#unless you are talking about trans women talking about gay women talking about non-white womens experiences

[scholarofgolb]

guys i have to say something. didn't like the barbie movie all that much.

[ethicstownpod]

The show seems (please correct me if I’m wrong) to have been cast pretty gender blind. Talking of gender roles in the Q&A, was it ever a possibility that January was a woman/non binary?

You are indeed (pretty much) correct! The entire show was cast gender blind aside from January*. I don’t have the exact disclaimer on me, but the casting call said something like:

“Anyone who feels comfortable playing a character who identifies as a man and uses he/him pronouns is encouraged to audition for this role.”

January was always written to be a cishet white man from England. I was very open to people who didn’t match some, or any, of those characteristics playing the part (Rhys does not in fact have a wholly English accent, but unless you’ve spent a lot of time where his family’s from you’d never be able to tell. Also, straight? My brother??), but he was written to be a really stereotypical Bad Politician From A Small English Town**.

But, you cry, that was S1 January! If he can be a little homosexual, surely he could have transed his gender?

True! Ish… January potentially being played by a trans actor was always a ‘this is a conversation to be had post-casting’ kind of thing. It would entirely depend on what the actor was comfortable with.

Say, for example, January had been played by a trans masc person. That would be a difficult thing to bring up in a later season, after January has already robbed two women of their bodily autonomy and ruined a little girl’s life… Not really the commentary I was going for! And you don’t even know what he’s going to do in S3 yet…

So in that situation I would have suggested it just doesn’t get mentioned; nothing to confirm January is a cis man, but nothing to imply he’s trans either. Of course, had someone not been comfortable with that I’d have worked with it.

If he’d been played by a trans femme/nonbinary actor the above isn’t so much an issue. Obviously I’m not saying it’s okay to imply trans women steal from other women, but it would be much easier, with the way the narrative is designed, to say, “Well, January did those things because she was written to be a cis gender man and a villain. Now that’s she’s starting to develop a sense of self she’s still a villain, just in a cool and sexy way now.” (Obviously this is paraphrasing/a joke. Cisgender man January isn’t even really a villain). And then S2/3 January could have a fun little gender arc with Noah.

But honestly, everything in this hypothetical would depend on the actor. Rhys is amazing, obviously, and while we may not be getting 🏳️‍⚧️Trans Rep🏳️‍⚧️ from this specific character I don’t feel like January having any kind of queer arc is hindered at all by him being played by a (umbrella term) bisexual actor.

Much like what I was saying about January wrt gender roles in the Q&A, Rhys likes sewing and crafts and girly pop music and kids’ cartoons and baby animals and childcare and cooking and (once every 9 months when the planets align) talking about his feelings.

He also rides a motorbike, likes to make his own electronics, and talks really, really loudly in the pub even though everyone he’s talking to is within a half metre radius. Y’know, guy stuff.

It’s great that there are so many micro labels available to people who want them, but, “I don’t really feel like a very guyish guy, and that’s because straight men have historically set the standard for what it means to be a guy. I’m still a guy, I’m just having a queer guy experience,” is still a totally valid gender take, and I feel like that’s much more where January-played-by-a-cis-man sits. So, y’know, that’s actual January that we actually have.

At least, until he commits his next crime and totally forgets about being gay.

*At this point you may be thinking, “But if January was a heterosexual man, surely his spouse would have to be played by a woman?” Mayhaps! January’s spouse would have to be played by someone who was comfortable portraying a woman for ~1 episode. But there was absolutely no reason ��Al” couldn’t have transitioned in any way shape or form in S2 onwards. It just so happened L killed it ridiculously hard and also uses she/her pronouns.

**There are absolutely bad female politicians from small English towns. There are also bad politicians of colour from small English towns. And bad queer politicians, usually not from small towns but sometimes. But statistically it is cishet white men. Currently, 68% of UK mayors are men. 88% are white. 60% are white men. And that’s in the year of our lord 2025.

[theconstitutionisgayculture]

When I was an edgy teenager, I was listening to a lot of punk, specifically grunge and riot grrrl (make fun of me later). While I liked how the music sounded (LOL, I was fourteen/fifteen and had no taste), the messaging was patronizing, even if I was the target demographic, technically. (I'm a woman with a lot of "checked boxes"). All of these artists were saying outwardly that "women, POC, and The Homos™ are totally oppressed and if you hate them then we hate you." Grunge/riot grrrl/punk, despite their desire to "make a difference," really didn't, I don't think, unless they wanted to make social relationships worse. It was also a genre full of white people who were drowning in white guilt and actively admitted as such - I blame feminism.

In their quest to sound non-bigoted, this group of woke/leftist heterosexual white men and bisexual white women were calling all minority/"underrepresented" people helpless victims and advocating for violence and degeneracy (which worked). Yes, non-homosexuals with white saviour complexes, you totally know what you're talking about. (There were a couple homos in there too, unfortunately, and they loved that these people were giving into their victimhood mindset - I still think we're better than this shit).

Oh, and the best part? If any woman, POC, or homosexual called them out on their bullshit, they called them handmaidens, Uncle Toms, or under the heterosexual's boot, including actively harassing them. They called them names, said they were unwelcome, and pushed them out of spaces they claimed to have made for minorities. Really sounds sexist, racist, and homophobic if you ask me.

The bigoted leftists who claim to be "fighting bigotry" is not new. The rhetoric people think is new and from the 2010s has been around for a long time. These genres came out in the 1980s and 1990s, but it feels like even back then they were lying about how bad things were. I've seen multiple videos, including street interviews, home videos, etc, from the time and socially, it was much better than things are today. People of any sex, race, or sexuality were friends and outwardly said they cared for each other. "I love my white brothers," "I don't care if she's a woman as long as she loves rock 'n roll like I do," "Straight people in my community don't give a shit about lesbians/gays, even when we're in drag/cross-dressing." (paraphrased)

I've also noticed that the metal bands that were grouped in with grunge/riot grrrl/punk purely by association (rather than by genres overlapping) had not only the best music, but the band members actually had brains and didn't fall for the victimhood bullshit, even if they weren't explicitly conservative. I still listen to Layne Staley and Kat Bjelland because of this, and metal has so many conservative (or at least non-leftist) artists. That's where it's at.

The "grunge/punk icons" who are still alive today are now the type who are advocating to let trans-identified males into women's spaces and cheering on the female teachers (trans-identified or not) who are grooming kids in classrooms, among other popular leftist viewpoints. None of their viewpoints have changed in over thirty years. I'd say it was a fall from grace, but I'm not surprised at all. My generation (Gen Z) loves them because they were/are saying the same stuff my generation says today, and my generation acting all shocked that this rhetoric isn't new ("They were saying this stuff in 1992!!! Can you believe it??? Can't believe nothing has changed >:(.") is unbelievably cringe and shows how uninformed they are. Yeah, nothing has changed - leftists are still pushing the same dividing, hustler bullshit.

TLDR: Punk has always been shit and full of pussies, metal reigns supreme.

Worthwhile read.

Also a great endorsement for late 90s-mid 2000s pop punk. Most of that was about how much school sucked and how no one can find girlfriends. Very apolitical. XD

[marta-bee]

I keep hearing Gov. Walz's slogan, "Mind your own damned business," in the news. I believe in it - quite a lot! - but I don't see a lot of people recognizing just what it demands. And that worries me, because we've been here before.

Back before gay marriage was legalized, one of the main arguments for doing that was it didn't actually affect straight peoples' marriages at all. Gay people being able to marry didn't mean a single straight couple would have to divorce, it didn't give them any less rights in any way, it just meant gay people had access to the same civil and legal apparatus to build their lives together and have it legally recognized. And a lot of people who didn't approve of homosexuality were still to support gay marriage, because they weren't being asked to support it. It wasn't about that, it was about being fair and not getting all up in someone else's business.

It got more personal after, because unless you're going to have a really narrow definition of what that marriage means, of course it's going to affect all kinds of people. Obergefell didn't go nearly far enough in this area, because gay people were still subject to all kinds of discrimination; as the pundits often quipped, in most of America you could get married on Sunday and fired for it come Monday morning. But even with just the gay marriage description, you have all kinds of businesses saying they didn't want to say they approved of marriage by baking a cake, setting up a wedding website, doing the photos, whatever. Because at that point (they felt) gay marriage did affect them.

I personally think we're all most free when we keep business separate from identity and beliefs. Gay people, racial minorities, women and other non-male genders, trans people, all kinds of groups along those lines should be hired (or not) because they can do the job well. We should buy their product or service because they can do it well (or not). They should be accepted as customers along the same lines. But what about someone who votes for Trump? Who donates to him? Who yells at a local school board meeting about librarians sharing filth with their kids? Who puts a "We support Israel" sign in their shop window or get caught on the news yelling racist screeds while yelling a MAGA hat at a counter-protester?

I don't have an easy answer to all that. I recognize there's a difference between identity and beliefs, though these days in America being in the Trump camp really does feel more like a tribe than an ideology. And emotionally, I sympathize with wanting to call people out for a lot of those behaviors. But rationally, if we're trying to focus on "Mind your own damned business," to focus on being neighbors and helping each other as neighbors rather than on the things they do and believe we disagree with, that does swing both ways.

I actually think this is the defining political question of our age: how much space do we need to make for people to do, say and believe things we find hateful in the public space, and when does that cross over into endorsing those things? To take one example: say someone objected to what HBCU's taught as "critical race theory" (not the actual thing but how right-wingers used the word), they though it was revisionist and anti-white. I'm honestly surprised this hasn't happened yet, given what's argued at the K-12 level. And say this person says, okay, if people want to go there and study that it's none of my business; but if they're using Pell grants and federally-subsidized student loans and the like, they certainly don't want to pay for that with their taxes. Their starting point is ridiculous (but dangerous) nonsense, but that's not the point I'm really interested in. Does minding their own business mean they can't object to their tax dollars paying for it? What if we're not talking about a HBCU but Bob Jones, Hillsdale, or Liberty University, schools with famously fundamentalist curriculum? Does it matter if it's not some universal program but an earned tuition benefit, like the GI Bill?

Or at a more local level: if your neighbor is always posting about how Hamas is a terrorist organization and we need to support Israel on Twitter, is that reason enough not to do your laundry at her laundromat?

I really don't think there's a straightforward, easy answer on all this. All kinds of factors play into specific situations. But I do think "Mind your own damned business," especially when we get into the nitty-gritty of lived reality, is a lot more challenging to us on the left than it seems at first glance. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's bound to involve growing pains, though, and probably a lifetime of struggling for that right balance. Good luck to us all (left and right) with that one....

[terra-feminarum]

As a detransitioner, how much do you think gender identity is built by gender stereotypes?

I don’t know. But here is my guess.

TLDR; I think gender stereotypes affect gender identification a lot but it’s complicated and also capitalist concept of self is at play.

Long answer: First of all, I do “believe in gender identity”, as I conceptualize identity as a sense of self based on tangible real life experiences. I’m white. I’m a sister. I’m a gardener. I’m a woman who has been perceived to be a male for a certain time period of her life, but I’m not an actual male. And so on. Many people also identify with the gendered stereotypes that are connected to their sex. People identify with religions that might not be true in an objective sense, but the identities are true – people truly are Christians and such.

So what I think we’re talking about here isn’t gender identity per se but the disconnect between lived experience and the idea that you can feel you’re something you have never experienced. We’re talking about fantasy instead of identity. “I wish I was this-and-that, because my mental image of this-and-that is pleasant and my idea of what I actually am is unpleasant.”

Not all transgender people adhere to stereotypes.  What about trans women who just physically transition but never wear heels, make-up or act like stereotypes? They exist, just as there are trans men who are very feminine. Does it mean there aren’t stereotypes involved or are the stereotypes just more subtle? A lot of trans men watch drag and are very into wearing “women’s clothes”, as long as they won’t be perceived as “women” – so they want femininity but without the burden of all things associated with womanhood.

A lot of people with gender dysphoria say it feels entirely physical, like their bodies just don’t match the mental map they have of their body.  Their bodies feel foreign to them; they are repulsed by their bodies even when they are alone.

Could it be they have developed these physical feelings as a reaction to the social discomfort they feel about being associated with certain gendered stereotypes?

Human psyche is very capable of developing symptoms that feel entirely physical. There are people who identify as “therians”, non-human animals. They have phantom limb feelings of tails and ears they think they should have. If transitioning into a non-human animal would be possible, would these people be miserable unless they were granted the access to have the tail they always knew is part of their body?

And then there are conversion disorders. They aren’t analogous to transgenderism but they do highlight the power human psyche has when in distress. Conversion disorders were more common when people didn’t have the cultural vocabulary to describe their mental anguish. Instead, people became blind or deaf or paralyzed or had seizures, fully experiencing these things as true, but having no physical deficit that would cause the problem. That’s how powerful the human psyche is.

I wonder if we have the cultural vocabulary to describe the anguish sexism and patriarchy causes us? Or are we like a soldier who will become physically paralyzed instead of saying: I'm scared and I don't want to hurt anyone.

In addition, culture affects the mental disorders humans experience. Certain psychological phenomena are only present in certain cultural context where the symptoms make sense individually and on a collective level. I'm fairly certain gender dysphoria is like this. Many cultures recognize people who cross gendered boundaries and inhabit the social role of the opposite gender, both genders or either, but I don't know whether these experiences include any kind of distress over one's physical body or whether these roles resemble more something like butch lesbians or feminine gay men.

As far as I know, there isn’t any coherent theory explaining gender dysphoria as something universal and inherent. To me it looks like this: A person strongly believes or wants something (I’m a man). It is incongruent with the body the person has (a female body) and with how others treat that person (societal role of a woman with all the stereotypes attached). This disconnect between the want and the reality causes distress. Just like the disconnect between “I feel I should be beautiful” and the reality of “I’m not conventionally attractive” will cause distress, ruminating, excessive time in front of the mirror, plastic surgery. The distress isn’t caused the physical body itself (being unattractive or being a female) but the cultural connotations attached to this physical reality – like people thinking you’re stupid, or that you need to defer to men.

Personally my transition was very much affected not only gender stereotypes, but what these stereotypes caused: misogyny, lack of representation of women as complex humans, sexual harassment. One huge factor was that transition existed and I was able to find information on the subject, so my fantasy self became a potential real self, and so, in a way, it became reality at some point. If the means to transition didn’t exist, I doubt my dysphoria would have been too deep. After all, I’ve despaired over other things as a young teenager: I wished I could be tall, I wished I could be Japanese, and so on and so on. Alas, “racial transition” does not exist and becoming tall isn’t very viable either, so I grew out of these thoughts and learned to understand I’m actually a human being instead of a character I should and could design to be as cool as possible.

The current capitalist culture teaches us our bodies are changeable, and in fact, changing or enhancing one’s body is almost a duty. Existing just as you are is neglect. You’re expected to self-fulfill by changing your body. You are expected to design yourself like you are a character.

To be honest, sexism and homophobia in this society is so deep, I have empathy towards people who will solve their distress by transition. It's a very individualistic solution, solving nothing at the larger scale. But as much as I wished every woman would ditch make-up and heels and have self-respect, they won’t, either. And so some women transition into men, some women defer to men. There is still much to do.

In conclusion, I think to develop incongruence of gender identity, we need strict stereotypical gender roles, but in addition, it is driven by an individualistic culture of “self-development” and the cultural gaze being turned inwards, everything revolving around one’s one self and self-actualization. What is also needed is the idea of being able to change your sex, or changing the meaning of sex altogether. We rarely despair over something that isn't realistically possible.

[papirouge]

"l also think they went hard on her bc she's very beautiful and nothing angers conservative men more than attractive liberal women lmao"

You are onto something here. I remember once in my country there was this polemic because a right wing politician said in a show he hosted that a female leftist politician had stated that pedophilia "had to be reinstated", which turned out to be false. This sparked a conversation in which a member of his political party (and also ex co-host of the show) also spoke up. He talked about how many middle aged men from the right would obssess over the young women from the left. He said that this guy was like this; he would say a lot of outrageous things about pretty leftist women just so they would go to his show and be near him. He also said even right wing women though he was too much and too sexist and pervy.

He also expanded on the right wing's men obsesion with young leftist women, saying how many of their conversations would focus on these women physical appareance. He also commented that male right wingers also had this delusion/fantasy where they believe they can 'save' these women from the left with their masculinity and rationality, and they compare themselves to the 'effeminate, somewhat homosexual" men from the left, believing themselves to be superior to these 'soyboys'.

Funnily enough, this same dude who would antagonize the young pretty women from the left just so they would pay attention to him, also tweeted something like "teen girl first anal", apparently confusing Twitter with the search engine. Once he also told a reporter he was attracted to her since she was 12 years old. He was 19 when she was 12.

Conservatives? Being hypocrite sex freaks? Color me shocked ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

This also confirms my theory that conservatives are ultimately only attracted by liberal women to have the satisfaction of taming/humbling them. Such gratification is impossible when they date doormat conservative pickmes. Look at all the women fawning at Musk or Andrew Tate... they aren't those they pick to date or breed with.

This obsession with tranny groomers and gay pedo of conservatives is peak projection. It's insane how the straight up pedo narrative of some conservative figures is glossed over, but someone being gay or with a gender identity is enough for them to suspects them of being a predator... I always said conservatives didn't care about pedophilia unless it was to dunk on liberals or "progressive" symbols (Epstein, Balenciaga, etc). They won't peep a word about conservatives caught with teens if not defend them (isn't Russell Brand -although not conservative got into conservatives good favor ever since he got vocal against the c0vid vaccîne- is accused of dating/sexually abusing a minor? and yet they're defending him like there's no tomorrow). Lately there's a twitter account who got suspended for accusing Musk of being a pedo (to get back at him after he accused a marine dude of being one when he refused his held when rescuing kids lost in a cave in Asia). I really think there's something to dig with him about it.... I'm still not over how fast Musk simps shrugged off his twitter side account where he role played as his own child and made sexual tweet.... His laptop should be investigated. Unfortunately the Musk savior syndrome is so strong, I think he could be caught raping a child people would still defend him, so.....

Sexual offenders & pedophiles are in the majority cis straight male so their obsessions to paint LGBT as these predatory groomers is lowkey insane. I've always said that since rape and sexual abuse stats disproportionately incriminate MEN they are desperate to find way of other'ing the issue. They'll either point fingers at non White men (so ugh, still men) or promote the idea that these stats are over amplified by false rape allegations 🤡

Aren't most father of teen moms grown adults? But suuuure, we should be focused on trans people in schools... controversial opinion but a drag doing a lecture in school is less concerning than grown men impregnating young girls...

I think the obsession with AOC of many conservatives also reeks from the fact they lowkey want to bang her.

[lunarsilkscreen]

TW: Why Black People hate the Gays (Rape)

Being gay has a sort of "white privilege" embossed on it in America. This has to do with a process in American slavery known as "Buck Breaking".

So lots of people online blame the gays for it.

In those times, Sodomy (with blunt instrument) was a punishment given to slaves on the same level as whipping. It's why "Sodomy" is illegal in the U.S. obviously, being gay is typically a consensual act these days, unless you're in prison where it's a power move, because nothing says "Cis Heterosexual Alpha Male" like f* another man in the a*."

It's only gay if you're on the receiving end. (That means that in this interpretation, every woman is *really* a gay man.) #malegaze #wtf_really #reallyreally?

Because of this, I've heard and read many black male comments IRL and online talking about how "Black men can't be gay" because it's punishment and willful submission to the white man.

This is where, I figure, queer-poc erasure happens in black communities. If a man acts "gay" or is transgender, it's a willful relinquishment of their own freedoms (to be cis heterosexual black man) and submission and acceptance of slavery and the inferiority of the black race.

White men also feel that way about queerness, but black people got it so much worse thanks to the GD* slavers, and lack of human rights given to slaves at that time in America.

I'd go over Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible again, and how it's about rape. (And not consensual gay sex) but you can probably already recognize how Sodomy gets twisted into "no gay sex at all".

Because there's that inherent *maleness* to it. A power struggle, that makes men lesser, and therefore men can't consent to it, and therefore sodomy can *only* be rape.

And this colors the world in which we view sex and intimate relations. This interpretation says "All Sex is Rape" unless you're married AND are trying to concieve. And since you're trying to concieve, even though it's rape, it's OK.

That view even suggests that consensual sexual relations *is* rape, but that certain forms of rape are OK, because you signed a contract that says the husband will provide for the wife and child.

"you can't rape women if they concieve because you're forced into a contract anyway"

But you can't be forced into a gay contract, so we just send all the rapists to prison so they can rape the non-rapists. Because you can't stop them from being rapists. But you *can* illegalize trans women so the straight rapists have people to rape too!

Does that mean prison is *actually* goals for some people? That instead of punishment, prison is a reward? And that society always seems to reward men and not women for sex related crimes?

Well. Unless you're Black anyway... *Sorry*

[queeranarchism]

Sometimes other white folks ask me the best way to be less of a Clueless White Person without demanding people of color expend effort teaching them, and I have a suggestion that will absolutely work. You won't wanna do it, but I'm going to tell you anyway. Step 1) Follow at least 50 more people of color on social media ASAP. Step 2) Read their posts, and don't reply to them unless they're addressed to you by name or they've addressed a non-rhetorical question to the general public. Not sure if it's rhetorical? Don't answer. Step 3) Make this a habit, over a period of years. That's it. Certain things will gradually start to become clear to you that used to be extremely opaque and confusing, and you will never have to waste a single other person's time educating you. Same goes for a man trying to understand women, a straight person trying to understand "teh gays," or any other group of people who has traditionally dominated conversations trying to understand a group who has traditionally been silenced/marginalized. The moment you enter a conversation between people your group generally dominates, you're tacitly asking it to accommodate you. Social media gives us an unprecedented opportunity to just quietly listen and learn how things really are for people. Don't waste it by butting in. "But I'm a straight middle-class white male Christian - this means I'll never get to reply to ANYONE!" If you're good friends, go ahead. If you're not, why does silence feel so much like hardship? Really think hard about this. You're so close to understanding. Also, #wellactually you aren't silenced at all. Thanks to the internet, we each have our own accounts and platforms where we can ramble as much as we want, and people can opt in. Witness me, white cis lady, doing just that, unsilenced "despite" my cis whiteness. I simply believe that not EVERY conversation is for or about me, and I also believe that the conversations that are not meant for me are worth listening to when they take place where I can witness them. Others' perspectives and experiences matter. And I also know that, raised as I was (white and affluent), I am primed to believe that my opinion matters and should be heard. I have to FIGHT that conditioning every time one person says something I disagree with on here. In my case it takes *effort* to stay silent. But for some people, speaking means fighting against their conditioning. Some people are raised to believe their opinions do not matter, and they are fighting that conditioning just to have these conversations, to make themselves heard. Social media gives them a place. In theory, being a woman should make it hard for me to speak up, but I was lucky; I missed that conditioning. My upbringing was largely free of sexism. So I have a very "white dude" tendency to talk over people, and it takes effort to just listen. But it's so, so worth it. I have learned FAR more about the reality of the world simply by quietly listening and observing than I have by "debating." I highly recommend that all of you, especially those of you who belong to one or more dominant groups, give it a try as often as you can.

Mishell Baker on Twitter (account https://twitter.com/mishellbaker/ no longer exists)

It’s so so important to learn that entering a conversation as a person with privilege changes the conversation. If you are a white person entering a conversation between people of color, you are changing the conversation. If you are a cis person entering a conversation between trans people, you are changing the conversation. Ask yourself: did these people invite me in? do they want this change? Can I not step in?

[raviosrupees]

Super Specific Linked Universe Headcanons Pt 1.

All of the Links are autistic but they all have wildly different ways of presenting it. Ask me about their special interests, please. Please.

Warriors is in his 20s. He is an Aquarius. I'm right.

Sky is the ultimate straight cis ally, but he has bi wife energy. He is best friends with Legend, and they're kind of inseparable.

Twilight is a taurus, he's cis and bisexual, but leans towards women and fem ppl (and too hung up to think about anyone but one woman)

Wild is taller than yall think, 17 or 117 whatever is more convenient for him, zelda told him his birthday is november 7th (scorpio, ofc) and he just accepts that.

Hyrule is pansexual (mostly cis but might be genderfluid, he likes to wear feminine clothes and makeup)

Four is like? 3'8, and he's 20 yo but most people don't believe him. He's a trans boy, and most of the colors are too besides vio, who I think is either genderfluid or pangender, uses all pronouns. Four is bisexual but leans towards guys, though he loves his Zelda.

Legend is 4'10, 17 yo, born december 14th at midnight. he is trans, any pronouns, and bisexual.

Ravio is same height and age as Legend, and they're both born on the same day but ravio was born at noon. This really bothers Legend, he wants his own birthday. Ravi loves it.

also ravio is gay, asian/latino, chubby and has the best smile <3

war is cis and bisexual but he leans towards women, I think he's aromantic but probably could be romantically involved with someone.

Times eyes are more gray than blue

Sky 9 times out of 10 has no clue whats going on. Stupid and confused, and its perfect.

Twilight always knows where all of them are, and I don't even know if it's just smell. He has mom instincts "where are my kids, what are they doing"

Wild got mad anger issues pls calm down babe. Kind of scary. He lets hyrule braid his hair sometimes.

Hyrules eyes are more green than blue, and he has freckles all over his face and body (jokes he ought to get a kiss for every freckle)

Whenever Wind gets mail from his little sister, he reads it to the group. He's very proud of her, and she's very proud of him. She has a bunch of big brothers now.

Four + the colors are white-asian mixed (or looks like it yk, bc he's hylian) his eyes are dark brown.

Legend goes non verbal a lot, esp when they're stressed, but when she talks, she talks. I mean, hand gestures, ranting, cussing, pointing, "and you a bitch, and you a bitch." favorite curse word is cunt.

warriors ruffle everyone's hair, and they all hate it (esp four and legend, who claims he's going to choke him with his own scarf)

Sky likes to sing and dance, and wishes more of them would dance with him.

Twilight has slept as a wolf so often that it's practically natural for him, he really prefers it. Also, he takes all of his nightwatch shifts as a wolf.

Wild will teach literally anyone about edible flora and mushrooms and such, and foraging around hyrule, if only they would listen. Sometimes talks random animals ears off about his favorite flavor combos. Sky loves to listen and ask questions.

Hyrule will hand his favorite people random stuff as "gifts" like feathers, flowers, rocks, dead bugs (he's obsessed with bugs, he loves them so so much and they're all his friends) his favorite animal is a bumblebee

i know we all agree wind swears likek a bloody sailor, bc thats what he is, but how about him using random shit for swears like, "crabs cankles," "bilge-sucking" or calling the others landlubbers. also feel like he'd be the type to say "bite me" when someone disagrees with him.

Four keeps a bunch of books in his bag, and if their reading is disturbed they all have different reactions. Blue pinches or glares, Vio ignores you unless she deems what youre saying important, red gets physically distressed, and green will actually tell you to be quiet. (blue pinches a lot actually)

Legend is a very picky eater, especially with textures, this pisses wild off (wdym you dont like it YOU HAVENT EVEN TRIED IT)

Sky's Zelda is a bisexual virgo, and she knows everything.

Malon makes very good bread. I want to shove that shit in my face ong. Also she insists on giving each of the boys big hugs when shes sees them.

[kaedynce-is-a-writer]

How to Write an Autistic Character

So, you’re a neurotypical, otherwise allistic, or possibly neurodivergent person wanting to write an autistic character, but you’re not sure as to how you want them written?

Well, my fellow writers, you are in luck! In this post, I will explain how to write an autistic character while steering clear of any harmful stereotypes that are seen in neurodivergent characters in most types of mainstream media.

Now before I dive in, my biggest thing is to talk to other autistics! Like I will say in this post and many more in the future, autism isn't a "one size fits all" neurotype!

1.) The first thing I want to say to y’all is that we’re not all young cishet white boys. Some autistic people are non-binary, some are black, some are women, some are older than 25, some are gay, and let's be honest--it's okay! You're valid!

While, yes, quite a handful of autistic folks are boys, it's important to note that you shouldn't make all of your autistic characters young, white, cishet boys, since older folks, trans folks, non-binary folks, and women who are autistic and of a different racial/ethnic background need representation in media, too.

Another thing to note when writing autistic characters is that not all autistic LGBTQ+ folks are on the asexual spectrum. I've met a few autistic people online who are asexual or otherwise aspec, and they are some of the most amazing people I've met. However, as I've said before, not all LGBTQ+ autistic people are aspec. Some are lesbians, some are bisexual, and some can be pan, too!

2.) The next thing I want to say is that autism isn't a "one size fits all" neurotype. What traits can be displayed in one autistic person aren't always necessarily as prominent in another autistic person. One autistic person can be extremely extroverted whereas another can be introverted or non-speaking (they can still communicate with other people using AAC or sign language!) One autistic person can be hypersensitive to loud sounds whereas another autistic person can have a hard time hearing things (auditory processing disorder). I am actually the latter of both of these statements (I'm introverted as hell and I'm bad with putting my thoughts into words most of the time and I need to have closed captions on when I'm watching TV unless it's something that I've watched a million times). But as I've stated before, autism isn't a "one size fits all" neurotype, meaning that no two autistic people are the same.

3.) The third thing that I want y'all to note is that we stim. A lot. More-so than the neurotypical/allistic population, even though everybody stims in some way, shape, or form. Stimming can be used as a way for us to express our emotions or needs, whether we're happy, trying to evade sensory overload episodes (sometimes it's unavoidable and I understand that, I went through those too), or whether we're in a meltdown and need to go someplace where there's less sensory input. Some of the most common stims are hand-flapping, rocking back and forth, and vocalizing random sounds we make! There are other types of stims, too, such as smelling things (olfactory), looking at things that mesmerize us (visual), and listening to the same song on repeat sometimes (auditory). And even feeling things that are soft can count as stims, too!

4.) When it comes to emotions or humor, we are not like Rain Man or Sheldon Cooper. This is one harmful stereotype that you need to avoid like the plague when writing an autistic character. We promise you that we are not emotionless, nor do we lack a sense of humor.

However, autistic people do tend to struggle with reading social cues and pick up one's emotions based on looks (I had a lot of trouble doing this as a child, and trust me, I still have trouble with this), and the former part of the statement may end up causing autistic people to either be left out of the conversation altogether or interrupt said conversation. But unlike what most mainstream media with an autistic character says, we actually do experience the same range of emotions that a neurotypical and/or allistic person would, and we do have a sense of humor.

5.) And the last thing I want to mention is that autistic people have intense fixations on certain subjects, otherwise known as hyperfixations and/or special interests.

What is your autistic character's special interest/hyperfixation? Do they do research on their special interest/hyperfixation? Do they do artwork based on their special interest/hyperfixation?

An example of special interests I'd like to give is actually one of my own. I'm very much a metalhead/alt kid of sorts, and my favorite band tends to be Linkin Park. If I'm asked about Linkin Park, I will be more than likely to give an infodump on the band's history, given that I'm not overstimulated or burnt out from the day's activities. This also includes the history of people within the band, like Chester or Mike (since those are the two members that I know most about).

More will come in part two! Stay tuned!

SOTD: "Therefore I Am" -- Billie Eilish

[icaruskey]

What is your opinion on the recent videos by Finntastic Mr. Fox and Goddamnit Malcolm where they talk about the supposed male privilege trans men seem to have after transitioning "fully" or to the point where they are no longer perceived as anything other than cis men? Idk if you watched them or anything, but it would be cool to get your thoughts if you do

I had not watched them at the time of getting this ask, so I proceeded to watch them so I could answer to the best of my ability

Finntastic Mr. Fox So for Mr. Fox, I do find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with what he's describing, and I appreciate that he says from the start that it's men and masc people who pass as cis men who experience male privilege, as well as him explicitly pointing out that he is part of an extremely lucky few that gets this privilege.

Side note, his fucking hair and eyes holy shit.

Anyway, part of what he's describing, how trans men are still affected by misogyny, either from people weaponizing our bodies as insults against us, how many of us carry trauma relating to being seen as women and girls growing up, and how we still need access to gendered health services even if we're completely stealth. I look at that and call it transandrophobia.

The other things, how trans men who can pass will often go stealth because it's so much easier than to be out and questioned and nitpicked constantly, how they will often feel alienated from the queer community (cause let's be real white, passing men like Mr. Fox here would be heavily judged unless he chose to out himself as trans or was super gay and even then likely side-eyed because he is a passing white man). That's also transandrophobia. It's all about the intersection of being a man who is transgender and all the complications that come with it.

The whole Bahamas thing is heartbreaking. I can't imagining having to renounce part of your identity just so you can feel comfortable in your own body.

Goddamnit Malcolm Oof, you gave me a goddamn movie didn't you lol? I realize I didn't have to watch it but I wanted to answer your question.

So this video was much less structured and there a few :/ moments for me that I'm fairly certain are more from speaking in the moment than an actual disagreement from these people's values and my own. Plus we get some non-white and non-binary perspectives! Always a plus. I took some notes so I'll try and make sense of them now.

My biggest takeaways were about how there's a huge adjustment when you are perceived as the opposite gender you were raised as. I should mention that all the men here appear pass even when some of them are on the shorter side (there's only one clearly nonbinary individual on the panel). It also sounds like they all started to socially and physically transition after growing up perceived as girls and young women. Important disclaimer here because people who learn and transition younger or who cannot pass will have different experiences.

Also important, even if I don't say "seen as a cis man" every time, when I talk about passing or being seen as a man, please assume I'm talking about being seen as a cis man unless otherwise denoted.

If you're raised as a woman, especially in a more liberal household, you're taught to speak up for yourself and demand the space you deserve. Makes sense right? Generally, societally, gendered expectations means that women are meant to be submissive and quiet so you have to combat that expectation. But when you switch and are perceived as a cis man, you can be seen as aggressive and off-putting for being so pushy.

This oddly enough ties back to some of the complaints I've seen on reddit where trans men in irl circles feel like they're not allowed to speak up -- a combination of their upbringing as "women" and the perceived privilege of identifying as a man in a feminist space gives trans women more chances to talk over them. It's where I think the "socialization" argument comes into play a bit. Because we have a panel of men here talking and agreeing that they were raised to be outspoken and had to quickly learn to tone it down or were cognizant of how it could be perceived should the be seen as a man demanding space.

There's also a big thing about race. We had two non-white dudes explain how they're often seen as more aggressive now than they did when they appeared to be women, especially Victor, who mentions that white feminists are far more likely to be racist to him when he points out they're being racist. There's also talk from a majority about how weird and off-putting people found them to be mid-transition.

They also highlight a lot of problems men, cis or not, face: having to be aware they are seen as more of a creep to people on the street, the inherent distrust people have about men with children, the lack of or perceived disinterest in a community, and how queer spaces treat men. There's a little thing there about how some queer spaces are trying to combat the privilege men face by banning cis men -- which, say it with me, leads to transandrophobia. Because they're designating cis men to be men and trans men to be non-men.

This "no cis men" allowed treehouse ends up not only alienating people who desperately need a community but it's a bandage on the problem, not a solution. And it reinforces the idea that cis men don't need/deserve/desire a community and traditional toxic masculine roles.

Also also, the limited emotions that's allowed to be displayed by men, the apparent ability to use any man for physical labor -- Tranye summarizes it well when he talks about weaponizing his vanity to not be used like that. Reminds me a bit of the idea people seemed to have about trans men protecting trans women in bathrooms.

And of course, being a visibly queer trans man? A whole host of issues they understandably didn't get into.

I do like they talked about what trans men can bring into the male community. The idea of using our stories of womanhood to protect women, of forcing cis men to stand down and question their misogyny and generally gross behavior, etc. It was all good. I dislike the fact they choose to label these traits of community building, emotional expression, et al as "feminine," though it was near the end of the video and a good shorthand to say "these qualities usually associated with femininity" when you're talking on the spot.

I also didn't like the idea of "men know masculinity is fragile" just because I've talked about before that trans masculinity is fragile and there's nothing wrong with buying the "boy products" because it makes you feel good, that sort of thing. I got a video about that somewhere...

But I'll leave it with this quote from Tranye because I feel like it summarizes everything they were saying about trans masculinity, trans male privilege, and transandrophobia (though they don't use the term):

"Trans men are the trash men who have to pick up the broken pieces of masculinity."

It's a hard job and not everyone can do it, but I want to be one of those that can.

I hope that answered your question at least? Maybe once all this shit dies down IRL I'll join Malcolm's discord and see if he'd be up for talking about transandrophobia as a concept.

[gothhabiba]

Hi. This question is in earnest. What does non-binary mean to you as a femme woman? I am butch and being non-binary feels as classed of an experience to be as being a woman. Being treated like a gnc person informs my identification the same way being treated like a woman does. What does it mean to be non-binary if it’s not a classed experience? Again, not trying to be a tool, just trying to understand better because I’ve learned a lot about gender from your blog.

hello & thanks for the question!

firstly I’m not sure why my identity as a fem or as a feminine-presenting woman / lesbian is relevant here, unless you’re under the impression that I identify as nonbinary--I don’t

I feel that some distinctions are being collapsed here--being gender nonconforming in presentation (presentation of course being what the term “gnc” tends to refer to, I’m not trying to argue that e.g. any gay person is “gender conforming”) is not the same thing as identifying as nonbinary. it’s entirely possible to be both, or only one or the other

treating nonbinaryness like a “classed” experience in the way that materialist feminists theorise women as a “class” would require arguing that how patriarchy extracts surplus value from one “class” for the benefit of another is specifically organised in one way or another around nonbinary people as a group (the exploitation of labour of course in part structuring what a “class” is for mat.fem.s)--I’ve never seen anyone try to argue this

assuming that all you meant by “class” is, like, a cohesive group defined by similar enough features that it’s reasonable and helpful to be able to talk about all of them at once (allowing for structuring differences in the form of race, class, &c.): I don’t think that there is just one coherent, cohesive “nonbinary” experience. I think that arguing that there is, or that one should be defined, is taking all the teeth out of what the term and conception of “nonbinaryness” are designed to do, aka challenge the naturalised sorting of people into gendered groups. calls for the articulation of a “nonbinary experience,” the consolidation of a “nonbinary aesthetic” that is clearly legible as “nonbinary” to your average outside observer, the inclusion of a “nonbinary” option on government identification, &c., just sound like people wanting to create a third gender, which of course gets no one anywhere

that tendency & those desires are led primarily by white afab nonbinary people, & I think you can kind of guess why--those are the people who are allowed to pretend that their specific experience of being nonbinary is or ought to be applicable to everyone, who don’t automatically see the danger in creating what basically amounts to a government database of trans people, who are in love with taxonomy to the point of insisting on one specific group identifier with plainly identifiable characteristics that everyone with x experiences can or ought to be “sorted” into, regardless of e.g. any specific genders or gendered experiences nonwhite or non-Western people may have within their own ethnic communities

the strength of “nonbinary” identification and theorising is in the refusal of naturalised gender categories, the challenging of the naturalisation of “gender” and “sex,” an insistence on a multiplicity of experience and the usage of language that is sensitive enough to capture that multiplicity. all of those strengths are eroded or lost when “nonbinary” is turned into a catch-all category of its own (in talking about the broader material motions and epistemologies of patriarchy--of course there are other contexts where it may be perfectly appropriate). that is, the entire point is that it doesn’t “mean” just one thing to be nonbinary

of course “woman” is subject to the same sort of splintering (not every woman is treated the same, has the same relation to global patterns of labour, &c.) but if we’re talking about e.g. how you tend to be treated in public, this is part of a much older conversation On Here about gender & perception where my argument was basically, you’re not solely sorted into “man” or “woman” by others but also a host of other qualifiers including, like, “failed / inadequately feminine woman,” “effeminate man,” whatever, these are all going to have to do with an interaction between your perceived asab & your perceived presentation according to any individual person, & these perceptions are all highly contingent and subject to shifting. I really don’t see any possible way that a marker of specifically “nonbinary” identity exists that other people can reasonably read or know to structure their perceptions around--but from your question I think you’re thinking more of gnc presentation in the first place!

[aggressive-positivity-network]

So I (A white cisgender heterosexual woman who likes pumpkin spice lattes and Animal Crossing, so yeah) grew up in a very, VERY LGBTQ+-phobic household, and that translated into me having basically no knowledge on the LGBTQ+ community. Could you do me a massive favor and just lay out straight the words and phrases and generally help a dumbass out?

Oooh, no problem! And believe me, you aren’t a dumbass. I knew next to nothing for a while, and I grew up in a very supportive household. I just didn’t have the means to learn about it.

Here’s a phrasebook for some common phrases you might hear:

TERF: Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist; they believe that trans women should not be included in their fight for gender equality, and that because trans woman “used to be men” they shouldn’t be allowed in women safe spaces because they might rape someone. Sooo yeah. Keep away from them. They are pretty nasty and misguided. Also known as radfems.

Pansexual: Attracted sexually to anyone of any gender identity.

Panromantic: Attracted romantically to anyone of any gender identity

Bisexual: Attracted sexually to two or more genders.

Biromantic: Attracted romantically to two or more genders

Pan/Bi Discourse: Some people think pansexual and bisexual should become one or the other because they’re very similar to each other, but whether you identify as either of them is a personal choice, and you shouldn’t let anyone dictate your identity - ever. You can even be both at the same time, if you choose to identify that way! Honestly, it isn’t that big of a deal which one you choose, as long as you feel comfortable between them!

Demisexual/Demiromantic: Needs to form a strong emotional bond with someone before pursuing a romantic or sexual relationship. They probably wouldn’t enjoy speed-dating or sleeping with someone they just met. They might not experience sexual attraction for someone unless they knew the person very well.

Asexual: Does not feel sexual attraction for anyone; however, they still might like to have sex, may be neutral about sex, or might even be repulsed by it. Most people confuse this with chastity (not choosing to have sex, usually for religious reasons) or abstinence (choosing not to have sex until married). However, they still might get horny, or want to pleasure themselves. The usual difference is having it with another person. If they see a hot guy, for example, the immediate thought may be, “Wow they’re attractive,” rather than, “Have my babies.”

Aromantic: Does not feel romantic attraction for anyone; this may mean that usual romantic relationships don’t appeal to the person, or that shows of romance (flowers, dates, etc.) doesn’t appeal to them. However, they can still have very strong platonic relationships, and still do enjoy sex, but might not develop crushes or want to go on a date with someone. They might marry platonically, or marry romantically on certain terms.

Grey/Graysexual: Anyone who is in that “gray” space between being asexual and being sexual. They might like the idea of sex, but hate the product. They might have fantasies they’d like to live out in the bedroom, but not actual sex. They might like sex, but under certain conditions. People have their own names for the different facets of graysexuality, but are all under this umbrella.

Grey/Grayromantic: Anyone in that “gray” space between romantic and aromantic. They might like huge shows of romance in novels, but wouldn’t be a fan of it happening to them. They might have a crush on a person, but would never be in a relationship with them, even if asked. Graysexuality also has different names for different facets, but it’s still all under this umbrella.

Queer: Usually used as a temporary or even permanent label for when someone is still trying to figure things out. They know that there is something inside of them that’s different - but they’re not quite sure yet.

Non-binary: People who are neither male nor female, and are outside the gender spectrum. A few have androgynous (gender-neutral) styles or body types, but no matter what they wear or what they look like, they are still non-binary!

Trans: Someone who was born gender, but knows in their heart that they are another. Someone may be born a boy, but always feel like a girl, vice versa, or both genders may change to non-binary, bigender, genderqueer, or genderfluid. Being trans simply means you are making the physical and/or mental transition from one gender or another.

Transmasc: A trans person that presents as masculine, with both clothes and manner.

Transfemme: A trans person that presents as feminine, with both clothes and gender.

Bigender: Someone who identifies as male sometimes and female sometimes.

Genderfluid: Someone who drifts from one end of the binary spectrum (male on one side, female on the other) and may have several sets of pronouns. They may feel more feminine one day, more masculine another, and somewhere in between later that week.

AMAB: Assigned Male At Birth; this has no bearing on current gender identity, but it’s medically useful and can help trans people talk about themselves before they transition.

AFAB: Assigned Female At Birth; this has no bearing on current gender identity, but it’s medically useful and can help trans people talk about themselves before they transition.

Two-Spirit: A Native American who identifies as the traditional third gender, with both a masculine and a feminine spirit inside of them. It’s a pretty new term, and not all Indigenous people choose to label themselves or others that way.

Femme: A woman who dresses and acts in a traditionally feminine way.

Butch: A woman who dresses and acts in a traditionally masculine way.

Beard: Describes a partner in a relationship that exists for the purpose of keeping someone’s true sexual attraction status a secret. A gay man might have a relationship with a woman, who would be considered his beard.

Queerplatonic Relationship: A relationship that is a mixture of the traditional platonic relationship and the traditional romantic relationship. People included in this relationship can raise children and own a house together, but most likely won’t participate in sexual and/or romantic activities.

Polyamorous Relationship: A relationship that includes three or more people at any given time. This may look like a couple having an open relationship, where they can date others as they please, or it may be a set few people that stay together. Two people can be attracted to one other person, three people can all be attracted to each other, two couples can have sexual or romantic relations with each other’s partner - there are infinite combinations, and, as long as it’s healthy, they’re all valid!

I hope this helps! This is not an exhaustive list, but these are pretty much the basics and a little bit more. If you have any specific term you’d like me to define, I’d be more than happy to! Also, if I got any wrong, please feel free to correct me, and I’ll edit the post as soon as I can!

Also, who’s your favorite Animal Crossing character? I like Blathers a lot! Nerds and professors have my entire heart.

[itsclydebitches]

(WLW anon) I really don’t like the “bad rep is better then none at all”. I hate that. We should want good rep, because bad rep has been used time and time again by homophobes as to say we shouldn’t get representation. To me it’s not “gay can have the same flaws as het”, it’s “fix the flaws in the het”. Also I know Renora being independent was a good, I was just saying in comparison BB. Also, yes, they were separated, but also didn’t stop thinking about each other. Especially bad with Yang.

Indulge me for a moment because I want to take a trip down memory lane and list some—just some—of the queer rep that has been important to me over the years:

Ellen comes out both as herself and as her character… years later, she’s a hated millionaire who is criticized for how she treats her staff

The wildly influential Buffy gives us two women entering a loving relationship… except then Tara is killed off, Willow goes evil for a time, and Buffy comes under fire for Joss Whedon’s everything

The beloved and respectable headmaster of one of the most popular book series ever published is revealed to be gay… except it doesn’t count because it wasn’t in the text and now all of Harry Potter is cancelled because JKR is transphobic

Kurt is an unambiguously gay teen in a hugely popular TV series, acting as one of the first overt representations a generation has seen… except he’s way too stereotypical and Glee is a joke now

Orange is the New Black gives us a number of queer women, including one of our first trans characters… but isn’t it problematic that they’re all criminals?

Brooklyn Nine-Nine hosts an out gay captain and gives us a bisexual coming out story that resonated with many, myself included… except now we’re supposed to hate all the characters on principle because they’re cops

Korra and Asami walk off into the spiritual sunset together… but they never kiss or anything, so that doesn’t count either

Steven Universe gives us a queer relationship and a wedding… but it’s an issue that this is just a kid’s show and, really, does it count when the rep is embodied by space rocks whose entire species only creates a single gender? Feels like a cop-out

Same with Good Omens. Yeah, Crowley and Aziraphale clearly love each other… but you never see them kiss or declare their intentions. It’s great ace rep though! Unless you want to level the criticism that asexual characters are always nonhuman

A character intended to be a minor guest becomes a show staple and eventually declares his love for one of the two main characters… except then Castiel immediately dies, Dean doesn’t respond, and they never meet on screen again

I finished Queen’s Gambit the other day and the main character had a one-night stand with a woman! … but everyone is talking about how bisexuality is used to represent her lowest point, so that’s bad too

I could go on for literal pages. Some of these arguments I agree with (Dumbledore), others I’ve pushed back against quite strongly (Crowley and Aziraphale), but all of them are valid criticisms depending on what part of the queer community you’re in and what your expectations are. My point here is that it’s all “bad rep.” I mean that seriously. If anyone reading this is scrambling for the comment section to say why [insert media title here] is actually fantastic rep, I guarantee that someone disagrees. Or if they don’t, give it some time. Just wait until the characterization becomes offensively outdated, or another part of the story ruins the relationship, or it comes out that the author did something truly horrific, or the terminology changes and it’s labeled as “problematic” now… just wait. At some point, any rep we feel is good rep now will be criticized, cancelled, and dragged through the mud. The rep that I personally haven’t seen much push-back against—like the beloved Captain Jack Harkness in Doctor Who, or Schitts Creek that just won a ton of awards—is wrapped up in the criticism, “So it’s all just about able-bodied, cis, (mostly) white dudes, huh? :/”  Even the argument that queer characters need to be written by queer authors doesn’t hold up. I absolutely adored Sense8. “Wow, a gay main character in a loving relationship with another gay man, both of whom enter a loving poly relationship with a woman, another lesbian trans main character who marries the love of her life on screen, an entire cast arguably queer due to them sharing orgy scenes centered around the emotional intimacy they share, everyone survives, and this was written by two trans women! Great, right?” Well, not according to the wealth of opinions explaining how Sense8 is horrible rep, actually. Every piece of rep we’ve got is either currently flawed or will become flawed in the future.

So what do we do with that?

That’s where my “I’d rather have bad rep than no rep at all” comes in. For me, that’s not waving the white flag. That’s not an oath that I won’t expect better rep in the future (I do) or that I won’t criticize the rep we get (BOY DO I), but rather just an acknowledgement of reality. The vast majority—if not the entirety—of rep is “bad rep” in one way or another, but I’d still rather have it than nothing at all. Because I’ve lived just long enough and studied media just enough to know what nothing looked like. It was watching all queer characters meet untimely deaths. Before that it was watching queer characters be derided and treated as jokes. Before that it was nothing but coding, where queer characters didn’t exist except in our own headcanons and interpretations. Obviously “bad rep” covers a very large range of issues and “They haven’t even confirmed this relationship yet” is a bigger issue than “This queer character embodies one or two, mild stereotypes,” but ultimately I’d take any of it over nothing at all. And enjoying what we’ve currently got doesn’t mean I’m willing to settle for it indefinitely.

To use an iffy analogy, imagine there’s a factory. This factory makes plates. So. Many. Plates. Big plates, small plates, plain plates, decorative plates, plates for every possible occasion in your life—and everyone with a steak for dinner is pleased as punch. You though? You’ve got soup. You need a bowl. Your entire life you’ve been struggling to eat your soup off a plate (it doesn’t work) and listening to friends and family claim that the plate with a slightly raised edge could be a bowl if you squint (it’s not). To say it’s frustrating is an understatement.

But then, one day, the factory starts producing bowls too. Hurray! Except as soon as you get your hands on one, you’re told you really shouldn’t be using it, let alone praising it. Look at the state of that bowl! It’s cracked right down the middle, ugly as hell, shoddily made all around… you’re not really going to settle for that, are you? And no, you obviously still want the factory to produce better bowls, but at the same time, this is a bowl. You’ve never gotten one before and you can finally enjoy your meal, even if the soup leaks at times. Sometimes a lot. But you’re still feeling better about your meal than you ever have before. And what you then begin to realize is that lots of the plates are a mess too. They also have cracks, they’re also ugly, many are also shoddily made. The difference is that the factory is producing so many plates at such a rapid pace that every steak eater is able to get by. One plate breaks completely? You’ve got a thousand fallbacks. Don’t like the look of this one? A thousand other options. You disagree about what “shoddily made” means? Luckily there are enough plates that everyone can find what they prefer! But the bowls… there’s only a few. Some are really expensive. Others are only available for a limited time before they suddenly disappear. Your bowl breaks and you have to wait months, years sometimes, to get another one. You’re constantly told to go buy this one obscure bowl no one else has heard about and yeah, you like it... but you’d also like to buy one of the bowls everyone is already enjoying. You find yourself looking at the plates and thinking, “I’d like that. I’d like to have so many options that the flaws, while still a problem, are much more bearable.” You’re still going to demand that the factory get its shit together, you’re still going to (rightly) complain about the awful quality of your bowl… but it’s still nice to have a bowl, period. There are still things you like about it, even if it’s a mess: the color, the size, the beauty of the shape of it. Its potential. You’re still pleased you have something to enjoy and that helps serve the need you’re looking to fill, even if that something is imperfect.

That’s “bad rep is better than no rep.” To bring this very long response back to Blake/Yang, I don’t think their problems negate their benefits. Is their relationship currently non-canonical and filled with a number of writing issues everyone has a right to be angry about? Yup. I express that anger a great deal. Are they still half of a team on a very popular show that is (presumably) set to be canonized as queer? Yup. I’d much rather live in a world where big shows like RWBY try to include queer rep and fail in a multitude of ways—with the expectation and hope that they’ll continue to improve—rather than in a world where authors a) don’t care or b) are too scared to try. Because that’s where a “good rep or no rep” stance leads. The danger isn’t homophobes because they’re, well, homophobes. It doesn’t matter if the rep is good or not, they hate it on principle. But if queer authors writing for other queer identities, or allies writing queer identities, or even queer authors writing their own experiences (like in Sense8) continually come under non-stop fire for their attempts… there’s a good chance that many people won’t ever try. We’re already seeing that here on tumblr with young authors admitting that they wouldn’t touch [insert topic here] with a ten-foot pole because just look at what happens when you get it wrong. And authors will get things wrong because authors are fallible people forever unlearning their own ignorance. So though it might sound strange coming from a blog that has turned into such a RWBY critical space, I am glad that RWBY’s queer rep exists, despite all the frustrations that I share about it. I think a RWBY with various types of “bad” queer rep is better than a RWBY with no queer rep at all, particularly when “bad” or “good” is so intensely subjective. There’s a middle ground between passively accepting whatever we’re given, and tearing into rep with such ferocity that we end up rejecting it all. There’s a space where we can be critical of rep and embrace the parts that work for us, simultaneously.

I hope and expect the het rep will get better too, but… that’s never going to happen instantly. To quote RWBY, there’s no magic wand we can wave to fix all our problems. Rather, it will take slow, plodding, meandering, lifetimes’ worth of work to see that change occur and I personally don’t want to spend the one life I have waiting for that perfect rep to show up. Because it’s unlikely that it will. While we work, I’d rather find the good in what rep we’ve already got.  

[phoenixfire-thewizardgoddess]

What is your opinion on straight passing privilege? I (bi) don’t think it exists, but a close (lesbian) friend of mine insists that it does bc “You can hold hands with your SO (nb cis passing man) in public without risking being the victim of a hate crime.” I have been researching but keep seeing this same argument coming up, and I’m unsure and don’t want to be making anyone upset if I’m being ignorant here.

I think that there's a lot of fucked up internet politics around who is and isn't allowed in the community. Which is ridiculous.

Gay, Lesbian, Bi, Pan, Poly, Ace, Aro, Trans, Intersex, etc.

The only people who shouldn't be in the community are cishets, and pedos, none of that 'it's a sexuality' nonsense, it's predation.

The concept of straight-passing is ridiculous, primarily because it's all based on assumptions. If you're in an m/f relationship, and you are both cis and heterosexual, it's straight.

But here's the catch, if you identify as any LGBPT+ then it's not straight.

Two trans people in an m/f relationship is not straight passing.

Two bi people in an m/f is not straight passing, it's queer babes, it's in the name. If you're bi and your partner is like, straight, it's still queer from your side of the fence.

It's the 'pick a side' argument from another direction, this straight passing nonsense. Where you are villified by the straights if you have a same-sex relationship (or fetishised, let's be real, every part of the acronymn has it's own p*rn category aimed at straight people with a kink), and if you have a relationship with the opposite gendered person, the queer community gets cranky.

Two things:

1) Is this friend between 13 and 25? Bc they could still be working this out or being mentored by t*rfs, or had some bad info. IT could be jealousy or fear of being open where you live. Perhaps you could question what makes her say that; has she had a bad experience, or did someone say this to her. where are you Are you in america? are there snake wielding jesus warriors near you? Blink SOS if you need an escape route, child

2) Who wins when everyone in the queer community is divided and policing one another? Telling everyone off for dating this person or that person or not at all

I didn't get an invite to the big queer conference to make these decisions, so like, they're not valid. It's some pocket of internet active idiots who think they can speak for everyone.

What we need to do is stop pulling this bullshit on one another and get back to asking just why the fuck it's not okay for people who are perceived as not-straight or cis etc to hold hands in public.

There's a problem for every facet of the acronym, babes and dudes and theys. Lesbians are heavily sexualised by straight cis dudes. Gays are heavly fetisihed by straight cis women. to the point where even saying 'I'm gay' is considered to be an obscene, sexual act that you should not let children be exposed to.

And there's always someone from the opposite gender who thinks they 'are confused' or 'haven't met the right (gender) person yet', or 'they could fix them with their magic genitals' or mumbled religious nonsense. There's such intense stereotypes that people can't stand women who look butch, but also you can't 'really' be a lesbian unless you are' or gay men can't just be, like, a normal dude, instead of some flamboyant in-your-face charicature.

Of course people who match the stereotype exist, too. And they get no respect for fitting into the stereptypes either, it's just another reason for disrespect. There's no winning.

Bi's can't talk to anyone without hearing a question of a threesome come up or being attacked from either side for coice of partner.

Pans, same, but also kitchenware jokes. Both Bi and Pan are considered sluts and whores and can't decide or are going to cheat, etc. Or the 'you're being special snowflakes', 'choose a side', 'you're secretly gay and won't admit / you're secretly straight and want attention' etc.

Ace/Aro - everyone under this banner gets the whole 'you just haen't found the right person' or 'when you're older/you're a late bloomer' or 'how do you know?' or 'maybe you're straight/gay and haven't worked it out yet?' invalidating them completely and trying to push sex onto them. The queer community has always let Ace and Aro in under the Bi banner, and they are welcome. But the internet community, usually young people, are tearing each other to shreds over it lmao.

Chill.

Non-binary, trans, intersex. They have been here for ages, but people from one community try to destroy their credibility, despite them existing since humanity has. It's big on p*rn and fetish sites too, lot of straight dudes think these things are hot and sexy, but would spit on trans people in the street. Hypocrites (I mean, every second low-brow comedy movie out there makes a thai-l*dyb*y joke, and how it 'doesn't count' like yikes).

Nb has only just been recognised, which is funny bc society literally made up gender and the rules and pretended that was how its encoded in DNA lmao.

Transpeople have it bad though. Between the cis straights, the cis queer community (primarily t*rfs and those who fall for misinformation) and the fetishists, and the medical community who treats them like an illness rather than people. Like, they are afforded respect if they 'pass', but even then it's still an EW factor.

Transwomen are seen as 'men in dresses who want to break into women's spaces' and treated horrifically; assaults are very high. Transmen are seen as butch women, and 'gender tr*itors' by the Crazy Motherfuckers we mentioned before; their assaults are high. They're not considered Real People unless they meet the ridiculously high standards for each gender; unless they perform Right.

I remember, but did not understand at the time bc I recall i was little, that there was a gameshpw bachelorette style and there was a big twist. You know what the twist was? That the bachelorette they'd been dating and trying to win over... was trans. I don't think that she knew it would be the big twist, either; of the two men remaining, bother were angry and one might have been sick. Might be on youtube.

But like, that's funny to the non-queer community. They put a huge fucking target on this woman's back, put her in danger of being hurt, abused, killed, by anyone who watched it. By the men who she had 'lied to' as they chose to frame it, of their weird white american families who could have sought revenge. Like yikes.

And intersex people (called h*rmaphrodites for a long time even by medical personnel) were also a p*rn category and/or medical curiosity for centuries. Not to mention all the cases of parents who just went with 'make them a (specific gender)' if there was mixed presentation, at birth, and got mad at the kids for being like "Hey so, you flipped the coin wrong and I'm ___" even thought the potential for this was always on the cards.

And the parents often make a big messa bout how their baby ___ is dead and gone, even if they DO accept the person/child as who they really are. It's like, I get it they have changed but you didn't mourn their first haircut or lost baby tooth like this and that was change too, chill.

-

Straight-passing is a projection and a weapon. Like, is it the people in the relationship's fault that society looks at the pair and decides they are m/f, straight and cis? Nah, it's what people are conditioned assume and that's on them.

We can't bring it into the queer spaces and keep perpetuating that shit, because it's nonsense. Queer people are dying in other countries and your friend wants to being smart-assed about the fact you hold hands with your nb datemate in public?

-

Nonsense. That's right up there with t*rfs and the gold-star bullshit that was going on for a few years there. Probs still is among the younger people lmaoooo.

'Passing priviledge' is a myth, and it is used to hurt people. Vulnerable people and those who need support / guidance and assistance from their queer communities more than ever. So try to talk to your friend or try The Whole Friend disposal services, either way, chill.

The real issue here is that any of us are at risk of a hate crime for daring to even show affection in public. That even in safe spaces, 'allies' and those wise enough not to be openly homo/trans/bi/pan/ace/aro/other phobic are still side-eyeing you and wanting to talk 'for you' without listening to the community itself.

We have bigger issues than this, and your friend (and some others on the internet) need to get a grip and prioritise.

[Insert strained analogy about being pro-child but childfree in a suburb where everyone got married out of high school and anticipates you and your partner will too, no matter how often you remind them No Thanks. But you babysat the other day and people thought you and your partner looked like 'naturals' when you took child to the park and played with them. And you remind them, hey, chill, we like kids too but it's not for us. And they get pissy and pushy.]

---------

I can only point it out from my perspective, I'm certain there other queer people from the above acronymn community who can present their thoughts on the matter to and what it means to them.

Thanks for the question, good-bi.

[what-even-is-thiss]

The thing is, early on in discovering myself I read about a lot of varied experiences. People who medically transition but don’t consider themselves trans and don’t transition socially. People who consider themselves trans but never transition. People who use neopronouns. People who detransition later in life because they feel like their needs changed. People changing their gender identity after being out for decades. And none of these people saying that they regret their decisions.

And now what are people hearing? Absolutes, I guess. Why are people bashing neopronouns? In 2013 I didn’t even know that they/them pronouns were an option. Neopronouns were all I saw. Nobody even talked about dysphoria much from what I saw. Trans people were what they were and made the decisions that they did. Now I guess people are trying more to appeal to the mainstream?

I guess this is especially a problem for transmasc people. Transfem folks have it rough and have their own debates I’m not going to comment on because it’s not my place, but the main difference between trans men and woman and what causes tension between the communities at times is our difference in visibility. Generally in The past the strategies of trans people that transitioned and didn’t just stay in the closet or live as gays or lesbians or drag performers fell into two different categories. Conform and aim to be invisible or reject conformity and live on the fringes of society. And there are trans men and women who have chosen either path, but in general, Trans men have opted for conformity and invisibility. Not all trans men can pass even with medical transition, but those who can have most often opted to vanish.

However, in the new age where trans rights is a meme and at least two transgender celebrities exist, transgender men have slowly started to realize I think that conformity isn’t always a necessity. And that, I think, scares some people.

A lot of early stories that influenced me were by transfeminine people. Not necessarily people like me. It’s very possible that I’m wrong but from what I’ve seen transfem folks (or at least the ones in the spotlight) more often see rejection of societal norms as inevitable and that’s historically how they’ve survived. How Trans men have survived is fitting into societal norms. But now that we no longer have to conform and be invisible we’re kind of caught in a weird spot. Generational trauma is a thing with trans folks I think. Unless there’s a better term I don’t know about. Other people’s stories and pain affect the way you think, especially if they’re like you. And trans men have had problems. Emotional pain from performing femininity, bullying and abuse associated with sexuality or gender performance, high rates of substance abuse, high rates of being sexually assaulted, other problems associated with being raised as a girl experienced in a uniquely transgender way.

So with all this collective trauma floating around as transmasculine people’s voices finally start to bubble to the surface a bit I think some of us are starting to cling to the community’s old coping mechanism. Conformity. Because if we’re trying to be visible now then cis people might want to hurt us. So how do we stop them from hurting us? By trying to be cis. By acting like being cisgender is the ideal. If we try to look like cisgender men then they won’t hurt us, right?

Except that’s not really how that works. Even if you live as a cis man you’re going to be surrounded by transphobia anyways and know that you’re always one locker room incident away from being found out, because for the most part even with surgery and prosthetics we do not pass the locker room test most of the time. And when they find out you may be tempted to hold yourself up as not like those weird transtrenders but transphobes don’t really see a difference between you and gnc trans men and non binary people on a fundamental level. You’re the trans community’s version of the two conventionally attractive white gay men making a nuclear family in their big house. A poster child. Not necessarily representative of the majority. But it’s hard to accept that. It’s a lot easier to believe that everyone else wants to conform to survive too. But that’s not how it is.

So you get all these trans men striving for conformity and everyone else striving to just... be themselves basically. Not necessarily aiming to show a middle finger to society (although that is a valid goal) but not aiming to conform either. Then in the wake of all that we get the focus on dysphoria, the shaming of neopronouns, the backlash against feminine trans men and sometimes even gay or asexual trans men in rarer cases. And it stems from fear, I think. A fear we all have. Of rejection, violence, resurgence in mental illness. I think almost everyone who’s been in contact with other trans people for a while knows at least one person who has died for one reason or another. But at the end of the day, and what I think a lot of people don’t see, conformity doesn’t really fix any of our problems or make us more acceptable to cis people. Most cis people have no idea what dysphoria is. Even cis people with transgender loved ones. They really don’t understand it or care about it. In my experience medical professionals don’t even ask you about it. I told my doctors that I use two sets of pronouns and they didn’t bat an eye.

So like... I dunno. I just wish we focused less on conformity and more on exploration. We’re coming out of the shadows now. Who are we as a community? Unwelcoming? I sure hope not. With my experience talking to trans people irl everybody’s just kind of like whatever. They don’t care as much and I just wish that the Internet would catch up.