#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).

[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.

[selfidentifiednerdyprude]

so I usually don't respond to comments like this but this is one of my most controversial posts and I think it's worth clarifying what I mean here a little bit, so like, bear with me

a smattering of non-averse aros and aces who have commented on this seem to think that I'm trying to push them out of the conversation so that averse and repulsed people can take up more of the spotlight. this could not be further from the truth.

for starters, even if I wanted to, I, a certified Just Some Guy On The Internet, could not do that. people who want sex or romance outnumber those who don't, even in ace and aro communities. you all definitely outnumber me, because I am, again, just a guy with a blog.

secondly, I legitimately DO NOT CARE about aspec microlabels or whether someone is favorable or indifferent. I do not care about the tumblr nitpicking about who's more valid or what the difference between gray and demi is or whatever today's slapfight is. my work concerns itself with amatonormativity and compulsory sexuality on the systemic scale.

this is not about representation, labels, or feeling valid. this is about consent. it's about creating a non-coercive space where everyone's decisions for how to engage or not engage with intimacy are unconditionally respected. it's about working towards a world where no one needs to participate in sex or romance they don't want in order to survive because people take care of one another even if they're not attracted to each other.

to repeat what I said in my original post: even the most sex or romance favorable people will benefit from a world in which community and social safety nets are not constructed along frameworks of attraction and desire, and not made inaccessible by one's unwillingness or inability to market themselves within those frameworks.

what I want, and have always wanted, is to promote an understanding of consent that foregrounds the experiences of those of us who do refuse sex and romance indefinitely, regardless of their reason for doing so, because without unconditional respect for an indefinite "no," "yes" becomes less meaningful. and on that, I think we can all agree.

in the grand scheme of things, "some aces can have sex!" and "some aros can be in romantic relationships!", while objectively true statements (aces and aros can do those things, we are expected to, and some of us even want to), kind of miss the point of what ace and aro advocacy should aim to accomplish. ace and aro advocacy is consent advocacy. specifically, it is advocacy for the right to say no, keep saying no indefinitely, and have one's "no" respected indefinitely. "but some of us want to say yes sometimes" may be factually true, but that's not what we're talking about right now, and in fact, securing the right to an indefinite no will only serve to make the act of saying yes more meaningful and revolutionary when it happens.

the fact of the matter is that even the most sex or romance favorable people, whether ace/aro or not, will only benefit from a world in which they are not being pressured and coerced into sexual and romantic situations that they do not want. even the most sex or romance favorable people will benefit from a world in which community and social safety nets are not constructed along frameworks of attraction and desire, and not made inaccessible by one's unwillingness or inability to market themselves within those frameworks.

[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.

[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?

[love-n-pirates]

The Harm of Accusing DNF of Queerbaiting + Ignoring The Issue

I like to keep the stuff on this blog lighthearted and jokey and I like to just reblog art but I did wanna make another post about the kaceytron issue but specifically the accusations of queerbaiting. This is gonna be a long post so sorry about that but this stream made me really mad and I’ve put a lot of time into gathering my thoughts and reviewing the VOD again to ensure my citations and interpretations are accurate.

TW for mentions of homophobia and ableism and please remember no matter how mad this might make you as well. Don’t send any hate. Best thing to do is unfollow, block and move on, she’s already had enough of a stage to perform on.

I’ve sectioned the post into summary and thoughts with pictures in case you only want to briefly look but I tried to be cohesive enough without going on too long so hopefully you’ll give the whole thing a read. Particularly a part I wrote at the end about her using Dream as a scapegoat (titled such) I just think it’s important to keep in mind. I watched this shit a second time so you don’t have to! It wrecked my head but I’m unhappy with how they spoke about queerbaiting, which is a serious issue in media, and wanted to talk openly about it here.

At first I did feel bad for her and thought that some of it was blown out of proportion, things that she could learn and grow from but ultimately she showed no remorse and after how she handled speaking with Dream and the immature nature of the whole ordeal I can’t feel entirely awful for her anymore.

This is the tweet that started it all. Kacey is in a very similar circle to Dream and George so it makes sense that Dream stans would find it. Ignoring the sort of humour behind the fact that so many assumed it was about them, it is a shitty tweet and seems kind of irrelevant. Ironically enough, she was getting called out moments later as stans brought up prior racist, ableist and homophobic issues with Kacey. Cancelled for a little more than breathing it seems. 

One thing I wish had been asked from the get go was “Who is this tweet supposed to be about?” Kacey said it wasn’t even about them and that people were assuming incorrectly. She could’ve saved herself from the wrath of all the mc stans that came her way if she just said who it was really about. But she didn’t, which indicates to me that it definitely was about them. Not a great statement to make as a cishet woman, unprompted, especially when your influence often intertwines with theirs and when you share mutuals.

I did speak about queerbaiting before in reference to George just a couple posts down but it's blown up massively recently and I wanted to get detailed in a more general sense while using this event as a sort of case study.

For clarification I am a queer woman so I've had my fair run ins with queerbaity content etc. This is gonna be a detailed rundown of what was said with my own thoughts on it and some time stamps are included if you feel the need to see for yourself.

TL;DR

Dream and George are not the malicious straight boys they’re being made out to be. Saying they’re Queerbaiting is a disregard for their own emotional autonomy and they have been open with the fact they do not date nor do they use it for views. This argument is being used to shift focus from the important conversation which is Kaceytron’s use of slurs and arose from a stream that was made about Dream and forced him to be involved. She’s doing it for attention and should be ignored.

WHAT IS QUEERBAITING?

First of all, queer baiting is defined as "a marketing technique for fiction and entertainment in which creators hint at, but then do not actually depict, same-sex romance or other LGBTQ representation."

Technically twitch streams do fall under entertainment although I would argue that there is a certain nuance to this. We know that streamers often put on a certain persona when streaming (Tommy and Quackity are very loud in their own streams because that's their brand, then on their alts they are very laidback) but I would say that Dream and George are two streamers that are often just themselves while streaming. Particularly when they are together, it makes sense that a stream has a change in vibe when the cc is talking with a friend rather than focusing on talking to chat. Since these two usually only stream when they're with friends, we tend to see a more authentic side. We very much feel that they are real people showing their casual side. Their streams do not feel performative, this is part of their appeal.

Don’t forget that Kacey, a cishet woman, puts her streams under the LGBTQIA+ tag on Twitch. A tag only usually used if the streamer is LGBT.

SUMMARY OF EVENTS IN THE STREAM

Now, the stream. During the stream Kacey had her sister and two friends(both gay men, important for a later point) to back her up. Dream joined at about 3hr and 55 mins and already there was a distinct power imbalance in Kacey’s favour within the call. They titled it a debate yet it felt more like relentless high school bullying. They spoke for about an hour and the entire time, Kacey’s chat was spamming for her to ask about queerbaiting. Finally, one of her friends, Shaun, brought it up at about the 4hr and 43min mark.  

Now, the reason I have a few issues with this is that it seems to me that he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about. You can see on his stream(in the background of Kacey’s) at one point that he has a massive text post from tumblr up that is accusing Dream of queerbaiting, saying that he gets to benefit from maintaining a queer audience but without the issues that come with being a gay man as he prefers to keep it ambiguous. That text post is super problematic, a creator is not there for your wish fulfillment or to be your idol. Also, there is a lot of assumption coming with saying he isn’t ostracized just because he doesn’t label himself. Instantly it’s clear that this post is the basis for the accusations that Shaun is making. I’m using accusation lightly here because over all I think the Shaun guy was very civil, (at least to Dream’s face) but the rest of the group were quite on the attack, particularly Kacey’s sister, Holly. (I’ll come back to her)

Shaun says that he feels that Dream and George, possibly unintentionally, are guilty of queerbaiting. Dream handled it well and said he would like to open that dialogue and asked Shaun to expand on what he means by queerbaiting and if he has any specific events that would be prevalent. Shaun says he has examples that he can pull up, which he never does, and continues to be very vague and general about it in saying that there’s been a “culture” going on for years that he’s noticed.

At this point, the other guy (I didn’t catch his name, sorry) jumps in and says there's a “clear flirtiness in attitude and undertones” which Dream agrees to. He points out that this is how he interacts with most friends, male and female, on the Dream SMP. He also points out that he acts like that with his friends both on and off camera and it’s not like he’s only approaching gay men and flirting with them. It’s clear that this line of joking is a constant in his friendships, where comfortable, and is never malicious. He even asks what their thoughts would be if he only did it with gay men and how that would differ, they don’t answer this question and the conversation moves on.

At the 4hr 46min mark is where Holly jumps in and tells of VERY personal experiences from Shaun’s past of him being tormented by straight guys in school, being called slurs and jokingly flirted with. She even tells a story about how a homophobe hit him with their car. This was very uncomfortable as it was not her experience to share and Shaun was IN THE CALL. She said that Dream’s flirtations with George could be a trigger to people like Shaun because of that experience. This shows again a lack of awareness for other people, she’s using Shaun's personal story for her own gain and not even letting him be the voice that tells it. This sat poorly with me as Kacey was already being accused of speaking over LGBT voices rather than lifting them up with her, then her sister goes and does it live. Maybe Shaun was ok with this, maybe not, it just didn’t sit well with me. At 5hr and 05mins, after Dream is gone, they mention this again and Shaun asks them to point out when he said he was triggered after he talked about his experience. He was clearly uncomfortable with the use of the word and it seems to have been put in his mouth.

Shaun then says that he doesn’t like it because here are Dream and George exhibiting behaviours that some people are often scared to do because of homophobic violence. To me, this was probably one of the only valid sort of feelings against it (Shame he wasn’t let speak more). I understand why someone might look at it that way, but at the same time there is a clear difference between messing with your friends and real life romantic flirtation. In my own personal life I know that I’ve been afraid of any sort of pda with a partner but when it comes to my own joke flirting with friends, I’m never afraid to do it. This can differ from person to person and maybe is very different for gay men but this is my own gay experience as someone who understands that fear. I think that the line is fairly clear between the real and the jokes and I honestly have no doubt that Dream and George have probably had people throw homophobic language their way but it may not have had to same effect as they don’t present themselves as homosexual.  

Worth noting that during this exchange Dream does say in passing he’s straight but it’s said in a hypothetical sort of way which leaves it unclear and he’s stated before that he doesn’t like labels and he wants to keep it ambiguous so it would be more respectful to continue thinking of him as such. Ambiguous is the way he chooses to present his sexuality and this should be accepted by everyone instead of making assumptions that he is straight. He was under pressure from four other adults to explain himself and handle accusations, anyone would say they were straight if they were being pushed like that and felt it wasn’t a safe environment. Which it definitely wasn’t and I advise that anyone who does want to watch back the VOD to turn off chat because they’re extremely toxic.

Holly proceeds to say that this makes gay people the butt of the joke, Dream says that he sees it more as the flirting with his friends as the joke, again, I’d agree with him. Depends on your humour I suppose, but arguably, anyone who watches Kacey interact on egirl rejects and stuff like that will see she often makes flirty jokes with Minx and other female friends, for some reason this isn’t seen as queerbaiting, but it’s unfortunately not brought up. I can understand why, Dream wasn’t trying to make any accusations in return, he was legitimately trying to have an earnest conversation which quickly went sour.

Holly goes on to explain how Shaun feels, by speaking over Shaun, and asks Dream what he thinks about that. Dream agrees that Shaun’s feelings are valid and says “That’s why I started this off by saying ‘lets talk about this’“. Holly gets extremely patronizing and asks if he understands it now that it’s been explained.

Dream is still very patient with them and agrees that he’s said things and learnt from mistakes and criticism that he’s received. He speaks honestly about his original cancelling and how he handled it poorly but learnt from that and has grown to be more careful and thoughtful with the things he says.

I have a real issue with this again because words are continuously put in his mouth. He’s asked several times throughout the whole call to denounce things, from people hating on Kacey to actual MASS SHOOTERS. He’s barely given space to defend himself and is ignored when he tries to say that he can’t control his fans. They just ask him time and time again to denounce multiple things.

The only time where Dream seems actually riled up by anything they say is when Holly, at the 4hr 11min mark, mentions the hashtag “Shooters4Dream” trending and says its Dream stans promoting gun violence (which was just a handful of idiots being insensitive under the tag). Dream responds to this with his classic “Oh come on” but before he can say anything else, Kacey does talk over him and says that the tag was mostly people denouncing it and tries to change the subject, but Dream brings it back and says that the tag was stupid and wrong. Holly and Kacey talk about how people were making jokes about it and Holly asks “Is it funny to you? Because your community think it is.” She’s playing such an abrasive blame game with him and he talks about how he spoke against it on twitter, they discount him, and Holly can be seen laughing at him. When Dream tries to explain the issue properly and Kacey just says, “Lets skip this, let's move on.” Dream points out that it is bad that the tag was trending, but he didn’t want to speak about it too much otherwise it would become a bigger thing. Ultimately, he doesn’t control his fans and the meaning of the tag was misconstrued massively. A matter of poor use of language and appalling timing.  

Love or Host

Love or Host is brought up a few times as an example of him flirting with George which I found interesting as he’s only been in one episode (George’s) and he was talking mostly to the girls on the show to figure out who is good for George, as that was his role. During this there was joking about how he should come before the girl and even female guests joined this line of joking. This is all part of the show and most played along with the bit, it’s not an uncommon bit for guests on the show to do. Not just Dream and George, but other guests in their respective episodes.  

I also find the mentioning of Love or Host interesting purely because, if anything, it’s the exact type of content that Kacey should hate, right? False relationships being formed? It’s not like there’s only straight people on the show as well, there’s been gay and bi love or hosts so queerbaiting, under the parameters which Kaceytron has set, is on the table. I’ve yet to see a real romantic relationship come out of an episode of LoH. This is a show purely for content and Kacey knows this, she’s appeared on multiple shows and even won Sapnap’s episode. She knows their date wasn’t real. Her sister says that many women are afraid to be on LoH because of hate they receive in the aftermath of the show and she claims it’s running its course because of this. I’d have to disagree with this (it’s a super successful show cmon) and, though a lot of people do get hate on the show, I think it’s often outweighed by the benefits they get from that type of exposure which is why people like Kacey continue to appear on multiple episodes.

What I found most interesting was what she said about her appearance on George’s episode. Mostly jokes were made about this costume: 

admittedly, it was kind of funny albeit rather creepy. However, if Kacey felt so strongly about Queerbaiting, why would she dress like that. Why wasn’t she a passionate advocate then? Where’d the sudden fire come from? I think we all know the answers to these questions.  

In response to people bringing up how she pandered by using this costume, making her a hypocrite, she said that in dressing like that she knew she was appealing to children. Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t know many kids that want to sit through a four hour long dating show filled with adults they don’t know and stuff they don’t understand. I don’t think the Austin Show’s demographic contains an awful lot of kids, no matter who the guest on the show is. Also, the point of the show is not to appeal to the audience per se, but to the person whose episode it is. It felt like a weak excuse and another chance to try take a dig at mc stans for being younger and trying to brand them as immature.

INITIAL AFTER THOUGHTS

As I said before, creators do not owe you anything, especially not a window into their personal lives. We’re lucky that Dream shares so much and is a very open person, you don’t need to pry any more than that. When you get upset about him queerbaiting you, what you say to me is that you don’t see him as a person. It’s a level of objectification that leaves me feeling uneasy, if you feel robbed of something because of this then you need to set your priorities straight.

As Dream said in the stream, he hasn’t misled anyone. He has specified that him and George are not dating nor do they plan to (I included a SS at the end of this as well where he states this again). If he were queerbaiting then he would title his videos as though George was his boyfriend, he doesn’t do this. He makes it clear that they are friends, their chemistry is never used as a marketing device or as the main attraction of a video.  

Many pointed out the hypocrisy of Kacey’s claims. Some pointing to her own channel where she has a playlist of 16 videos titled “gay videos”

These are just a few of the videos. Within one of these videos, titled “The F Word”, she complains about reclamation of slurs and repeatedly says the r slur. She shows no remorse for saying slurs and this is part of why it’s difficult to forgive her. 

I don’t even know what to say about this video. This is extremely offensive, even if the people involved agreed to it, it doesn’t mean it's not offensive to other gay people. This clip features her sister and Shaun, who were on the call, kissing while clearly intoxicated. The narrative that gay people can be ”turned straight” is extremely harmful and is an unfortunate reality that many LGBT people are forced through. In the call with Dream, they mention how maybe some gay people are fine with Dream and George’s flirting but people like Shaun weren’t and so they should be more respectful. When it comes to a video, like the one I’ve shown above, you’d think they would follow the same thought process. This is far more offensive and harmful to the LGBT community than any harmless flirting between friends. The hypocrisy is blatant.  

Sometimes streamers are tricked into saying slurs by donos etc. but instead of saying sorry I didn’t mean it and here’s what happened, Kacey tends to jump on the defensive. Dream said to her around when he first joined the call that he understood how difficult her position was because when he was first cancelled he felt like it was very unfair. He told her that even if you don’t think you’re wrong you can’t control how other people feel and you have to acknowledge that. He did mention how he handled his cancelling badly (something he still gets shit for today despite the fact he learnt from his mistakes) and that instead of getting upset about it now, he knows you should just take accountability and move on. Kacey doesn’t register this and goes on about how terrible it is for her.  

MISOGYNY AND AGE DEMOGRAPHIC

Part of me wonders if the reason she continues to fight with mc stans is because she knows she can just call them stupid kids and call it a day. This is interesting to me as I think I’ve seen more 15-24 year olds in this group rather than young children. Maybe this is just the content I’m looking through but I actually think that her demographic is more similar to Dream’s than she thinks. It’s just easier to write them off as snot-nosed minecraft playing children. This is a theme she sticks with as she makes half-assed jokes about bedtimes and parents etc. etc. It’s boring.

Also, despite the accusations at Dream, calling him a misogynist, it actually was both Kacey and Holly who came in with the sexist narrative as they go on about how his fans are just teenage white girls. This is a clear double standard as they are trying to use both age and gender to discount the validity of their feelings.

For someone who says she doesn’t care, it sure is interesting that she’s tweeted constantly about it and streamed for hours at a time. The stream with Dream was seven hours long. She blames the fact that she accidently read a slur out on stream on her lack of sleep. As a creator, you should know your limits and when you are and aren’t emotionally ready to be on camera. Kacey clearly does not know her limits and it effects her greatly. On the first watch I skipped forward in the VOD to the six hour mark and found she was still chatting shit about Dream with her sister while playing Roblox.  

Ironic that she goes on about stupid minecraft kids while being a 30 y/o woman playing Roblox. Nothing wrong with playing stuff at whatever age but not when you’re ragging on kids for the same thing.

USING THE GAY NARRATIVE

I finally wanted to come back to the use of her two gay friends in the so called “debate”. At 6hr and 08mins she reads out a message in either chat or from twitter.

“Listen up here cishet woman, you are cishet, shut your mouth and do not talk about queerbaiting ever again, ok?”

I don’t think people should bother going to her chat to say this stuff because it only fans the flames and will not change her mind but it’s what she said after that left me thinking that she knew exactly what she was doing when she included two gay men in the narrative on her side. She says  

“That’s why there were two gay people on the show who talked about queerbaiting and how it’s offensive to them. Are they trying to speak over gay voices? Like, who are they playing?”

I find it difficult to consider this a valid point as they quite literally spoke over said gay people themselves and as I mentioned, it was pressure from Shaun’s chat that made him bring it up when it was clear he wasn’t educated on the specifics of who he was speaking with. It all felt very false and like a set up to try catch Dream out. They were essentially there for the clout they get for being plants for Kacey as long as they go along with the narrative she was pushing. They seemed dispassionate about the topic and were more interested in drama. It makes them unconvincing debators.

KACEY’S CHAT AND ABLEISM

I could barely look at the chat the whole time because they were very toxic and some even used slurs in there. Kacey claims to have created a safe space for people, particularly LGBTQ people, yet from what I saw, it was only really a safe space for bigotry and toxicity. These are just some screenshots that I took during the call.

Blatant ableism in the first one, maybe they didn’t know about his ADHD, but this was one of many and even Kacey and her sister made fun of it when he was out of the call. 

Gaslighting is a serious accusation. The definition is this: “Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse where a person or group makes someone question their sanity, perception of reality, or memories. People experiencing gaslighting often feel confused, anxious, and unable to trust themselves.”  

This does not apply to Kacey; she is not questioning her sanity or being confused. She’s outright denying things. There is no gaslighting going on here, yet the chat was FILLED with it. Bitches will learn a new word like gaslighting and queerbaiting and really use it for everything oof.

Not once did he invalidate the fact that there is misogyny in the community and if anything he has expressly supported female creators very vocally and without being asked to. Writing off anything he says just because he’s a white man is not even an argument; he accepts the privilege he has and has never claimed that others don’t experience issues because of these things. This is not a misogynistic attack, this is a grown woman being asked to own up and apologize for her mistakes.

Chat continued to be extremely toxic towards Dream and even people in game with Kacey made multiple jokes about him. Here’s an example of just one.

It says ”What I wear omw to dream’s court hearing.”

They say a lot of horrible things about him and Holly even makes implications of him being inappropriate with fans which is an extremely serious thing to say and is based in NO truth.

SHIFTING FOCUS

Right before Dream left, they reiterated that they didn’t think he was a bad person because of his “queerbaiting”. This was something repeated many times throughout the talk. The implications of this language use is that Dream should be the one apologizing and that Kacey and her friends somehow were the ones with the power to forgive him. Overall, it was misguided and gross. He shouldn’t have had to be defending himself from four people at once all by himself, especially when the conversation was not supposed to be about him. And to clarify, he did not make it about himself, he started by talking about Kacey and how he had been trying to dm her about her cancelling. It was them that turned it on him to flip it in their favour.

There was an insistence that they were the victims, direct quote from Kacey at 5hr 55min and 40sec Kacey says “I am a victim, I am literally a victim of cancel culture.”  

Yes, I think the doxxing is too far and constant hate doesn’t do much but Kacey needs to acknowledge that her words hurt a lot of people and she needs to own up to that.

Even after Dream left, they continued to chat shit about him, with Shaun even saying at about the 5hr 16min mark that he thought Dream had “perfectly scripted” his responses in a way that meant he wouldn’t have to denounce his fans. Of course he won’t talk crap on his fans when they’re the reason he is famous and he knows it’s a minority that ruins it for everyone else, he’s said he doesn’t like people who spread hate calling themselves his stans. The idea that Dream could have prepared a response to the questions and accusations thrown at him from a cast of half high and fully ignorant strangers who are all almost 10 years older than him is ridiculous. He was clearly out of his comfort zone and was a complete curveball for him. This leads me on to the main reason I think Dream was dragged into this.

SCAPEGOAT

If we’re being real, this is a clear attempt to change the subject away from Kacey. Dream is someone who people come for often, whether it’s accusations of cheating or scripting or bringing up past mistakes which he has apologized for and showed that he has grown from. He even said to Kacey that he does get death threats and he’s been doxxed before. He constantly gets in trouble because of the more radical “stans” who are a problem starting minority for the rest. Dream separates himself from those people as best as he can, but he knows himself that he can’t escape that brush he’s been tarred with. Kacey also knows this.  

By bringing Dream into the narrative, she’s successfully shifted the focus of the conversation in a way that favours her. That stream conversation should’ve been about Kacey and the things that she has said, instead it was a grilling session from four strangers for Dream. Now people are very focused on that aspect of the whole thing (myself included ofc but this post is specifically about qbaiting accusations so) rather than the important part which is holding her accountable for her use of slurs.  

It’s not her first attempt at this as she made a twitter post about how she was no.1 trending despite a mass shooting taking place. Of course this is terrible that that would be higher up but it was an obvious blame passing as this reply points out.

She knows what she’s doing and has shown no sign of stopping. It’s best that she’s not given any more attention now but just try not to watch anymore content with her in it. As I said before, don’t bother with any hate, just block and move on. For a creator complaining about all the “kids” coming for her, she doesn’t act all that much older despite being fully grown at 30 years of age.

CONCLUSION

At 6hr 42min 30sec Kacey mentions that she is number 2 on trending to which her friend replies “Good job Kacey”, she laughs. It’s clear that she does this for attention, her friends are there for clout and they are all irrelevant clowns looking to get a career boost out of creators more successful than them. They don’t stop to consider others’ feelings or empathize towards anyone. Kacey will say herself that she got her start from baiting on 4chan, this is her brand. It’s just unfortunate that she seems to think that she’s doing something just when, in actuality, she is causing a lot of damage to the LGBT community and invalidating many people with her unapologetic use of ableist and racist slurs. Her friends congratulate her because it's obvious it’s the attention she wants, this is why she streams for so long and tweets so much. She hit a far higher viewership on this stream than she normally would. I’m sure this sort of hatred does affect her negatively, whether she notices or not, I hope she gets the help she needs to become a less selfish person and to become more productive with her time.  

Remember again to not send hate, just block and move on. I also recommend that you don’t watch this stream but if you are going to then watch a reupload on YT so she doesn’t get money out of it.  

I was very uncomfortable after watching the stream, especially with all the false allyship with the LGBT community. People like Kacey act like this to get views whenever they’re losing their following. Just don’t fall for any bait and petty jibes that they throw this way. Don’t let any anger get the better of you and just lets move past it as it can’t be healthy for people like Dream to have to see this on his TL as well, which he will if we keep interacting. Though I do think that for now, it’s pretty much over.  

For all the talk of how hateful this community is, I couldn’t disagree more. I’ve found most people very pleasant and the CCs themselves very accepting of all types of people. I’ll leave off with these tweets Dream made at the end of last year. Stay safe folks, be positive and kind to each other! Much love <3

[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.