

I believe as a community, we should all respect other people's takes and opinions, especially in a fandom, where everyone may perceive things differently. Everyone has their own preferences that not everyone could get or understand, and that is okay. For example, and also to address the elephant in the room, if you prefer a ship (in this case, Helsa) to not be canon, it's totally fine. And if you would love for it to be canon, then that is fine too. It's not okay when you try to tell people how they must feel towards a certain media (in this case, Frozen) and tell fellow shippers they're not a true shipper just because they don't share the same preferences as you do. Stating an opinion of your preference is not the same as telling others to change that preference to suit the one that you like.

"I would prefer to not have them to be canon."

"If you're a true fan, you would have done THIS instead!"

See how different those two sentences are? The first one is neutral, while the other one is more demanding.

Honestly, I want to respect both, but I believe respect is earned and not given, and if the person is being disrespectful then I will return the disrespect back to their faces. Treat people the way you want be treated, remember?

I've been in between fandoms for over a decade, so I've come across discourses over headcanons and preferences plenty of time. Here's a reminder: Be respectful! It's not hard if you recognise that everyone perceive things differently and that the world doesn't revolve around you and your opinions only. You can always agree to disagree.

Being respectful also means being respectful to fanartists and fanwriters. Have some decency and refrain from using someone else's works without their permission (it's not hard to ask!). Just because you found it on Google does not mean it's public domain. As for appreciating fanwriters, you can start by reading what you want to read. You can start by filtering keywords and tropes or genres that you don't like. AO3 has a tagging system for a reason. If you don't pay attention to the tags, don't blame the writer for writing what they want to write and not how you want it. They create contents for free and you are not the boss of them. If you want something that specifically suits your taste buds, you can commission them.

Learn how to differentiate between what's canon and what's your own headcanon and interpretations, what's canon and what's a mere concept. Maybe you're reading too much into it, maybe it's in your head. Headcanons are fun, being delulu is literally my middle name, but not everything that you perceive is canon. You can disregard canon (like I do, most of the time) but you have to be clear about it, and draw a hard line to separate them, label them with 'canon divergence' or 'canon compliance' (you can look up each definition). A concept that did not make into the final product can hardly be considered canon.

This fandom community is supposed to be a safe space for everyone regardless their reason in shipping Helsa (be it because of their appealing aesthetics or others) as long as they're being respectful to each other. I didn't think I would be here writing all these to address the bad apples. Sure, the bad apples are always there in every community, but when these bad apples are the loud majority, I feel like I have to say something to clear up some misconceptions about this fandom. Helsa fandom isn't exactly popular, even back in the day, and it's mostly because shippers of other ships and fandom purists have already assumed the worst when they interacted with the ship before they did the shipper, which once again is out of the shippers' control.

From my experience, name-calling fellow shippers over these niche stuff will drive people away and discourage some creators from creating content (I already am on this stage). So, in my opinion, let's just agree to disagree. It's probably just me, but it's not like we have the power to make the writers write what we want anyway (Frozen 2 is already a proof that they would write what they want to write).

[gay-otlc]

Transmasc Lesbianism

I'm a lesbian. I'm also a straight trans man. This might confuse you, but you may want to consider looking at perspectives of gender and sexuality that differ from your own and don't fit into neat little boxes.

A definition of lesbian that has been gaining popularity in queer spaces is "non men loving non men." This was meant to be inclusive for nonbinary lesbians, as an alternative to "women loving women." However, the phrase is very flawed. I've spoken about this elsewhere, but the main points are

It categorizes all nonbinary people alongside women. In this context, "non-men" comes off as "women or nonbinary people who are basically women." Not all nonbinary people, even if they're non-men will feel comfortable being labeled as a lesbian, since the term has feminine connotations and can cause dysphoria. It's unfair to put them in this box just because they're not a man.

Attraction is complex and cannot be divided into "attracted to men" and "not attracted to men." This disregards people who use the split attraction model (different romantic and sexual orientations), people who experience alterous attraction, people with fluid sexualities, and more.

Gender is complex and cannot be divided into "male" and "all genders that are not male." The identity most blatantly erased by this is multigender identities- people with multiple genders can be both male and a gender that is not male. There are also genderfluid people who are sometimes male, demigender people who are partially male, or nonbinary people who don't identify as male but may refer to themselves with masculine terms such as boy or man anyway.

The focus of lesbianism should not be excluding men. Mindsets like this are echoing TERF rhetoric that seeks to exclude transfeminine lesbians because TERFs wrongly consider them to be men. And it's annoying to make our identity about men or lack thereof, when we don't need to be talking about men at all- our community is about our shared attraction for women, because women are great!

Awesome, we've got that out of the way. If you're still reading this and going "but you can't be a trans man and a lesbian, lesbian means non men loving non men!!!!!", then I don't know what to tell you. Read the list again? Go through the other posts linked? Maybe log off tumblr?

If you read all that and you're willing to accept that not all lesbians will fit into "non men loving non men," and you don't understand but you're open to learn, read on! By the end you might still not understand, but you don't need to understand me to respect me.

For some context, here is a description of my gender and sexuality.

Gender: I'm a bigender trans man. To put it as simply as I can, my gender is primarily male, but I also have some of the female gender. I'm comfortable being seen as solely a man or both a man and a woman, but not solely a woman.

Sexuality: I'm sexually attracted to women almost exclusively. As mentioned at the beginning of the post, I describe myself as a lesbian (or gay, sapphic, etc). I also describe myself as a straight man (or straight transmasc, transhet, etc).

How can I be both?

That's where my multigender identity comes into play. I'm a man and a woman. I'm attracted to women. This makes me both a man attracted to women and a woman attracted to women; a straight man and a lesbian.

Like I said earlier, male is my primary gender and being female is more secondary. So, I'm primarily a man attracted to women, and to a lesser extent a woman attracted to women. Internally, I perceive myself as more of a straight man than a lesbian. I get a lot of gender euphoria from calling myself a straight man, and the feminine connotations of lesbian can sometimes make me uncomfortable.

So, why do I still identify as a lesbian?

Although I consider myself and my attraction to be mostly transhet, that's not really how I interact with the world around me. I'm out as bigender to some people, but I'm also closeted in many contexts, and I don't pass very well even where I am out. This means I navigate my life as someone generally perceived as a woman, who is attracted to women. Even if I don't always consider myself to fit fully with lesbianism, a majority of people will interpret me that way when they find out I'm attracted to women.

Lesbianism is a label I found my home in, for many years, and it still means a lot to me. I spent a long time defining myself as a lesbian and existing in our community, and it's a significant part of my identity.

The way I experienced my attraction growing up was a lesbian experience, not a straight experience. I consider myself a straight man now, but I didn't grow up interacting with the world as a heterosexual child. I was expected to have crushes on boys and was mocked for not fitting into that. I was called a lesbian in a derogatory way when I was ten, and I found power in reclaiming that. When I realized I was attracted to women, I spent years feeling like a freak for it until lesbians communities helped me to be proud. Lesbian is the label that most accurately describes my history and my experience as a young queer.

Also, although the label lesbian sometimes causes dysphoria, I sometimes get euphoria from referring to myself or being referred to as a lesbian. I especially get euphoria from being a butch lesbian. I take so much joy from my butch identity. And while referring to myself as lesbian in a joking manner, with phrases like "I'm so gay for her" or "not to be a lesbian but oh my god," might not count as gender euphoria, saying them makes me happy, and that's enough for me.

So, why do I identify as a man? Because I am one.

Why do I identify as a lesbian? Because it describes my past experience and the way I interact with the world as someone perceived as a woman. Because it's important to me. Because I want to.

Why do I use these labels that contradict each other? Because these are the labels that are right for me, and I have every right to have a confusing identity.

Thank you for your time.

[your-ace-fluffy-neighbour]

saw your recent locked post. I understand your frustration, as I used to also be of the opinion that therian = involuntary, and that's the definition I grew up with (in fact, I grew up with the "therians are born this way, if you weren't then you're not really therian" definition). but there was actually some major community discourse here on tumblr about 5-6 years ago, before tiktok therians took off as much as they have. I'm talking well-known respected members of the community practically at each others' throats and even leaving the community entirely over it.

as a result of that discourse, a lot of therians became more accepting of voluntary therianthropy (and otherkinity and fictionkinity) because there was a push to drop the focus on the "how" of identity discussion (is it voluntary, involuntary, spiritual, psychological, etc.) and focus more on the **experience** of the identity instead. which in the case of therianthropy is animality.

I'm sorry if this doesn't help you to make sense of why so many people pushed back on your post, and I'm sorry if this doesn't help you to feel less alienated from the community now, but the overall community definition did change to be more accepting of voluntary identities years ago. it's considered more important that someone experiences animality and it is an integral part of them.

No, I understand that it changed and I accept that.

But this way I can no longer relate to it? If that makes sense.

A labels (for me) should give me validation, knowing that I finally found what I am and that there’s a word for it. If it can mean multiple things and can mean what I want it to mean, it no longer gives me comfort/ validation. Especially how outsiders already think of therians. I know people don’t care and say it shouldn’t matter what outsiders think, but I do. I want to be understood and a label would help me with it. Showing that I’m not alone, and this thing that I am and the experience indeed exists.

[fandomfloozy]

sis they are cooking you for your torture porn reply to that horror poll

Hey, anon! Thanks for letting me know, honestly was not needed, but I appreciate it anyway <3

Honestly, I was just gonna keep this in my inbox bc I didn't have anything in my notifs to indicate that anyone had replied to me anywhere and I don't tend to actively seek out people bashing me BUT the post you're talking about just came across my dash so let's talk about it!

First off, I'd like to point out that OP's original poll literally posed the question of "What is your LEAST favorite horror genre?" and the person spreading around my reply is making it seem as if I posted that reply unprompted? As if I stepped into a body horror space and tried to make people feel bad for liking that genre? Which was never the intention. I wasn't the only person in the replies of that post saying that "torture porn" was my least favorite subgenre and that it personally made my stomach turn and I don't want to watch it, and I think poll-maker OP even made an edit to the poll saying that plenty of people replied with that

Granted, OP also said they don't agree with that being a subgenre and I gotta say that after thinking on it a bit, I definitely agree! What I was referring to and describing is definitely more along the lines of body horror, and that's what I should have labeled it as, I'm willing to concede that much.

[Edit: Just to be clear THIS is the definition I'm used to. I didn't use the term "torture porn" to make anyone feel like a horrid person for enjoying those kinds of films, this is just the way I was taught to use the very informal term for a subgenre, which is what the poll was about. To me, The Human Centipede and Tusk's plots center heavily on someone or multiple someones being tortured. This isn't a reflection of how I think these are "bad people films"]

But I still stand by my opinion (God forbid you have one of those on Tumblr dot com) that I don't see a point to the kind of morbid display you see in Human Centipede or in Tusk. I can't sit through those kinds of movies, even reading the synopsis leaves me messed up for days just thinking about it. I don't personally get it, and I was sharing that sentiment in the replies of a poll asking what your least favorite genre is.

Which brings me to people in the notes of the post spreading around my reply that are trying to make it seem like I'm spreading respectability politics? That I lack proper media literacy?There's even someone in the replies of the post saying I'm spreading white supremacy??

Bro, if you could see the other kinds of media I enjoy and watch and read. I have no issue with fiction that has uncomfortable and even taboo displays existing! My reply was about my personal preferences on a poll about personal preferences in horror, and it's not any deeper than that. I understand the importance of having "bad" topics (heavy on the quotation marks here) in literature and film and TV, but that doesn't mean I'm going to subject myself to something that makes me physically queasy and that I find unenjoyable. And that doesn't mean that I think people who do enjoy and find it interesting are "bad people," it's just something I can't agree is a good genre. The same way other people voted "zombie" and "ghost horror" on that poll and hit the replies, so did I! I LOVE a good zombie film. I like a good ghost story, and I am not going to feel personally attacked by the person in the replies saying that ghost horror is bland and boring. I can disagree with them and not make them out to be a horrid person spreading a hateful rhetoric

So if the person posting my reply without context and the people in their notes could stop painting me in that light (yes I realize my blog is blurred out and "surely it can't be traced back to me" [disproven by anon finding me] and it's not technically a call out, but those are still my words you're twisting) I would really appreciate it.

Bad faith reading isn't a good habit for those who claim to abhor lack of media literacy.

[bluexiao]

Hey blue, saw a ask saying how you should label your sexuality... (Not the same anon)

Just to say, usually pan people resorts to the pan label because they think it suits the kind of attraction they feel better (regardless of gender) but in all honesty, it was never a definition factor for your to label yourself as pan. But in all honesty, don't let other people try to tell you which sexuality you identify with. You know your attraction better, and these little fights between multiple gender attraction is just getting exhausting.

Plus, I really got a little bit annoyed by the way anon described bisexuality. Bisexuality is fluid and NOT defined by the fact if you're gender blind or not. Bisexuality has been ONLY meaning that your romantic/sexual partner can be from any gender. Attraction regardless of gender or having gender preferences are not to take account, in other words, you can be gender blind or having preferences inside bisexuality, since pan is literally a part of bisexuality itself.

I'm sorry if this is too long :( but seriously, you know your label better. I'm getting more and more hit up with people trying to say which label you should identify with. Just be happy. Geez.

Yes, honestly, I have been pondering about that ask for far too long. I was pretty sure I knew myself better and yet I let an anonymous person from this app called Tumblr dictate what I am or who I am supposed to be.

But it really doesn’t matter. Most of the characters I am attracted here I don’t even consider as potential partners if I’m being honest. Some, but not all. Does not mean I am attracted to a 2D character I want them to be my partner. My partners IRL are very different from the 2D characters. My 2D attraction are a reflection of their own—fictional. I may love Xiao the most, but does that mean I want him to be my IRL partner? No.

Additionally, I think the anon misunderstood something. Pansexuality means we can be attracted to ANYONE. Does not mean we should be attracted to EVERYONE. (Not unless you want to, you do you) I understand that they may have their own definition of their own sexuality, but it does not mean that your own definition is the same as someone else’s. We all discovered our sexualities in our own way. We don’t have the same stories, please respect that.

[hematomes]

I saw your post about ppl losing their shiz about Kaeya fanart being “whitewashed” when it’s literally darker than he is in canon. I agree btw I love like basically all Kaeya art out there I love one eyepatch man.

anyhoo, I have a story. I once saw a tiktok about a kaeya art. it was specifically labeled “IN PROGRESS” or whatever so you knew the artist wasn’t done. it was a gorgeous piece of art btw. So far, the only thing that had been colored was his hair and some of his clothes.

pretty much everyone in the comments started harrasing her about how he was whitewashed and the artist had to be a white supremacist and i think someone said “see I knew everyone who played genshin was racist just delete the game at this point.”

i was just like 😳 wow jeez it’s literally IN PROGRESS the artist legit said so.

the artist eventually posted the final version (after having to delete the first video and deal with several threats) it did turn out beautiful, but on the comments there and on every post of theirs after people are lurkign in the comments bad-mouthing them.

as much as I definitely am for characters not being whitewashed (especially Kaeya bc I love him your honor) I think some people take it way too far when the person they’re yelling at literally just wanted to get people excited about their WIP.

hi! sorry im so late this issue became quite sensitive lol i had to work up the courage to come back to it. it's gonna be a bit long, but i really need to say all this

if there's one thing i noticed about the genshin community on tiktok and twitter, it's that there is a whole, whole lot of social justice warriors and overall it's extremely toxic. it's something that surprised me because the people i interact with on tumblr are all super sweet and not one bit toxic so? idk, tumblr is just a different breed i guess

your story is extremely saddening. everytime there's a kaeya fanart, people forget about the color theory and the artists' style and claim it's whitewashed and i genuinely don't understand why. if someone could explain it to me, am i missing something? im not an artist so perhaps im mistaken, idk, but i've never seen a fanart where kaeya was whitewashed.

the thing that pisses me off the most is that most of the time it's white ppl calling something whitewashed. i'm not saying you shouldn't call out racism if you see it just bc you're white, just that these people aren't even right - and often you see poc coming into the debate and explaining it's not whitewashed/saying it doesn't bother them. moreover, i've literally seen fanart of beidou as a black girl, which isn't representation in my opinion - beidou is already a poc, and asian people need at least as much representation as black people, so it's plain racism. same thing with kaeya, i've seen edits of him with stereotypical african features, and it's really sad that no one is calling this out but yelling about whitewashing as soon as he isn't the exact same color as the official arts. hell, someone even said "so what if it's darker? it's still whitewashing" and i??? am flabbergasted. whitewashing is absolutely disgusting, but ppl keep misunderstanding what it means and just using it to gratuitously harass artists.

now, don't get me wrong. i believe that you can draw whatever you want. but the thing is - if you get mad when someone draws kaeya white (if they really do, i mean), you can't just applaud someone else's that draws another character black. racism goes both ways, and it's bordering on fetishism. i, as a poc (mixed-race, caucasian + african), am extremely uncomfortable everytime i see this double-standard.

but anyway, the fact remains that sjw have plagued the genshin fandom. and it's not just about kaeya's skin color (we don't even know if he's really a poc - we know he's tan according to paimon, and i believe she called him "exotic"? so idk) but also about the ships. everytime i see a shippy tiktok, there's plenty of ppl out here saying it's wrong, claiming their own ship is the most canon. if i'm not mistaken, kaeluc is the one that gets the most hate, and i genuinely, once again, don't understand why.

i talked about them before and explained how it's not incest bc they really aren't brothers, but i swear every now and then i see people throwing death threats and slurs anytime someone hints at them. idk if you are familiar with the eng va's fandom, but sometimes they play among us together, aether's va does some livestreams where he invites different voice actors. but diluc's va is never there, and i was wondering why - recently i learned that it's because he retweet a fanart of kaeya and diluc fighting alongside each other (not even a shippy fanart, apparently) and people harassed him and excluded him from the fandom. and now the same thing is happening to griffin burns, childe's va, bc he retweeted (or liked, idk) a fanart of lumine and childe fighting or something and people called it pedophilia bc lumine would be a minor. i'm not even gonna dive into this bc the travelers are canonically like 30 times childe's age, but what i mean is - people are so full of hate and i can't fathom living like this?

the point is, i totally respect anyone who doesn't ship something i ship. i myself don't like certain ships - like zhongli/xiao, jean/diluc - but im not gonna harass ppl who do just because i can? that's messed up, i just don't get it. i wish the fandom wasn't that bad bc i really enjoy this game

anyway, im really disappointed but still grateful, bc my followers & people i've interacted with here have been nothing but sweet and respectful. i hope none of y'all come across the toxic side of the genshin fandom. stay safe y'all!

[queerplatonicpositivity]

Hi! I like your blog. It's inclusive, helpful, and just generally has a warm vibe. And I read your essay-- to answer your question, Latinx started in the same way as Latin@ in that it was a symbolic written representation of inclusiveness and the pronunciation is not literal. Most Spanish-speaking communities that use Latinx today pronounce it with the -e suffix.

And while I love how the comic simply explains what can be complex concepts for monolingual English speakers, I do have a bone to pick with how the comic tacitly dismisses Latinx as a white-washed colonizer term. The artist uses soft language in discouraging it, so the dismissal only becomes explicit when you notice that all the linked readings are anti-Latinx with no Latinx perspectives.

Latinx's exact origins/creator is unclear. Although definitely used in and by Latin American circles, Latinx may very well have been created by a white Latinx. It may have even been created by a white Latinx with no or little understanding of Spanish. But if a term is created to describe oneself, is it self-colonizing? Where is the difference in a person refusing to use correct pronouns because it "imposes beliefs about genders" and refusing to use Latinx because it "imposes English-speaking norms on other cultures"? It's possible to be Latinx and only speak English and they deserve a right to self-identify as much as anyone else.

While anglocentrism and US imperialism in general are Problems that Spanish has to contend with globally, it's also important to remember that Spanish is a colonizer language, too. So while some may perceive it as linguistic submission to use Latinx in an English-dominated culture, for indigenous folks in a Spanish-dominated culture it can be a form of linguistic resistance. Though, at least ime, indigenous folk are just as likely to reject all disambiguations of Latinx/e/@ as its origins are a matter of recorded history (Michel Chevalier, late 1800s) which show the explicit racist and Eurocentric motivations behind its creation.

But the comic wasn't about rejecting Latin@/e. It was about rejecting Latinx. I don't care about what term gets used, but I do care that self-determined labels are respected and Latinx should not be discouraged in the same breath that Latine, Latin@, or Latino/a is.

Hi, Anon! Thank you for the kind words about my blog. :) And thank you for sharing your thoughts and perspectives about Latine and Latinx.

I was worried that the post would get circulated without the tags, but for context, here is a screen grab of the original post that has the tags pasted into the post and the continued of the "essay" in the actual tags:

[ Image Description: A screenshot of the original post. Below is a transcription of the tags involved. End Image Description ]

Aaand Tumblr ate half my tags because my tag essay was too long. D:

Here’s the original tags and the missing tags:

#when I was in undergrad in a university that was majority Latine#I was involved in some activist circles where people were using the @ symbol#to stand for o + a together#I actually have a t-shirt from a time I went to a protest#that says ‘no somos illegales no somos criminales somos trabajador@s internacionales’#which means 'we aren’t illegals we aren’t criminals we are international workers’#anyway that was the preferred way at the time in those circles for people to signal gender neutral language#after I moved out of Texas and away from the Mexican/U.S. border#I started seeing people online (here on Tumblr) use Latinx#and then I started seeing it elsewhere online#and then about 2.5 years ago someone in my guild (who is Abenaki not Latine)#linked to this comic on Vox in a discussion about gender-neutral language#and whether white Western English-speaking people are engaging in further linguistic colonization#by imposing gender-neutral terms/methods on other languages#(which incidentally was taking place between a French speaker and a Romani guildmate iirc)#and it was really interesting to me because I had long wondered how the x worked in actual words#(like 'amigx’ ??)#and using the instead seemed to make a lot of sense#and there are some very specific feelings about it

#about a year or two later the topic came up again in the guild #this time with a guildmate who is an elder in the community #and said the activist circles he's part of (largely in Arizona) use Latinx not Latine #and he feels as a Chicano (who doesn't speak Spanish because of linguistic oppression in his parents' generation) #that Latinx is the preferred term #and that doesn't even get into things like colonization #as a lot of places where Spanish is spoken are places with Indigenous populations that were colonized #and many Indigenous groups have cultural conceptions of gender that have nothing to do with European concepts of binary gender #so there's like... onion layers going on #which I think many of us in the queer community can relate to #as we have endless conversations about what we should be called and why #so I feel there's a lot of solidarity that can be had

I strongly support self-determination in labels, terms, etc. used in our communities, and I definitely support people choosing to refer to themselves as Latinx.

[no-passaran]

creating an identity that is completely centered around your sex life is pretty dumb imo. both identities stem from this desire to belong to a community that justifies and/or explains their sexual reality. they also stem from misconceptions that, if challenged, would likely change their viewpoint. Virginity is a made up thing that doesn’t matter at all, and wanting to not have sex and/or romance in your life isn’t inherently its own orientation. there’s plenty of straight people, gay men, lesbian women, etc. that don’t like sex, and only want romance. that doesn’t make them any less straight or gay. asexuality, or at least the way it manifests on tumblr, is the split attraction model taken to the most extreme, making sex and romance and love completely separate objects, which is insane. incels follow a similar mentality, where sex is completely separate from love and romance, sex becomes a status symbol, something to define yourself against. this isn’t to say asexuals are exactly like incels, that’s just not true, but both groups form identities around sex as a separate being from love and romance, and with those identities they find that they communities desperate for validation. im also just one dude on tumblr, and i personally think labels are stupid, at least in my own personal life. i do as i please with those who consent, and that’s enough for me. it should be enough for more people. please don’t start shit and don’t be a fool

I don't mean it in a rude way but if in 2022 you still don't understand that asexuality has little to do with what a person wants to do or chooses to do, and absolutely nothing to do with virginity, instead of what they are able to feel, that starts to be a you problem.

I understand not knowing how other people experience life differently than you (as has been the case for me too, I didn't know that people do experience sexual attraction directed at other people until I read about it by chance on a Tumblr post when I was 20 years old, I had just never thought about it much and nobody had explained it to me so I assumed wrongly based on my experiences; it seems to me you're doing the same). But you have plenty of information that's easily accessible on the internet, so you should look up what aspec organisations have to say before sending random people (do we even know each other?) opinions based on wrong definitions or facts you didn't understand.

Tbh I'm open to answering respectful questions about definitions if anyone wants to learn, but by the way this ask is phrased it doesn't seem to me that you're here to listen, only to say your opinion on my life, which you don't know anything about. I could be misjudging this since I don't know you, I don't know what context made you send me this (I don't even remember when was the last time I reblogged something about asexuality but it's been a long time), I can't read tones on a text, etc. But what do you expect me to say? I need this word, knowing that it exists and other people are like this too is the only thing that has given me the knowledge that I'm not ill and has let me refuse to go to therapy to change it the many times I've been pressured into it (even though I'm not out because, just like you, I go around saying I don't use labels and just do what I want, but when people can tell you differ from the norm that's not good enough for them).

You said it's not useful to you, well that's good for you and nobody is saying you should use it, especially when it's a word that clearly doesn't match with your experiences. But other people have other lives and other needs and sometimes you just need to communicate. I don't think many people who aren't asexual realise this, but there are a lot of things nobody ever explains because we're all just supposed to know, or situations we're supposed to understand, and not having words to communicate just makes everything more difficult for everyone involved (not just the ace person) and can even lead to dangerous situations for us.

Why can heterosexual people, gay people, or anyone else have words to describe themselves if they need to, but we can't? Are we supposed to pretend we don't exist or that it's an individual "problem" of each one of us, that nobody else is like us and we're alone?

[thinkingisadangerouspastime]

do you think zuko treated mai fairly? i mean... why didn't he trust her to tell her his deepest thoughts when he abandoned her in the fire nation? i know he loved her but i don't understand why he didn't just tell her instead of hurting her unnecessarily. they're cute but i find it so hard to get past this, i would be so hurt if my bf didn't tell me something so important. and then mai just. forgives zuko so easily even after he locked her in a cell still not trusting her. mai deserves better :(

It’s kind of funny you ask this, because I lowkey have a lot of feelings about the phrase “x deserved better than y”. For one, I’m always cautious around it, because in the A:TLA fandom I’ve seen it thrown around in two main ways:

“Katara deserved better than Aang!” followed by the most ridiculous slander labelling Aang as abusive, toxic, manipulative, etc. (Funnily enough, though, a lot of those people will also go and ship T.aang. Like T.aang is an Excellent ship, do not get me wrong, but it’s clear they just say ‘Katara deserved better’ because they hate K.ataang and don’t necessarily care one way or the other about Aang.)

“Zuko deserved better than Mai!” followed by the most obnoxious bullshit also labelling Mai as abusive, toxic, manipulative, etc. and even - I kid you not - saying she’s “too ugly” for Zuko. At worst, racist; at best, shallow. (And again, funnily enough, a lot of them will then ship M.ailee, again proving they don’t really care one way or another about Mai, they just hate M.aiko.)

Now, I’m not getting into the K.ataang vs Z.utara vs M.aiko ship wars, lmao, but those are the two primary ways that rhetoric is used. It’s kind of embarrassing, tbh, how fandom tends to use the phrase to discredit pairings and demonize characters instead of… you know. Moving on with their lives, lol.

But your ask fascinates me, anon, because you bring up the point of Zuko not trusting Mai, thus leading to the conclusion of “Mai deserves better than Zuko.” Which is interesting, because as I just mentioned, for most people who follow the “x deserves better than y” phrase, it tends to be used the other way around!

Firstly, however, I want to say that you don’t have to ship Maiko. You can read my explanation and walk away still feeling exactly the same way about Mai and Zuko’s relationship (love it, hate it, indifferent to it, all that jazz), and that’s totally okay! But I’m going to do my best to explain what’s off with the rhetoric of “x deserves better than y,” specifically regarding Maiko. My thesis, as it were?

It’s not about “deserve.”

Disclaimer: This obviously does not refer to genuinely unhealthy/abusive relationships. I shouldn’t have to say that, but we all know how Tumblr is. I digress.

Love isn’t about “deserve.” At first glance, that’s kind of a confusing take, isn’t it? Don’t we all “deserve” someone who will respect us, appreciate us, and treat us well? Of course we do! But those are just qualities of any healthy relationship. When I say that love isn’t about “deserve,” I mean that love can’t be simplified quite so easily. Here is a definition of “deserve”:

“do something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment)”

How do we make ourselves “worthy” of love? I (an optimist) don’t think we do. Love isn’t about worthiness; I believe we are all “worthy” of love simply by existing. Instead, I argue that love is about openness. It’s not about if we “deserve” love or not, but rather if we allow ourselves to be open to it.

All of this is to say that it’s not about whether or not Mai “deserves” or “deserves better than” Zuko; it’s that she is open to receive love from him, and he from her. She wants to love and be loved by Zuko. No one else. She says it to Azula herself: “I love Zuko more than I fear you.” Mai chooses Zuko, full stop, just as Zuko chose her by a) doing everything in his power to keep her out of his betrayal of the Fire Nation (why would he risk putting a death sentence on her head, too?) and b) reuniting with her happily at the end of the show (i.e. he didn’t brush her off; he smiles his widest smile in the entire show during that scene!). So it’s not about “deserve.” It’s about these two kids loving and finding love in one another. A Shakespeare quote is particularly relevant here:

“Love sought is good, but given unsought is better.” (Twelfth Night – Act 3, Scene 1)

We are all looking for love, be it romantic or platonic or anything in-between, and there is no better feeling than we receive love even when we feel we don’t “deserve” it. Mai is willing to work with Zuko to make their relationship work despite his mistakes, because it’s not about if he “deserves” her, but because she knows he is willing to grow and improve (and she is, too).

Also, within the series of A:TLA (specifically towards the middle-end of Book 3), it can be concluded that Zuko believes that he is no longer “worthy” of Mai’s love. That he doesn’t “deserve” her love because of how he abandoned her (and she is the only thing about the Fire Nation he regrets leaving behind). Mai disagrees with him. She is open to a relationship with Zuko because she loves him for an infinite number of reasons (one being that he does what is right, including going against the Fire Nation, even if she did not at first understand). When Zuko realizes this by the time the finale comes around, they reconcile in a tender embrace.

And what reason are we ever given to doubt Mai regarding whether or not she “deserves” better than Zuko? Mai is perfectly aware of her own worth. She breaks up with Zuko in “The Beach” because his behavior is inexcusable and she knows that she doesn’t have to put up with it. Even in the comics, which are handled poorly, I don’t entirely hate the Maiko breakup because again, Mai knows that she does not have to be responsible for Zuko’s well-being. She loves him, she loves him so much, and she tries to help him, but she is not his therapist. So again, why should we doubt Mai? Going back to the A:TLA finale - Mai knows what she “deserves” and what she doesn’t. She knows what she will and what she won’t put up with. And after everything, she is still open to a relationship with Zuko. Because love isn’t about “deserve,” and it never has been.

To address your other questions:

why didn’t he trust her to tell her his deepest thoughts when he abandoned her in the fire nation? i know he loved her but i don’t understand why he didn’t just tell her instead of hurting her unnecessarily.

You almost answer your question yourself, anon. “[H]is deepest thoughts”? Who tells anyone their “deepest thoughts”? We actually talked about this in my Shakespeare class (I know, right? lmao). A very common trope in Shakespeare’s tragedies is a lack of communication. We all read Romeo and Juliet and Othello and were like “dude, if they had just talked to each other, none of those bad things would have happened!!” (and thus those tragedies might have been comedies).

My professor agreed with us. Then he asked, well, why do you think Shakespeare doesn’t have anyone communicate?

One brave soul said, “That’d be too easy.”

Which is… almost right. Perhaps, narratively, it would be too easy. The plays would definitely be resolved much faster. But the truth? It’s too hard. People don’t communicate clearly in real life. They hide certain things because they’re embarrassed, they’re ashamed, they’re afraid. Even couples who’ve been together for years will admit that they don’t tell each other everything, for whatever reason. People are imperfect, and thus their relationships are, too.

(Slightly amusing sidebar: Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are actually an example of a perfect couple, because Macbeth confides everything to Lady Macbeth in Act 1. And, well, we all know how that went down[hill], lmao.)

So why didn’t Zuko tell Mai the truth when he was leaving the Fire Nation? He was afraid! He says it himself in “The Boiling Rock”: “Everyone in the Fire Nation thinks I’m a traitor. I couldn’t drag her into it.” Zuko is afraid of what might happen to Mai! He knows the Fire Nation now has a price on his head - why would he wish that on Mai? It’s bad enough that she’s the (former) girlfriend of a traitor! How much worse might it have been for her if she’d been associated with him after he’d threatened the Fire Lord’s life*? I’m not saying this to excuse Zuko’s decision, because perhaps Mai would have agreed to join him (although we cannot conclude this with total certainty), and I certainly think breaking up by text letter was a pretty crappy way to go about it, but all the same, he was trying to protect her. When Mai realizes this, what does she do?

Saves his ass from Azula and utters one of the most iconic lines in the entire series.

*Also, a kind of interesting parallel presents itself between Zuko and Hamlet here, lmao. One interpretation of Hamlet’s “get thee to a nunnery!” scene with Ophelia is reading it as him trying to cut ties with her in the cruelest way possible so she wouldn’t try to follow him and possibly get hurt as he killed Claudius (aka regicide, the highest crime in Denmark). While it’s arguable that Zuko isn’t quite so perceptive, lmao, there is the possibility that Zuko thought breaking up with Mai in such a callous way would help prevent her from remaining attached to him and thus getting mixed up in his mess (killing the Fire Lord, aka the A:TLA equivalent of regicide, the highest crime in the Fire Nation). Just something to ponder!

and then mai just. forgives zuko so easily even after he locked her in a cell still not trusting her.

I don’t know if I’d call her forgiveness “easy.” Making the decision to betray Azula? That’s hard. Mai was signing herself up for a death sentence, because Azula doesn’t take prisoners (Aang can testify to this, lmao). If Ty Lee hadn’t been there, Mai almost certainly would have died. So yeah. I wouldn’t call her forgiveness “easy,” anon. I think it’s one of the scariest choices she ever made.

Of course, one can argue that Mai’s true forgiveness of Zuko actually came later, which I don’t necessarily disagree with. I think Mai’s initial instinct was to trust Zuko because she knows him better than perhaps anyone (thus she realizes he wouldn’t walk away from the Fire Nation without true cause), hence her betrayal of Azula. When she survived because of Ty Lee’s chi-blocking (since honestly, Mai probably didn’t think she’d get that far) and was ultimately imprisoned, I bet she had plenty of time to think about Zuko and her relationship with him. Working on that presumption, again, I don’t think I’d call her forgiveness “easy,” because she likely took several days if not weeks to process everything.

Also, you say Zuko doesn’t trust her because a) he didn’t inform her of what he was doing when he left the Fire Nation and b) he locked her in a cell at the Boiling Rock. I understand that perspective, but again, I go back to this line: “Everyone in the Fire Nation thinks I’m a traitor. I couldn’t drag her into it.” Does that sound like someone who doesn’t trust Mai? I think the better description is that Zuko feared for Mai, as I mentioned earlier. Did he lock her in a cell because he thought she’d betray him, or because he thought it was the last thing he could do to protect her when everything went to shit as he, Sokka, Suki, and etc. were all escaping from prison? Could it have been a little bit of both? We can’t say for sure, of course, but given how happy Zuko was around Mai in “Nightmares and Daydreams,” I think his love for her ultimately outweighed his worries about Mai’s ties to Azula, which leads me to conclude his locking her in a cell was less about distrust and more a final, last-ditch attempt at keeping her out of his mess.

Plus, Zuko has issues. Mai knows this. She loves him all the same for it. As I said earlier, she is open to giving love to and receiving love from Zuko. I think it’s a bit of a discredit to Mai’s character to assume she forgave him easily. And besides! She told him herself: “But don’t ever break up with me again.” Mai implicitly tells him hey, don’t pull that BS again, and Zuko gives her an embarrassed smile before they hold each other in a gentle, loving embrace. It’s not a direct statement, and maybe that puts some people off from it, but Mai is firmly implying that she wants him to trust her more, and Zuko acknowledges this (and he’s rightfully a little embarrassed that he kept her out of it, since hindsight is 20/20 and he now understands she probably would have gone with him; do remember, of course, that he had no way of knowing that initially).

do you think zuko treated mai fairly?

Well, how do we define “fairly”? I guess the short answer is no, he didn’t, but what other choice did he believe he had at the time? Answer: none. It was either keep Mai out of it and guarantee her safety or drag Mai into it (which Zuko likely saw as a selfish option, i.e. what right did he have to pull his girlfriend into treason just because he didn’t want to lose her company?) and risk losing her. As viewers, we know there’s more to the situation than that, but Zuko doesn’t have our luxury. So his decision to keep Mai out of it and thus try to protect her? I would call that a “fair” assessment, yes.

And besides, anon:

“The course of true love never did run smooth.” (A Midsummer Night’s Dream - Act 1, Scene 1)

Mai and Zuko chose each other. Who are we to deny them their happiness?

[star-anise]

An ask I got recently:

hi so i’m a transmed and i’m not sure if you’ll answer this because of that but i saw your post about transmedicalism and was wondering if you could expand on that? you seem like a genuinely kind and judgement-free person, thank you darling x

My response:

Heh, you call me “judgement-free” and ask for my opinion on a topic I’ve formed a lot of judgments about… I get it though, I’m not into attacking people for what they believe so much as providing FACTS. As a cis queer, my insight into transmedicalism isn’t really about the innate experience of trans-ness so much as using my education and professional experience to talk about social science research, diagnostic systems, and public health policy.

This ended up really long, so the tl;dr is, I think transmedicalism as I understand it:

Misunderstands why and how the DSM’s Gender Dysphoria diagnosis was written,

Treats the medical establishment with a level of trust and credibility it doesn’t deserve, at a time when LGBT+ people, especially trans people, need to be informed and vigilant critics of it, and

Approaches the problem of limited resources in an ass-backwards way that I think will end up hurting the trans community in the long run.

TW: Transphobia; homophobia; suicide; institutionalization; torture; electroshock therapy; child abuse; incidental mentions of pedophilia.

So first off I’m guessing you mean this post, about not trusting the medical establishment to tell you who you are? That’s what I’m trying to elaborate on here.

I have to admit, when you say “I’m a transmedicalist” that tells me very little about you, because on Tumblr the term seems to encompass a dizzying array of perspectives. Some transmedicalists believe in what seems to me the oldschool version of “The only TRUE trans people suffer agonizing dysphoria that can only be fixed with surgery and hormones, everyone else is an evil pretender stealing resources and can FUCK RIGHT OFF” and others are like, um… “I have total love and respect for nonbinary and nondysphoric trans people! I qualify for a DSM diagnosis of dysphoria but that doesn’t make me inherently better or more trans than anyone else.”

Which is very confusing to me because according to everything I’ve learned, the latter opinion is not transmedicalism. It’s just… a view of transness that acknowledges current diagnostic labels and scientific research. It’s what most people who support trans rights and do not identify as transmedicalists believe. But I kind of get the impression that Tumblr transmedicalism has expanded well past its original mandate, to the point that if a lot of “transmedicalists” saw the movement’s original positions they’d go “Whoa that’s way too strict and doesn’t help our community, I want nothing to do with it.”.

Okay so. Elaborating on the stuff I can comment on.

1. DSM what?

The American Psychiatric Association publishes a big thick book called The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, called the DSM for short. This is the “Bible of psychiatry”, North America’s definitive listing of mental disorders and conditions. It receives significant revision and updates roughly every 10-15 years; it was last updated in 2013, meaning it will likely get updated sometime between 2023 and 2028.

The DSM lists hundreds of “codes”, each of which indicates a specific kind of mental disorder. For example, 296.23 is “Major depressive disorder, Single episode, Severe,” and  300.02 is “Generalized anxiety disorder.” These codes have information on how common the condition is, how it’s diagnosed, and what kind of treatment is appropriate for it.

Diagnostic codes are the key to health professionals getting paid. If there isn’t a code for it, we can’t get paid for it, and therefore we have very few resources to treat it with. The people who actually pay for healthcare–usually insurance companies or government agencies–decide how much they will pay for each code item to be treated. They’ll pay for, say, three sessions of group therapy for mild depression (296.21), or they’ll pay for more expensive private therapy if it’s moderate (296.22); they’ll pay for the cheap kind of drug if you have severe depression (296.23), but to get the more expensive drug, you need to have depression with psychotic features (296.24).

Healthcare companies, especially in the USA where the system is very very broken and the DSM is written, are cheap bastards. If they can find an excuse not to fund some treatment, they’ll use it. “We think this person who lost their job and can’t get off the couch should pay this $1000 bill for therapy,” they’ll say. “After all, they were diagnosed as code 296.21, and then saw a private therapist for five sessions, when we only allow three sessions of group therapy, and you’re saying they haven’t had enough treatment yet?”

A lot of the advocacy work mental health professionals do is trying to get the big funding bodies to pay us adequately for the work we do. (This is a much easier process in countries with single-payer healthcare, where this negotiation only needs to be done with a single entity. In the USA, it needs to be done with every single health insurance company in existence, as well as the government, sometimes differently in every single state, and then again on a case-by-case basis as well.) Healthcare providers have to argue that three sessions of group therapy isn’t enough, that Medicaid needs to pay therapists more per hour than it costs those therapists to rent a room to practice in, or else therapists would lose money by seeing Medicaid clients. DSM codes exist a tiny bit to let us communicate with each other about the people we treat, and a huge amount to let us get paid. The fact that their existence lets people make sense of their own experiences and find a community with people who share common experiences and interests with them is a very minor side benefit the DSM’s authors really don’t keep in mind when they update and revise different diagnoses.

So when it comes to convincing insurance companies to pay for treatment, humanitarian reasons like “they’ll be very unhappy without it” tend not to work. The best argument we have for them paying for psychological treatment is that it’s economical: that if they don’t pay for it now, they’ll have to pay even more later. If they refuse to pay, let’s say, $2000 to treat mild depression when someone loses their job, and either refuse treatment or stick the person with the bill, then that person’s life might spiral out of control–they might, let’s say, run low on money, get evicted from their apartment, develop severe depression, attempt suicide, and end up in hospital needing to be medically resuscitated and then put in an inpatient psych ward for a month. The insurance company then faces the prospect of having to pay, let’s say, $100,000 for all that treatment. At which point somebody clever goes, “Huh, so it would have been cheaper to just… pay the original $2000 instead so they could bounce back, get a new job, and not need any of this treatment later.”

Trans healthcare can be kind of expensive, since it often involves counselling, years of hormone therapy, medical garments, and multiple surgeries. Health insurance companies hate paying for anything, and have traditionally wanted not to cover any of this. “This is ridiculous!” they said. “These are elective cosmetic treatments, it’s not like they’re dying of cancer, these people can pay the same rate for breast enhancements or testosterone injections as anyone else.”

So when the APA Task Force on Gender Identity Disorder (a task force comprised, as far as I can tell, entirely of cis people) sat down to plan for the 2013 update of the DSM, one of their biggest goals was: Treatment recommendations. Create a diagnosis which they could effectively use to advocate that insurance companies fund gender transition. Like when you go back and read the documents from their meetings in 2008 and 2011, their big thing is “create a diagnosis that can be used to form treatment recommendations.” So that’s what they did; in 2013 they made the GD diagnosis, and in 2014 the Affordable Care Act required insurers to provide treatment for it.

A lot of trans people weren’t happy with the DSM task force’s decisions, such as the choice to keep “Transvestic Fetishism,” which is basically the autogynephilia theory, and just rename it “Transvestic Disorder”. The creation of the Gender Dysphoria diagnosis, basically, was designed to force the preventive care argument. They didn’t think they could win on trans healthcare being a necessity because healthcare is a human right, so they went with: Trans people have a very high suicide rate, and one way to bring it down is to help them transition. One of the major predictors of suicidality is dysphoria. The more dysphoric someone is, the more likely they are to attempt suicide (source).  Therefore, health insurers should fund treatment for gender dysphoria because it was cheaper than paying for emergency room admissions and inpatient psychiatric hospitalizations.

I have spoken to trans scientists about what research exists, and my understanding is: The dysphoria/no dysphoria split is not actually validated in the science. That is, when you research trans people, there is not some huge gaping difference between the experiences, or brains, of people With Dysphoria, and people Without Dysphoria. Mostly, scientists haven’t even thought it was an important distinction to study. The diagnosis wasn’t reflecting a strong theme in the research about trans experiences; that research showed that trans people with all levels of dysphoria were helped with medical transition. The biggest difference is just that dysphoria is a stronger risk factor for suicide. Experiencing transphobia is another strong risk factor, but that’s harder to measure in a doctor’s office, so dysphoria it was.

(I’ve seen some transmedicalists claim that dysphoria’s major feature is incongruence, not distress. And I’ll just say, uh… in psychology, “dysphoria” is the opposite of of “euphoria”, literally means “excessive pain”, and is used in many disorders to describe a deep-seated sense of distress and wrongness. As a mental health professional, I just can’t imagine most of my colleagues agreeing that something can be called “dysphoria” if the person doesn’t feel real distress about it. If you want a diagnosis that doesn’t demand dysphoria, you’d need Gender Incongruence in the upcoming version of the ICD-11, which is the primary diagnostic system used in Europe, published by the World Health Organization.)

2. Doctors are not magic

Medicine is a science, and science is a system of knowledge based on having an idea, testing it against reality, and revising that knowledge in light of what you learned. We’re learning and growing all the time.

I don’t know if this sounds painfully obvious or totally groundbreaking, but: Basically all medical research is done by people who don’t have the condition they’re writing about. Psychology has a strong historical bias against believing the personal testimonies of people with conditions that have been deemed mental disorders, so researchers who have experienced the disorder they’re writing about have often had to hide that fact, like Kay Redfield Jamison hiding that she had bipolar disorder until she became a world-renowned expert on it, or Marsha Linehan hiding that she had borderline personality disorder until she pioneered the treatment that could effectively cure it. Often, having a condition was seen as proof you couldn’t actually have a truthful and objective experience of it.

So what I’m trying to say is: The “gender dysphoria” diagnosis was written and debated, so far as I can tell, by entirely cis committee members. The vast majority of psychological and psychiatric research about LGBT+ people is written by cisgender heterosexual scientists. Most clinical and scientific writing has been outsider scientists looking at people they have enormous power over and making decisions about their basic existence with very little accountability.

And to show you how far we’ve come, I want to show you part of the DSM as it was from 1952 to 1973. It shows you just why so many older LGBT+ people find it deeply ironic that now the DSM is being held up as definitive of trans experience:

302 Sexual Deviation This category is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily toward objects other than people of the opposite sex, toward sexual acts not usually associated with coitus, or towards coitus performed under bizarre circumstances as in necrophilia, pedophilia, sexual sadism, and fetishism. Even though many find their practices distasteful, they remain unable to substitute normal sexual behavior for them. This diagnosis is not appropriate for individuals who perform deviant sexual acts because normal sexual objects are not available to them.

302.0 Homosexuality 302.1 Fetishism 302.2 Pedophilia 302.2 Transvestitism […]

Yes, really. That is how psychiatry viewed us. At a time when research from other fields, like psychology and sociology, were showing that this view was completely unsupported by evidence, psychiatry thought LGBT+ people were fundamentally disordered, criminal, and incapable of prosocial behaviour.

My favourite retelling of the decades of activism it took LGBT+ people and allies to get the DSM to change is from a friend who did her master’s thesis on the topic, because she leaves in the clown suits and gay bars, which really shows how scientific and dignified the process was. The long story short is:  It took over 20 years of lobbying by LGBT+ people who were sick and tired of being locked up in mental institutions and subjected to treatments like electroshock training, as well as by LGBT+ social scientists, clinicians, and psychiatrists, to get homosexuality declassified as a mental illness. And that was homosexuality; the push to change how trans people were listed in the DSM is very recent, as seen in the latest version listing “Transvestic Disorder”, a description very few trans people ever use for themselves.

Here are a few more examples of how people with a condition have had to take an active part in the science about them:

When HIV/AIDS appeared in the USA, the government didn’t care why drug addicts and gay people were dying mysteriously. Hospitals refused to treat people with this mysterious new disease. AIDS patients had to fight to get any funding put into what AIDS is, how it spreads, or how it could be treated; they also had to campaign to change the massive public prejudice against them, so they could be treated, housed, and allowed to live. Here’s an article on the activist tactics they used. If you want an intro to the fight (or at least, white peoples’ experience of it), you could look into the movies How to Survive a Plague, And the Band Played On, and The Normal Heart.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) is a little-understood disease that causes debilitating exhaustion. It’s found twice as often in women as men. Doctors understand very little about what it is or why it happens, and patients with CFS are often written off a lazy hypochondriacs who just don’t want to try hard. There are basically no known treatments. In 2011, a British study said that an effective treatment for CFS was “graded exercise”, a program where people did slowly increasing levels of physical activity. This flew in the face of what people with CFS knew to be true: That their disease caused them to get much worse after they exercised. That for them, being forced to do ever-increasing exercise was basically tantamount to torture, so it was very concerning that health authorities and insurance companies began requiring that they undergo graded exercise treatment (and parents with children with CFS had to put their children through this treatment, or lose custody for “medical neglect”). So they investigated the study, found that it was seriously flawed, got many health authorities to reverse their position on graded exercise, and have made strides into pointing researchers to looking into biological causes of their illness.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a rare but debilitating disease that isn’t researched much, because it affects such a small portion of the population. The ALS community realized that if they wanted better treatment, they would need to raise the money for research themselves. In 2014 they organized a viral “ice bucket challenge” to get people to donate to their cause, and raised $115 million, enough to make significant advances in understanding ALS and getting closer to a cure.

A common treatment for Autism is Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA), which is designed to encourage “desired” behaviours and discourage “undesired” ones. The problem is, the treatment targets behaviour an Autistic person’s parents and teachers consider desirable or undesirable, without consideration that some “undesired” behaviours (like stimming) are fundamental and necessary to the wellbeing of Autistic people. Furthermore, the treatment involves punishing Autistic children for failure to behave as expected–in traditional ABA, by witholding rewards or praise until they stop, or in more extreme cases, by subjecting them to literal electric shocks to punish them. (In that last case, they’ve been ordered to stop using the shock devices by August 31, 2020. That only took YEARS.) Autistic people have had to campaign loud and long to say that different treatment strategies should be researched and used, especially on Autistic children.

So I mean… I get that the medical model can provide an element of validation and social acceptance. It can feel really good to have people in white coats back you up and say you’re the real deal. But if you get in touch with most LGBT+ and transgender groups, they’d say that there’s still a lot of work to be done when it comes to researching trans issues and getting scientific and governmental authorities to recognize your rights to social acceptance and medical treatment.

Within a few years, the definition you’re resting on will turn to sand beneath your feet. The Great DSM Machine will begin whirring into life pretty soon and considering what revisions it has to make. You’ll have an opportunity to make your voice heard and to push for real change. So… do you want to be part of that process of pushing trans rights forward, or do you just want to feel loss because they’re changing your strict definition of who’s valid and who’s not?

3. Scarcity is not a law of physics

One of the major arguments I see transmedicalists push is that there’s only a limited number of surgeries or hormone prescriptions available, so it’s not okay for a non-dysphoric person to “steal” the resources that another trans person might need more. This makes sense in a limited kind of way; it’s a good way to operate if, say, you’re sharing a pizza for lunch and deciding whether to give the last slice to someone who’s hungry and hasn’t eaten, or someone who’s already full.

When you start to back up and look at really big and complex systems–basically anything as big, or bigger, than a school board or a hospital or a municipal government–it’s not a helpful lens anymore. Because the most important thing about social institutions is that they can change. We can make them change. And the most important factor in how much the world changes is how many people demand that it change.

I’ve talked about this before when it comes to homeless shelters, and how the absolute worst thing they can have are empty beds. I used to work in women’s shelters, which came about when second-wave feminists started seriously looking at the problem of domestic violence in the 1960s and 70s, It was an issue male-dominated governments and healthcare systems hadn’t taken seriously before, but feminists started heck and did research and staged demonstrations and basically demanded that organizations that worked for the “public benefit” reduce the number of women being killed by their husbands. Their research showed that the leading cause of death in those cases were when women tried to leave and their partners tried to kill them, so the most obvious solution was to give them someplace safe to go where their partners couldn’t find them. Therefore the solution became: Women’s shelters. When feminists committed to founding and running these shelters, local governments could be talked into giving them money to keep them running.

(Men’s rights activists, the misogynist kind, like to whine about “why aren’t there men’s shelters?” and the very simple answer is: Because you didn’t fight for them, you teatowels. Whether a movement gets resources and funding is hugely a reflection of how many people have said, “This needs resources and funding! Look, I’m writing a cheque! Everyone, throw money at this!” In other news, The BC Society for Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse does great work. People should throw money at them.)

When the system in power knows there are resources it wants and doesn’t have, it finds a way to make them appear. For example, in Canada, the government knows that it doesn’t have enough trained professionals living in its far North, where the population is scarce and not very many people want to live. Doctors and teachers would prefer to live in the southern cities. But because it’s committed to Northern schools and hospitals, they create incentives. For example, the government offers to pay off the student loans of teachers or health professionals who agree to work for a few years in Northern communities.

Part of why trans healthcare resources are so scarce is that for a long time, trans people were considered too small a part of the population to care about. Like, “Trans people exist, but we won’t have to deal with them.” Older estimates said 0.4% of the population was trans, which meant a city of 100,000 people would have 400 trans people. A single family doctor can have 2000 or 3000 clients, so the city could have maybe 1 or 2 doctors who really “got” trans issues, and all the trans people would tell each other to only go see those doctors because all the rest were assholes. And the cracks in the system didn’t really seem serious. A couple hundred dissatisfied people not getting the healthcare they needed? Meh! Hospital administrators had more to worry about!

But the trans population is growing. A recent poll of Generation Z said 2.6% of middle schoolers in Minnesota were some kind of trans. which is 2,600 per 100,000. That’s enough to make hospitals think that maybe the next endocrinologist or OB/GYN they hire should have some training in treating trans people. That’s enough to make a health authority think that maybe the state should open up a new gender confirmation surgery clinic, since demand is rising so much.

Or well, I mean. Hospitals have a lot on their minds. This might not occur to them as their top priority. They’d probably think of it a lot sooner if a bunch of those trans people sent them letters or took out a billboard or showed up by the dozens at a public meeting to say, “Hello, there are a fuckload of us. Budget accordingly. We want to see your projected numbers for the next five years.”

When you’re doing that kind of work, suddenly it hurts your cause to limit your number of concerned parties. Sure, limited focus groups or steering committees can have limited membership, but when you put their ideas into action, to protest something or lobby for political change, you need numbers. If you want to show that you’re a big and important group that systems should definitely pay attention to, you don’t just need every trans or GNC or NB person who’s got free time to devote to your campaign, you also need every cis ally who can pad out numbers or lick envelopes or hand out water bottles or slip you insider information about the agenda at the next board meeting. You need bodies, time, and money, and you get them best by being inclusive about who’s in your party. Heck, if it would benefit your cause to team up with the local breast cancer group because trans women and cis women who have had mastectomies both have an interest in asking a hospital to have a doctor on staff who knows how to put a set of tits together, then there are strong reasons to do it.

Basically: All the time any marginalized group spends fighting over scraps is generally time we could spend demanding that the people handing out the food give us another plate. If you don’t think you’re getting enough, the best answer isn’t to knock it out of somebody’s hands, but to get together to say, “HEY! WE’RE NOT GETTING ENOUGH!”

That kind of work is complicated and difficult! It’s definitely much harder than yelling at someone on Tumblr for not being trans enough. But if you do any level of getting involved with activist groups that fight for real systemic change, whether that’s following your local Pride Centre on Twitter or throwing $5 at a trans advocacy group or writing your elected representative about the need for more trans health resources, you’re pushing forward lasting change that will help everyone.

[kelvintimeline]

I really enjoy your blog! I didn't know you were considered "aphobic" until that last post. Personally I identify as an aspec bisexual (I do not buy into split attraction bs), but I read through some of your discourse posts and I do agree with a lot of your points. I think that there are plenty of aspec people (especially on Tumblr) who have created an insanely toxic identity. I guess for me, being aspec kind of intersects with my experiences as neurodivergent person (definitely not all nd people are apsec tho) and my experiences with romantic and sexual attraction feel outside of the norm enough for me to embrace that label. I use aspec though because microlabels seem to get weird and restrictive really fast. I'm fine with aspec people using the queer label (as long as they aren't claiming to be oppressed the way LGBT identities are) but I am critical of people identifying as "grey-ace/aro" and etc and making that their whole identity when maybe they are mostly just experiencing something normal. Like I guess I feel like we can push for people to be critical/dismantle toxic aspec culture while not gatekeeping the queer community aside from maps/solely abusive identities. I do respect your feelings on this though and thanks for pointing out these problems!

I mean, I object to being called aphobic at all because I have zero prejudice against not wanting sex or not feeling sexual attraction. I just have issues with rhetorical points, including things you are saying here.

What the fuck does “aspec” mean? How much sexual attraction do you think non-”aspec” people feel? How much sexual attraction can you feel to not be aspec? How is NOT experiencing sexual attraction a spectrum? Am I on the spectrum of not owning cats because I only own three? No. Not experiencing something is the opposite of a spectrum. It is the extreme end point of a spectrum.

What is outside the norm? What is normal sexual attraction? What do you think is normal for people and where are you getting this understanding from? Is it the media? Be honest here.

And be honest... how is “aspec” not a microlabel?

And how are you okay with cisgender steaight people using the term queer? Queer is a slur referring to being LGBT. The LGBT community exists to describe our shared oppression. You are against cishet aces claiming to be oppressed like us... yet you believe they can reclaim violent language that ONLY exists because of our oppression and is used to subjugate us?

You believe a cisgender straight person... who might experience SOME sexual attraction just “less than normal” (and might still want sex!) can reclaim violent anti-trans, anti-gay language? “Only if they know they aren’t oppressed liek us.” HUH?

Please explain to me, with a straight face, how it is gatekeeping to exclude cisgender straight people? Is it gatekeeping to exclude cisgender people from trans spaces? Is it gatekeeping to exclude straight people from gay/bi spaces? No.

Then how is it gatekeeping to exclude Cisgender Straight people from LGBT spaces?

Cisgender, straight peopel demanding access to the spaces they oppress IS toxic culture. It’s the fucking epitome of toxicity.

So you can come in here talking about respecting me but none of what you said is respectful.

“I respect you but also cishets should be allowed into LGBT spaces if they don’t experience sexual attraction.” The fuck? Apply that to ANY OTHER oppressed community.

How respectful does that sound to you in any other context?

Get out of here. Rethink the shit you’re saying or get the fuck off my blog.

[astro-b-o-y-d]

Gyro Gearloose, Poe De Spell, and the Tumblr Sexyman Label

So before I start this, I want to state that none of this is meant to be a mean jab at anyone interested in these characters, or even the Tumblr Sexyman label in general. This is all just affectionate observation I’ve noticed over the past day, along with some thoughts I’ve had regarding Gyro for a while. Also semi-tired ramblings, as I have only been up for an hour or so.

I say this as someone who only recently started to like Gyro: I am SO SHOCKED he didn’t end up being the designated ‘Tumblr Sexyman’ of Ducktales before Poe came along.

I am aware he does have a lot of fans (even if I wasn’t one for the longest time, I knew they existed and I understand why), but like........as far as I can tell, he doesn’t have much reach outside the fandom itself. Which to me, is an important part of the Tumblr Sexyman label. Being so popular, they’re known outside their fandom and across various sections of Tumblr.

My guess is that it was because while he did have his morally questionable moments in the show, he never really leaned too far into being an ‘evil’ scientist. Being unapologetically evil tends to be a characteristic for a lot of the more popular Sexymen (Onceler in his ‘greed’ form, Bill Cipher, that dickhead from that bad hotel cartoon that I don’t like but will at least acknowledge). It’s not one all of them have, but it tends to be something that causes fans to gravitate to them. Heck, we could also list Sans in that category with his glowing blue eye, even if he wasn’t so much evil as he was POWERFUL. Which, you know, evil and power often go hand in hand.

But DT17 Gyro was not evil. He was an ass and very toxic at times, but those traits do not an evil person make, depending on what path they take with their lives. And as Astro Boyd revealed, Gyro is DEFINTIELY not evil. Just a guy who was manipulated and gaslit at a young age by his mentor and didn’t have a healthy way of confronting his toxic behavior towards others up until very recently.

Heck, one of his more memorable quotes from that episode was “Not all my inventions are evil. Some are just wildly misunderstood!” Right before a big turn in his character arc where he makes the choice to stop following his toxic mentor’s footsteps and actually work on treating people with respect, specifically Boyd in that episode and Fenton in Beaks In The Shell (an arc I personally loved, because GOD, he was horrid up until there. No shame to you, Gyro fans, I just couldn’t stand him).

Which makes for a very, very, VERY good character, but probably not a well-received Sexyman outside the fandom.

Meanwhile Poe shows up in an episode preview, 100% evil and loving it, and everyone goes nuts in the span of a day. His appearance probably helped a ton (skinny and gender ambiguous tends to go over well with those drawn to a specific branch of Sexymen), but I also do think him just being completely evil and relishing in it (at least from what we’ve seen in the trailer) helped a lot with that, too.

But this is all focusing on their personalities in canon, and not appearances alone. Which is probably what would draw a crowd to the character, or at least get people interested in Sexymen talking, as it is clearly doing with Poe.  And even when I hated Gyro with every fiber of my being, I couldn’t deny he had one of my favorite character designs in all of DT17.

So why didn’t he, as far as I’m aware, break out of the fandom circles?

Let’s bring up a version of Gyro from an old comic (Paperinik and the Friendly Threat, translated here). Meet Mad Ducktor. Gyro’s evil personality who ended up becoming his own person.

I’m FULLY convinced that if (or I suppose when, they do have a handful of episodes left and anything’s possible) Ducktales brought him into the show, or perhaps made Gyro’s character arc lead to turning into this dude, Gyro would’ve definitely been slapped with the Sexyman label that canon Gyro seemed to dodge while Poe did not.

Also yeah yeah, save me the whole ‘You’re calling THAT design a Tumblr Sexyman?’ speech, you’ve seen Poe’s current design when this is what he originally looked like.

Compared to

I think they could’ve easily given Mad Ducktor this treatment as well, had he made an appearance. And people would’ve gone absolutely wild for him.

Now would that have been a bad thing? Absolutely not. Poe looks like a fun bastard and I can’t wait to see more of him. And I would’ve been very invested in seeing them do the same with Gyro. Maybe they will before the series ends. Gyro canonly has had clones in the show, maybe one of them turned evil off screen and will make an appearance before the end. We’ll just have to see!

Apologies if a lot of this is wrong. Again, I’ve only been up an hour and I never really had much of an eye on the DT fandom (I only started watching the show back when season two had ended because Boyd existed so for all I know, Gyro HAD been a Tumblr Sexyman and I just didn’t pay attention) But I just felt like rambling about some things I HAVE noticed regarding Gyro, Poe’s DT17 debut, and some thoughts regarding the Tumblr Sexyman treatment for both.

[writingwithmeraki]

Why Diversity and Good Rep Matters

General disclaimer: these are my opinions, my personal thoughts and reasons. I'm going to strictly talk about race in this post, but I think most of these points also work for having good rep on mental illnesses, disabilities, sexuality, and others.

I've seen a couple of these posts around instagram and tumblr, and here are my two cents on why good diversity is extremely important, especially in a topic like literature.

First off--the ability for readers to be able to connect with a certain character at a deeper level.

I'm not going to go too deep into this because there have been other fantastic posts (both here and on instagram) that explains this perfectly, but really, it's about inclusivity. Seeing a character that reflects you, or some big aspect of you, can be empowering and welcoming. You're able to relate to that character because there are similarities that go beyond just "oh x is also super organized." It's more like, "oh I understand why x does [specific action] because it's a highly respected custom in my culture" (specifically talking about race here). It's also just really cool seeing a character that does the same things as you.

For example, I recently read Pachinko by Min Jin Lee, which is a book telling the generational stories of a Korean family from the beginning of Japanese colonization and afterwards (highly recommend). And I kid you not, I got so, so excited when they mentioned a specific Korean dish within the first chapter.

Now, as a person of Korean descent, I rarely ate toast or cereal for breakfast, let alone call that a meal. I don't know what meatloaf is or what casseroles even look like. And nearly in every YA book that I read in elementary/middle school, they would be the casual mention of eating certain foods or snacks, and I could just never relate to it. Little things like that casually remind you that you're different, when in reality, you're not.

Ok, this blends into my next point about good, accurate representation: books shape your perception.

I really, really, really want to emphasize that when people ask for representation, it's not half-researched, token diversity. I don't want your Asian character to be smart, passive, docile, and a bad driver. Now, those aren't necessarily bad traits, I'm not saying your character can't have them. But they should not be the only traits they inhibit. Don't give your POC characters harmful stigmas and stereotypes as their personality and call it a day. Especially now, where diversity is extremely lacking in literature.

Good, accurate, representation is important because it shapes the readers perception of the group your character belongs in. Especially for people who do not share the same culture. Most readers aren't going to go research the history, culture, customs and practices of your x non-white character after finishing your book. In most cases, readers will casually adopt and generalize the traits you give that character.

Have you ever watched an actor first play an extremely villainous, rude, abusive character and then find it really jarring when you see them in another movie where they play an extremely nice, empathetic, smiling character? Even more so if the first role you've ever seen the actor play was the mean one. You can't see them playing a different character anymore. Like imagine anyone else playing Loki besides Tom Hiddleston.

Consequently, a lot of rookie actors get hate for playing a hateful character. You might be asking, why? It's not like the actor is actually like that character in real life. And you're absolutely right. But sometimes we forget that, and some completely disregard that.

Books work the same way. You didn't mean to extend your first impression of the character to the person who played it, your brain just associated the two together. And just like how you associate a character's personality with that of the actor, readers will internalize the personality of the character and their race.

Another example: my brother was reading a book and the literal words the author used when describing an Asian character was that "X Character had anime quality."

The character was Chinese.

Anime is Japanese, for those who don't know. And there's a bunch of other things I could nitpick within this single sentence (what on earth does 'anime quality' even mean??????), but my point is, it's almost dehumanizing to be described that way. Like you've never read a book describing a white character as cowboy or KFC quality.

Anyway, some, especially younger audiences, who aren't Asian won't even question it. Even those who are Asian might not even question it; my bother didn't even mention it until I read over his shoulder. I would never have seen those words. This is extremely problematic when books designed for 10-13 year olds describe their POC characters in a similar fashion.

And the problem is that it's repeatedly done in books. Look at Cho Chang (my gosh, the way I could go into a whole another spiel about this--) and Baljeet Tjinde from Phineas and Ferb. Subtly, they share similar characteristics; almost all the Asian characters I've read about in books have. Same idea extends towards other races. It's either always degrading representation or none at all.

These impressions build upon each other. It's dangerous. Literature is an extension of society, and more so a reflection of it. See these types of characterizations, and people will begin to internalize them. For younger kids, they'll grow up believing them. They'll impose these stereotypes onto other kids. Adults will too, and so will teachers*.

What's more, describing non-white characters in the fashion as said above, perpetuates the constant image of a foreigner. Of course, foreigners are not bad, by no means. But it just points a finger at the POC and labels them as the 'different' one. No specific characteristic or personality should be limited to a certain person or a certain race.

All in all, it's important to be inclusive because ideas played out in literature and children's books extend to society and our mindsets, as well as how we perceive other people. And, it's nice to be included beyond stereotypes. Non-white characters are people too! :)

This was more of a rant but I hope you've been able to see why diversity is really important. Books and authors have gotten better with inclusivity (which is great and so so awesome to see) but we can definitely be better! This is only the surface, and need for diverse characters go deeper than this but you're more than welcome to do outside research. Everything I've said here is what I've noticed and my personal opinions.

Thanks for reading and happy writing!

*Not everyone will fall under this category, nor am I trying to generalize everyone. Simply saying that these stereotypes can filter into the education system and affect students, especially if the teacher also has those internalized ideas. Also wrote it to say that casual racism can be a root of bigger racism.

[emerald-studies]

Diverse Perspectives | Discussion 3

I sent some questions to @jasperwhitcock​ for her perspective as a POC woman and daughter of an immigrant.

[ It is required to participate and watch/read these discussions, in order to follow me. Participate or get tf out. We aren’t performative in my lil’ area on Tumblr.

This discussion isn’t representative of an entire population or meant to be super professional. It’s to share different perspectives and also is an opportunity for me to practice what I preach: intersectionality. If you’d like to participate in this series please send me a pm or an ask and I’ll get back to you ASAP. We can do a written, audio, or video interview.]

As a mixed person, do you feel isolated from your community?

J: If you mean community as in the community I currently live in, I’m fortunate enough to live in a very diverse place. Surrounding the city of Houston, there’s a lot of prejudice integrated into a lot of the suburban neighborhoods, but in terms of the city itself, I think the POC communities really uplift and support each other. I’m a concert photographer when there’s not a pandemic, and I’ve always appreciated the way latinos and black artists are respected in the indie community. Houston’s a very rap/hip hop/R&B city, so black artists are especially celebrated. There’s also great latinx bands that I know, latinx venue owners/employees, and latinx brands connected to the indie community. We’re very well represented in this area.

If you mean community as in the latinx community, I wouldn’t say isolated, but depending on the day, I might say that I can feel distanced at times. This isn’t particularly due to the latinx community itself, so much as it may be a distance that I create in my head. As a mixed person, I think there are times where you can feel confused on where you belong. I’ve brought up the quote before from the Selena movie, where Selena’s father Abraham is speaking on the potential difficulty of Selena being accepted in Mexico because of the fact she is Mexican American: “We have to be more Mexican than the Mexicans and more American than the Americans, both at the same time! It's exhausting!” It can be difficult at times to navigate your sense of belonging when you are in between two cultures because you want to recognize that you may have privileges someone of full Mexican descent may not have, but at the same time, your life is still very much defined by being Mexican and having Mexican blood while living in America too. You’re definitely not absolved from having latin experiences. Latina stand up comedian Anjelah Johnson made a joke in her stand up about there being a Latinx hierarchy. She said that Spanish speaking latinos are better than the rest of us who are not fluent in Spanish (such as herself), and it was funny because sometimes you do feel that that can be true. My tías will always ask me why I’m not fluent in Spanish, and my mom will be like “yeah, why don’t you?” and I’m always like… because y’all didn’t teach me! My parents speak Spanish to each other at home. My father is not only fluent in Spanish, but his Spanish is oftentimes superior to a lot of Spanish speakers according to my mom and my tíos. He used to teach English in Mexico, so there is no reason that my sister and I shouldn’t have been perfectly bilingual. The reason they didn’t teach us as children is because they didn’t want us to be speaking Spanglish. (Spoiler: it happened anyways). Around white people, I definitely feel that I am not a white person. I feel very much latina in a group of white people. But then around latin people, I sometimes feel white enough to feel a sense of shyness. I definitely feel more at home with latinx people, but overall in both groups, I definitely feel that I am mixed.

It doesn’t happen often, because I think although the majority of latinx people have pride in their background, the hyperawareness of our identities right now is relatively new, but there have been instances of latinx gatekeeping the latin identity. Growing up, I didn’t think about what I was labelled as or think about how my family structure is different to other families. I didn’t consider how in some areas, it is an abnormality to have an immigrant parent or a parent with an accent. I definitely noticed that my family was different, but I didn’t understand why until much later. My mom, her sisters and brothers, and my primos… They don’t live their lives with the awareness of being defined as Mexican immigrants. Of course, they again have pride in where they came from. They live as Mexicans and engage in Mexican culture, but overall, the way the youth today has really grasped onto the labelling of our identity is kind of a new thing. There are some young latinx people who do try to quantify and measure whether or not your experience is valid. I know it comes from a place of protectiveness of their own experience, but it’s ridiculous to gate keep because something that really characterizes latin culture is our warmth, our sense of family, our willingness to embrace other people as part of that. If you’re of latin american descent, you have a place in the latinx community.

Since your parents don’t have college degrees, do you believe college is important and/or necessary?

J: I think it depends! I think a lot of immigrant parents really push for their children to get a college education because they see that as opportunity, particularly when they did not earn college degrees themselves. I think college can be important depending on what you want to accomplish, but I also think it’s not completely necessary. For my career path as a photographer/videographer, I chose not to do college. I do think I would have enjoyed college because I like learning, but because it was something unnecessary for my job, I couldn’t justify the time invested or putting my parents into a difficult financial situation. Especially because my college education would have overlapped with my sister, and I saw how difficult it was to juggle handling my sister’s student loans. For my sister’s career path (she is studying to be a nutritionist/therapist to help teenagers with eating disorders), college was necessary.

Your Mom has been stuck in the US, unable to return to Mexico for awhile, has your Mom’s experience with immigration changed your views in some way?

J: As context, my father lived in Mexico for a decade and married my mom in Mexicali. They hadn’t planned to move to the United States, but when they came to the US to marry here so that she could have citizenship and be able to visit his family, there were complications that made it to where she couldn’t leave the country. Luckily, the time she was unexpectedly stuck in the United States didn’t last super long! Long enough to become comfortable enough to decide to settle down in California, but we have been able to travel to Mexico often. I think it really highlights how unnecessarily complicated a lot of the processes regarding immigration are. The people in the country who are very malicious about undocumented immigrants love to jump to saying, “well, why can’t they just become an American citizen?” when the reality is that every process in place has a lot of complications. Not everyone has access to the resources to be able to make these transitions happen smoothly. Also, the time it takes to acquire your visa is not an overnight thing. People severely underestimate the difficulty involved.

What do you think about the “hard-working immigrant” stereotype?

J: I hate the idea that immigrants work hard because they’re low-skilled, but I do love that there is a lot of pride in how motivated immigrants are. It’s always been a ridiculous claim that immigrants are taking American jobs. Immigrants work the jobs that the majority of Americans have no interest in doing, especially the people that make this complaint. For a country that prides itself on working to make your dreams come true, Americans neglect to recognize that immigrants have a drive that most Americans don’t have.

Which parent do you feel more connected to? Your Mother who’s an immigrant or your Father who was born in America?

J: I really do feel that I am a coalescence of both my parents, so I think I feel equally connected to each of them. I feel a very strong emotional connection and concern for my dad because his mental health suffers a lot. His mother had bipolar depression at a time where mental health was even more stigmatized, and she endured a lot of ridiculous, merciless treatments that are no longer utilized today. When he was nine years old, his mom committed suicide, and this was an event that really defined his life forever. I think that kind of heaviness passes down through your family. When my dad is not doing well, I feel really imbalanced and emotionally impacted even if I’m not home to witness it. It’s kind of like that idea of an invisible string tethering you to someone, and it’s a weight that I carry always. However, overall, he’s a very positive person. When he is going through his kind of manic highs, he’s a lot more of what I recognize of who my dad is. He’s creative, a musician, and deeply caring for other people. His mother’s death has empowered him to really try to make a difference and “paint a picture of a better tomorrow.” I’m a lot like my dad in personality, but in disposition, I’m so much like my mom. She’s tough and outspoken at home, but in public, it takes awhile for her to open up. My mom’s very selfless, kind, and very much shy and quiet. She definitely exemplifies a lot of the sacrifice that you see many immigrants make. I do like both sides of my family, but I definitely feel more at home with the Mexican side. My dad’s side is loud, vivacious, and very much funny, but I feel extremely shy around them. My sister and I have always felt a tiny bit left out. I think they’d be hurt to know we feel this way, but I definitely don’t think they do anything to intentionally enforce this division. But I think it developed because there is a bit of a cultural disconnect between my aunts and my mom. It’s also very interesting to me that when they first met my mom, my mom didn’t speak any English. It’s fascinating to consider how it might change your perception of someone to go from not being able to communicate with them to watching them learn your language. My mom enjoys the time that we do spend with my dad’s family, but she’s kind of the odd one out in that her humor isn’t the same and her experiences are so different. I think that my dad’s sister and brother’s families were able to connect in a stronger way, so sometimes my mom, my sister, and I feel just a little isolated. In those moments, I feel the most aware of my Mexican background. With my mom’s side of the family, it’s a lot more comfortable. My dad’s able to develop his humor in a way that translates well into Spanish, so he fits in very easily.

You’ve lived in a “Blue/more liberal” state and a “Red/more conservative” state, which state has affected you more?

J: Definitely the red state. Seeing how intensely and ridiculously conservative some southern people are has really radicalized me in a way. I feel overwhelmingly liberal because there’s a defensiveness that develops when you’re in a space like this where you have this intense disbelief that people hold the ideas that they do. Especially because in Texas, black and latinx culture is a major contributor to southern culture. There’s a lot to be said about how black culture shapes the south, but because I’m latina, I’m focusing on latinx culture with this question. White conservatives want our food, they want our work, but they don’t want us. I don’t understand how anyone can be all #TacoTuesday one day, and then the next, be anti-immigrant. If you really want Mexicans out of your country, then maybe you should start living your life without any Mexican influence. Stop eating Mexican food. Clean your own pool and mow your own lawn. It’s ignorant to speak down on immigrants when their life would be so altered to be rid of immigrants. They rely on immigrants. Their lives are shaped by immigrants and built by immigrants.

(I had to chime in here: )

 Are you proud of your parents?

J: Absolutely. As a young teenager, I had a lot of problems with my parents. I think I still have issues I’m working through as a result, but now that I’m older, I really do feel a deep sense of admiration and respect for them. Growing up really makes you view your parents differently and understand them as people rather than just as parents. I held onto a lot of anger and resentment, but I’ve come to truly see how they really did do their best. They’ve worked very hard, and I think not having everything that kids around me did really helped me grow into a more grateful person.

Have you faced discrimination for your race?

J: Of course, but in all honesty, it really rolls off my back. I think hate that is personally directed at me doesn’t bother me, but the discrimination that does affect me is anything directed or related to my mom. I remember my parents had a customer who made a really ugly complaint to my father about my mom’s english. My mom essentially handles most of the written communication with their business, and she still speaks and types in broken english often. The majority of my parents’ clients are latinx, so it’s typically not an issue, but it’s unbelievably offensive and ridiculous the assumptions people will make about your intelligence based on your english. The customer had no idea that the woman she’d been communicating with was my father’s wife rather than just an employee. It’s really sad how someone can see someone as unworthy of respect until they’re tied to a white man, and then they’re suddenly apologetic. This is another extremely mild example, but I’ll get a few laughs when I mispronounce something or don’t know how to say certain words. People always find it funny as though it’s embarrassing –– and it definitely can be –– but people forget I learned english from a woman who speaks two languages.

As the child of an immigrant, how has the anti immigrant talking point affected your mental health?

J: I think the toll the anti-immigrant bias in the United States has on immigrant children is a relevant conversation to have, but I think I’m very lucky in that I feel very tough in the face of that ignorance (which is not to say anyone whose mental health suffers as a result is not tough!) If anything, I feel pity for the people who are so hateful that they see other human beings in such a derogatory and entitled way. Similar to what I said before, my outrage really comes from a place of defensiveness for others. The talking point doesn’t hurt me, but it hurts me that people can speak about my family and my community the way they do. It hurts me that there are other immigrant children who have to work as hard as their parents to make their sacrifices worth it, and people are so insensitive as to not respect that. I’m pretty strong, but it does break my heart when my people are disrespected. If someone were to say something to me, that’s fine, but if i saw someone mistreating a little mexican lady in the store… I may be 5’3 but that don’t mean I won’t come for your ass. Okay, in all honesty, I’m really not a violent person. I’m more of a rise above kind of person because the hate someone has in their heart is not worth our time, but some people do need a chancla thrown at them to learn some respect.

In your opinion, in what ways does the Latinx community need more support?

J: I think because the latinx community is so much so composed of hard workers, people really need to support latin businesses more. That’s a direct way to impact latin lives. There’s an abundance of latin small business owners in every category. So many white kids love going to Cozumel for Spring Break and love wearing sombreros on Cinco De Mayo, but then the rest of the year, they have no care or respect for the authentic culture. For every dollar a white man makes, hispanic women still make statistically less than white women, asian women, black women, and native women. We gotta back up these businesses. Choose local taco shops or restaurants over chains. Choose online shops and Mexican boutiques over fast fashion. And this applies to everybody. We can always support black business or asian businesses over large competitors. It really does make an impact. I also think a lot of latinx children need access to better mental health resources. I’m lucky in that because my father struggles with mental health issues, mental health in my family wasn’t exactly a taboo, but in a lot of latin families, mental health is something that is hard for older parents to validate. Latin children need those resources. A simple google search of “latin mental health resources,” bring up a bunch of organizations that you can support. I think every POC community needs to be boosted right now because although we’ve been under attack, conversations about minority communities are being had by white people right now. We have their attention, and we do need their support to enact change because they have the power as the oppressor. We need to be going to bat protecting black people right now because of the insane damage the community has been enduring at the hands of police, and we need to be protecting immigrant children from what’s happening to them at the border. I know the election is extremely controversial right now, but I would urge anyone who has the ability to vote to really consider the importance of doing so. People love to be cynical about how our votes don’t matter, and I understand that cynicism, but a lot of immigrants don’t have the luxury of voting when the results of the election will directly impact their lives. I hate that there is no option of a president that will perfectly support POC communities, but there are options whose party is far more aligned with supporting and protecting POC communities than Trump is. Trump spews hate and fuels racism and prejudice. He calls Mexicans rapists and black protestors thugs. He encourages the blaming of the coronavirus on the asians in our country. He does not need any help winning the election. We need to get this hateful man out, and I strongly encourage anyone who can vote to do so.

--

Let’s have a discussion! Did you learn anything new from this conversation?

Let me know here.

-

To close out each post, I’d like to write a lil’ paragraph about the person I talk with:

I’m so lucky to have you as a friend darling. You always bring a smile to my face when we chat. You’re funny and so smart. I admire you deeply for being able to share your perspective in a clear way. Thank you for putting up with my 2 am messages lol 🖤🖤🖤🖤Your continued support makes me feel safe and very, very, loved. I hope I encourage the same feeling with you. 

You’re the best babe,

-Faithxx