#very binary society and being binary trans is acceptable

[bluejay-makes]

Drow kiddos growing up in different cities

[acertainmoshke]

Wip files tag game: I’m so curious about what Akolla is 👀 -stuffaboutwriting

Ahhh thank you I'm so glad someone asked! Akolla is a person, as are Talil and Tlapil. They're all part of a 1,000-year fantasy history I'm building surrounding the kingdom of Halara. Specifically, there will be 10 books, focusing on different generations of the royal family.

Akolla is the focus of the second book, the fourth royal generation after Talil the war hero united them as one kingdom. Akolla is an only child and the first royal generation to be somewhat isolated from the general population, though he doesn't live in an actual castle until he becomes Kelesh (the Halaran word for ruler).

I'm not going to tell you everything about Akolla because that won't be all that interesting out of context. What I am going to tell you is about their gender system, because it's my favorite part. Halaran only has one pronoun for all people, vi, but I use different pronouns to differentiate in English. Their gender system is fun and complex, so have an organized list:

Children don't have a gender at all. They all wear tunics and leggings and grow their hair long (well, everyone grows their hair long but adults cover it). They choose their gender when they reach the age of apprenticeship at 14. There's a big ceremony and everything. At that point they start wearing gendered adult clothes and hair coverings--almost all adults wear some sort of headscarves.

With 6 different gender options, gender (mostly) is not based on physicality but on what you prioritize in life, what you want to project to the world, and which deity you feel most represents your self.

Gendered clothing is traditional but not completely fixed--the headscarf style is near-universal and can be the only way to read gender. But also, one can't always be sure. That doesn't matter as much when you don't need to know what pronoun to use for someone, and asking can start interesting conversations.

Ku is the gender associated with the sun deity, with warmth and farming and protection and life. They wear skirts and loose shirts and headscarves in a style similar to a tichel. I use eso/eson pronouns in translation

Aig is the gender associated with the river deity, with strength and leadership and hardiness and endurance. They wear pants and loose shirts and headscarves in a style similar to a turban. I use be/bel pronouns for them.

Dakal is the gender associated with the wilderness deity, with athletics, freedom, cunning, and bravery. They wear long robes and headscarves similar to a flowy hijab style. I use zie/zir for them.

Zjigol is a gender associated with the deity of craftsmanship, associated with art, creativity, entertainment, puzzles, and beauty. They wear wrap-around skirts and either no shirt or a shawl depending on weather and their own preferences. Their headscarves are worn tied at the base of the skull with a tail down their back or over their shoulder. I was running out of options by this point and I'm really not sure what they're called. I use ne/nem pronouns for them.

Kenba is a gender associated with the deity of change, with seasons, adventure, relationships, and politics. They wear single-piece jumpsuits with varying levels of tight or loose fitting legs depending on the current style. Their headscarves are tied tight across their hair with a knot above their forehead. I use kri/krun for them.

Yo'em are different. Traditionally, originally, one was considered a holy and blessed child if they were born with different physical traits. This includes noticeable intersex traits, those that appear at birth or at puberty, as well as other unusual ways to be born, missing or with differently shaped limbs, etc. Initially, they had no choice in the matter and were often sent to become priests (although others could be as well). They were thought to be good omens. In later years, their options expanded and they were given more choice. Eventually, some began to choose their own gender while others redefined what being yo'em meant to them. They wear tunics and leggings, but in a much more adult style than children's, and no headscarf, leaving their hair loose. I use the Halaran pronoun vi for them because I'd run out by then.

[softdreamlesssleep]

It's so funny how we were both like "I'm probably non binary but I have a job so I don't care about that rn" and then we got together, talked about gender and stuff, both realised it meant nothing to us and absolutely nothing changed except for the fact we now have this understanding that we're just two people who love eachother without feeling the need to conform to any sort of norm with how we dress, act or treat eachother.

[ugly-anarchist]

I've seen quite a few posts about people who want to "transition to intersex" and it's really starting to frustrate me

Intersex doesn't mean "androgynous", it doesn't mean "both male and female", it doesn't mean "somewhere in between the binary"

Intersex means you have naturally occurring sex characteristics that don't align with what society deems "correct." You cannot transition to being intersex because it's not something that can be done intentionally.

The changes caused by HRT or surgery do not make you intersex and you do not want an intersex body because there is no single definition of what an intersex body looks like.

If you're perisex and want a body that is androgynous, somewhere between male and female, or both male and female then you're allowed to want that. You're allowed to want whatever it is you want your body to look like, but you will never have an "intersex" body and you shouldn't be using the label intersex.

People who say they want to have an intersex body either fundamentally do not understand what being intersex is or they have a very fetishized idea of what being intersex is like. (Ex: they think being intersex means you have both sets of genitalia)

As a nonbinary intersex person I know what it's like to want your body to look nonbinary, but that isn't what makes me intersex. What makes me intersex is the fact that I have secondary sex characteristics that do not match what society deems normal. And, btw, that isn't a nice thing. I'm learning how to accept that part of me but my intersex traits actually give me major dysphoria.

So yeah, TLDR: Perisex trans people stop being weird about intersex bodies.

[autolenaphilia]

I’ve seen a lot of explanations for young queer people being so weirdly puritan, as in the no-kink-at-pride discourse, the anti-ship people working themselves into moralistic anger paroxysms over fanfic and the frequent callouts of people over harmless consensual kinks. Like people, including myself, have attributed it to the after-effects of an evangelical Christian upbringing or the related problem of the very sheltered and isolated childhoods many of these people have had. And that’s all probably true to a certain extent.

But honestly, it’s probably boils down to a simple thing: a form of queer respectability politics. All forms of queerness in cishetnormative society are seen as freakish degenerate perversion, but some are seen as worse than others. And openly disavowing other queers with weird kinks is the most common form to buy respect from normie society, and it does have some material benefits for them. It’s common to almost all forms of oppression for there to be a dynamic of asking certain sections of the oppressed to sell out other oppressed people for their own benefit. Divide and conquer. This has gone on for literally decades. The respectable monogamous cis white gay male couple who condemn those other gays who are into leather and bondage and casual sex is almost a cliché at this point.

And let’s be honest, some people in the queer community are more privileged than others and thus able to wield this kind of respectability politics against those more oppressed than them. This is why transfems are so often targeted by TME queers for callouts over harmless kinks. There is little more disgusting to the cishetnormie mind than a transfem being sexual. And so other queers are able to wield transmisogyny to build their own respectability. What all those callouts from TME queers are actually saying, if you would do a They Live glasses style analysis, is:“I’m not a degenerate perverted sex freak, but that transfem over there is, do harm to her, not me.”

Transmisogyny is so strong that the figure of the degenerate transfem can even be used to redeem previously unacceptable figures of queer sexuality. I’ve seen multiple posts that present the aforementioned leather and bondage cis gay male kinksters as wholesome in contrast with whatever evil kink they are ascribing to transfems this week. Nothing is as evil to anti-kink moralists as two trans lesbians who do fauxcest roleplay by calling themselves sisters.

And when queers deprogram themselves from cisheteronormativity, they tend to do it in very self-serving ways. They only unlearn their bigotry and disgust against varieties of queerness that apply to them. So cis gays accept that cis gay male and cis lesbian sex is fine, various TME trans people unlearn their bigotry against tme non-binary people or taking testosterone. The queer things that are part of their identity, that they are inclined to do. But basically no variety of queer listed in this paragraph have any strong incentive to unlearn their bigotry and disgust against transfems, their transmisogyny And why would they? They can use transmisogyny to their own benefit, to raise their status within the queer community and in wider society by throwing transfems to the wolves.

[baeddel-txt]

it's very concerning to me when i see people denounce baeddelism but not analyze any of the reasons why it's such a harmful ideology and instead pivot it back to how the original baeddels were cultlike.

like, yes, that's an extremely important thing to acknowledge. but we also need to take a step back and analyze how it's a flawed ideology that does nothing but hurt people.

trans people, as a whole, are almost never in a place of gender-based privilege in our modern society. never. it doesn't matter what sex you were assigned at birth or what gender you transitioned to. ultimately, none of us fit within the bounds of cisnormative society. it is impossible to transition into privilege because the act of transitioning itself ensures that, once again, you will never fit into what is deemed acceptable within these societal standards. it doesn't matter if you're fifty years down the line from the start of your transition- if the wrong person finds out your assigned sex at birth you still run the risk of violence. there are hundreds and hundreds of cases of trans people freely living their lives in stealth only to be outed and erased posthumously.

the entire baeddel movement hinges on the idea that, as opposed to the currently existing systems that perpetuate violence against trans people, the ultimate enemy of transgender women is AFAB trans people. this is absolutely untrue. the only world in which transgender men would hold any kind of gender-based privilege is in a hypothetical in which trans people are always treated as their preferred gender post-transition- and in this world, it's doubtful that transphobia would even exist in the first place. bigots do not look at a transgender person and determine what direction they are transitioning in before enacting prejudice. and while yes, some of this can definitely stem from misplaced transmisogyny, we also need to acknowledge that transgender men face their own unique form of oppression that serves as an intersection of transphobia and misogyny. the infantilization, erasure, and corrective violence that transgender men and similarly-aligned trans people face are, in fact, a form of prejudiced oppression!

this isn’t to say that afab trans people can't perpetuate transmisogyny. anyone can, because our society is inherently transmisogynistic and it falls on the individual to recognize and analyze their own unconscious prejudices. (this goes for all forms of bigotry.) what i'm saying is that this is absolutely not something unique to afab trans people. and once again the systems in place to perpetuate violence against trans people are a much bigger threat.

i think the reason i haven't seen much deconstruction of this is how this sort of rhetoric still echoes around online trans spaces to this day, with the most prevalent example being the established TME/TMA binary and scaremongering about any discussions of transandrophobia as inherently transmisogynistic. i never thought that i would have to explain in the year of our lord 2024 that transgender men do, in fact, face misogyny, but here we are.

other trans people are not your enemy. stop drinking the radfem kool-aid and fight alongside your brothers, sisters and siblings for a better future for us all. amen.

(apologies for any bad wording, this was written very late at night. i hope this was a good analysis of this topic.)

.

[genderkoolaid]

I just, I don’t know. I don’t know how to make sure people only see me as a straight cis binary man who’s attraction to women is heterosexual when people are so quick to look for an excuse to call trans men lesbians and associate them with femininity, I don’t want to police other people’s labels because you fall into a cesspool of “acceptable” and “non acceptable”, but at the same time I don’t want to be able to be associated with lesbianism or it’s connotations in any way. I want to be able to say I’m a man and have that convey that I do not want people that consider themselves lesbians or heterosexual men to be attracted to me. I don’t want gender to be fake, at least not for me, and I don’t want the mixing of labels because for me it feels like it is creating the opportunity to be misgendered and forced into being seen as some sort of “half man” or “not really a man”. I want to be a man, just a guy, and I feel like there’s an increasing opportunity with these labels to misinterpret that, and yeah, I’m scared. I want people to be able to do what they want, as long as I will unequivocally be seen as a man.

The thing is... you are, unequivocally, a man. But in transphobic society, there is no guarantee you will unequivocally seen as a man, and certainly not by everyone.

There is nothing we can do that will make our transness acceptable for transphobic society. No matter how hard you try to be the perfect man, or how much you try to distance yourself from anything that could possibly associate you with womanhood, transphobes will not suddenly respect who you are. If there's anything to be learned from transmeds, its that trying to make people shrink their identities to something cis people can understand does nothing to fix transphobia but does everything to perpetuate it and hurt other trans people.

Cis people do not need weird trans people to make opportunities for them to misgender you. They will do that themselves. This is what we mean when we say other queer people are not the enemy; you are, even if unconsciously, blaming other queer people for the bigoted actions of cishet people. You are drawing a line from "being misgendered" to "other trans men calling themselves lesbians". You are trying to find a way to appeal to transphobic society to respect you so that you can avoid the pain of transphobia, but that will not happen. You cannot respectability politics your way out of being disrespected by transphobes. It fucking sucks and there's no way around it until we create a society free from queerphobia. That's why we have to stick together, that's why transunity is vital.

Again, this is very similar to bi lesbians being blamed for giving straight men an excuse to hit on lesbians; they don't need an excuse. I would like you to ask yourself: why do I jump to blaming other queer people for the actions of cishets? Why do I assume that, if they changed how they acted, it would mean my life got easier? Why do I feel that trans people have a responsibility to act and identify themselves a certain way to shape how cis people treat us, as if its our duty to make them stop being transphobic instead of theirs?

[our-abinary-experience]

let's talk about anti-xenogender bigotry, as it often reveals a lot of how people see gender, and especially nonbinary gender.

this post in particular is inspired by a reddit post i found by accident when i just wanted to download the xenogender flag (lol).

the post was shared by a trans woman who claimed that xenogenders aren't genders and thus not valid. she made sure though to say that she totally supports nonbinary people.

her first point on why xenogenders don't exist was that how valid a gender is is determined by its societal support, and since xenogenders are only supported in "fringe extremist "trans" spaces", they aren't real.

firstly, interesting that any trans person who supports xenogender people gets their trans card revoked. we're no longer trans, we're "trans".

secondly, hinging the validity of a gender on the amount of social support it has directly contradicts with her supposed support of nonbinary people. maybe she happens to live in the most nonbinary-friendly place ever, but overall, the very concept of nonbinary gender does not have a lot of societal support. so, according to her logic, nonbinary people are inherently less valid than binary people. some might even say that only fringe extremist "trans" spaces support nonbinary people. and, while trans itself is not a gender, if we add gender modality to the mix, then binary trans people don't exactly have massive societal support either. as a trans woman, does she consider her womanhood less valid than cis women's? basing the validity of a gender on societal support doesn't make any sense because there actually isn't a single monolithic society, and the societies that have historically recognised and celebrated more than two genders have been forcibly binarised by white european colonisers. did nonbinary gender become less valid over time and now it's slowly gaining validity as support for us is slowly growing? none of her logic in this makes sense. her rhetoric is inherently exorsexist and binarist, not just against xenogenders but basically against any nonbinary gender which she claims to support, and against cultural genders too.

the "societal support" argument completely falls apart because it means that every marginalised identity of any kind is inherently less valid and less real. she's revealing her bigotry here: it's not really about societal support, it's about which genders she arbitrarily decides are real and valid.

her second argument why xenogenders are not real was that any gender that exists outside of a triangle of male, female and genderless doesn't exist. you can only slide between those, like being hallway between male and genderless or in the middle of all three, but not outside. this is the classic gender trinary of male/female/agender and it's how i used to see gender as a baby enby.

firstly, gender isn't bound to whatever spectrum you personally decide is acceptable. there are many ways to be outside of that triangle besides xenogenderness. this logic basically says that the only valid way to be abinary is to be agender. not even abinary men or women exist in that logic, since the concept of abinary doesn't exist besides agenderness.

so, how can someone say she supports nonbinary people while saying a whole lot of us aren't real, even the ones who aren't xenogender, simply because she, as a binary person, thinks she has the right to decide what the gender spectrum looks like and whose gender is real and whose isn't?

all her points on why xenogenders aren't real also apply to multiple or all nonbinary genders. especially coming from a binary person, it reveals a huge ignorance to the nonbinary experience as well as a very narrow view of gender.

we're all in this together. clearly, exorsexists can't tell the difference between someone who is xenogender or someone who is, for example, ilyagender, or maybe even someone who happens to be within that gender triangle but within that have a gender that is not socially supported, like proxvir.

this is all the more reason for all of us nonbinary people to stick together and not draw lines in the sand about which nonbinary gender is valid and acceptable. if something harms one of us, they always end up harming all of us in some way. we're in this together.

[absintheandtextbooks]

Ok so I haven’t posted like a proper potentially controversial deep dive here but I need to say some things about this season of Bridgerton. Before I do here are some qualifiers

1. I am not plus size but I am on the chubby end and wear typically a size large.

2. I come from a long line of people who are plus size

3. I think every comment about Nicola’s weight besides the ones she chose to make without pressure to make them are just simply not our business and pretty shitty

4. I want this to be a discussion this is not a hill I need to die on but I think peoples opinions can change and two things can be true.

Ok here we go buckle up

I was incredibly excited when I saw that the new season of Bridgerton was going to have Polin. It actually is what got me to start watching it in the first place, however I noticed a couple things with “the discourse” happening around the show.

Firstly, people were really excited to see a larger actress as a romantic lead which I agree is fantastic! The second is that these same people were very vocal about the height difference between the two of them. In fact how “tiny” she was in comparison was brought up a lot. I’m sure if this post has stumbled across your page a bunch of those did too.

Like some of the comment pieces on the above Forbes article mention, the media seems to have an allergy to “mixed weight” relationships when the woman is heavier-set or bigger in general than the man. What we talk about less is that height is also a factor. Society doesn’t just want women to be thin, it wasn’t them to be small.

I don’t mean to write about this in a “the tall girl movie from Netflix cringe way” but I think there is a nuanced discussion to be had about how we want women to take up less space and how femininity is tied to being small and delicate.

To me, a 5’ 6” ish queer person I’ve been taller than a lot of girls I’m friends with and a bunch of the men and enby or trans people I know. That, personally, has always made me feel bigger and ganglier and less feminine than the other femme presenting people I’m around. I get automatically stuck in a different category. Gaining weight, however, intensified this feeling. It feels as if I am perceived differently because of the combination of these two factors not just each on their own. Everything around us says it’s ok to be tall if you’re super thin and it’s ok (but less ok than being tall and thin) to be bigger if you’re short and dainty. It feels very conciliatory and condescending like a woman can’t take up space if she wants to be loved.

In Bridgerton, the conversations circling Nicola’s weight and height like vultures prey on this idea. It’s not acceptable just because she’s not sample size and that should be normal but because she’s little next to him even when she’s bigger. She can be a romantic lead because the man they show her to be in a relationship with is still bigger and stronger in different ways.

This also puts pressure on masc presenting people too. They need to be taller and often bigger to be accepted as “masculine or manly” which is its own problem I don’t feel as qualified to write about.

I’m sure this has its own complications for people who are non-binary or trans but I just needed to get this out there because it’s been BUGGING me.

Cheers,

Absinthe

[nostalgiclittlespace]

Gender Binary and Age Regression

TW: Discussions of gender rules, mentions of k!nk

Being non-cis, genderqueer, nonconforming, or similar is an interesting experience in the Age Regression community.  I think that regression is very much accessible, and this is an overwhelmingly accepting community, but I don’t see the experiences being talked about much.  But why is that?  Especially considering the large demographic of regressors that aren’t cis?

So as I always do on this blog, I’ll talk about it myself!

Granted, I can only speak for my personal experience, observations, and analysis.  People experience both gender and age regression in very personal ways, so I don’t mean to erase or disregard anyone’s experiences that are different from what’s discussed. As such, I’d love to hear other people’s thoughts on this subject.

Firstly, something I notice about the community, namely through aesthetic posts and blog presentations, is that it can be very binary at times.  This makes sense if you think about it. As children, most of us were raised with strict gender rules and expectations that we conformed to.  Girls were expected to play house, with dolls, or other nurturing activities.  Meanwhile, boys were expected to be messy and wild; toys like trucks and action figures encouraged more active play.  When we regress, it’s natural that these social expectations and rules come back. 

Additionally, a lot of children’s items are categorized into these binary standards.  As such, in the regression community we tend to see things that are femme or masc leaning.  Eg.  Almost all ‘girl’ toys are pink or purple. ‘Boy’ toys are blue or green.  Dolls and princesses are only ever marketed towards girls.  Cars and superheroes are only marketed to boys.  Walking into a toy store, you can clearly see that certain isles are meant to appeal to the gender binary.

Furthermore, I think that for a lot of people, having a binary regression is important.  For example, I know some trans regressors utilize Little Space so they can have the properly gendered childhood they didn’t originally receive.

Lastly, I wonder if (unfortunately) the k!nk community has something to do with it.  Granted this is all speculation, but DDLG is one of the most popular subsets of ABDL.  As such, a lot of adult sized baby items are geared towards femininity.  This probably doesn’t affect the actual regression community very much, but I think it has indirectly influenced the general population into gearing Little Space towards ‘girls.’  

Even unrelated to those k!nk communities, society is a lot more accepting of fem-presenting being childish than masc-presenting.  Boys are expected to grow up faster and be tougher than girls, at least in my experiences.  I’m gender-fluid, so I’ve seen personally that I’m a lot more self conscious about regressing in public when I’m masc.  It’s just not as accepted.

These reasons combined—original binary expectations we learned in childhood, the market for children’s items, repairing childhood, and outside social influences—make the regression community fairly gendered.  Again, I know this is an overwhelmingly welcoming and supportive community.  I haven’t seen any agere accounts that would discriminate based on gender, and many of us are genderqueer ourselves (me included!)

So is there a way we can make this community more inclusive to genderqueer/nonconforming people?  Yes, for the most part.  I’ve seen plenty of gender neutral regressors, blogs, and boards, which is a step in the right direction.   I think ‘boy-re’ is also gaining popularity for masculine regressors to get the attention they deserve. Of course, we alone cannot influence the entire world to be more accepting of breaking the gender binary.  But we can take steps within our community to ensure that anyone existing outside the gender binary is respected and recognized.

I also want to remind you all that this is not meant to take shots at any binary regressors.  Furthermore, some regressors who may seem binary on first glance can still be genderqueer. For some people, these experiences are very important, and that should be respected.

To all my fellow regressors,no matter how you present on the outside, and no matter your agere aesthetic and binary, you are a valid and loved member of the community.  I wish you nothing but kindness, acceptance, and lots of love!  Happy regressing, everyone!

—Marty 🦖

[velvetvexations]

if you cant accept the lived experience of others in a way that might conflict with ur own to the point where you not only dismiss it entirely, but also make an effort to silence and degrade those voices in an effort to dismiss them from the conversation that you claim is a fight to bring equality of us all, then idk what to tell you.

i have no idea what happened in the last decade but it seriously feels like we've backpedaled to a time where i was fearful that by taking hormones and becoming a man, i would become the enemy of anyone who calls themselves a feminist. the cultural attitude i was brought up in led me to put off my transition for years, and it took me to a very dark place that i wouldn't wish upon anyone.

i also hate to bring this up but, being raised as a girl, i was very often spoken over or not listened to, told i was stupid or otherwise infantalised. Most of us hopefully realise that this isnt fair and want to move towards a society where this isnt the case. When i speak about the particular issues trans men face, i cant help but feel an eerily familiar feeling when im told that my issues arent important, that they do not exist or i'm selfish for wanting to do something about it.

people claim tme/tma labels are useful for speaking about populations but fails to concretely describe who is part of that population, by picking and choosing who should be included based on the issue being argued. how can this framework be considered inclusive when it seems to be fundamentally built upon excluding or refusing to acknowledge people?

you cant make a framework that, by default, cant support trans men/masculine people, non binary people, intersex people and other swathes of demographics, and then act like those people are whining, selfish brats or brutish, misogynistic idiots for calling you out on the exclusivity.

actual scum behaviour, please go spend time with queer folk in your actual, real life community and learn that we arent the enemy you seem to think we are.

thanks velvet nation, i really needed the vent space.

You're always allowed to vent here. <3

[devouredbyflame]

I want to make something clear: Loki is non-binary in the purposes of us defining Him to make Him an easier narrative to digest. We can know Him to be non-binary. That isn’t to say that He is non-binary.

As we all know, Gods don’t have body parts or sexual organs. They do not reproduce organically much less have hormones, human experiences, or endure human challenges in experiencing the problems of this modern world such that we need a title to define our experience of gender.

However, the point of Him being a male is the fact that He defies gendered practices and expectations that are the “norm” in our society. He takes into account the nature of gender in order to question it, and honestly, the best way to take into account the problems of masculinity would be to be a male Divine being who defies these things while otherwise appearing androgynous, queer, and sometimes even trans.

He does these things in spite of being predominantly male in order to question maleness itself. Which is kind of the point of Loki.

A Deity is made up of energy which is definitive, enormous, and encompasses many vast ideas, decisions, and can often only be explained by using metaphor, hyperbole, and analogy to describe Their existence. This is where stories come in. They tell us the tale of Their existence but we did not make those up on a whim, we made them because They were there with Their people and inspired these tales.

Who Loki is is important because we cannot determine His gender identity without glossing over the fact that He is a shapeshifter and the point of His shapeshifting is to show people what they want to see and believe of Him. Just because He shapeshifts and wears prettier faces than others, does not take away from the fact that He is inherently a male who is questioning maleness and sexuality norms just by being who He is.

We cannot place our own determination of gender onto the Gods who do not abide by that sort of thing. Just because we see Him as non-binary and trans does not make Him non-binary and trans. If that’s how our brains want to interpret Him, that’s how it’s going to be. How we see Him using our own experience of gendered pronouns and categories doesn’t necessarily mean that’s how He sees Himself. That’s the difference here.

It’s important to note that we get in our own way by saying things like He is non-binary because it can detract from the meaning that He is a male and there is a point that is made by Him being one given His pursuit of queerness and liminality. It is not what He is that’s important, it’s why.

What separates Him from every other Deity who shape-shifts, cross dresses, and practices seidr is the fact that given He is a male Deity, He does these things with reason to point out the inherent flaws in the system and take into question why it mattered that there was a binary in the first place.

I would also argue that in most cases, there are often two very opposing ideas that are true at the same time and that tends to be where you find truth. Especially with Loki who is a walking contradiction Himself. If we can’t accept that some things are true while also being not true, we kind of lose the point in knowing Him.

At the end of the day, believe whatever the fuck you want to believe. There’s no point in arguing with people about what their experiences are. Especially given the fact that Loki is a shapeshifter and it is inherent within His nature to hold His truest form to Himself for few people or beings to see. He is all those things but He also isn’t. Otherwise, He wouldn’t be much of a trickster, now would He?

[deerteetharepretty]

Trans Ballister Headcannon and intersectional queer theory thoughts about the movie Nimona

I absolutely ADORE the Nimona movie but as an Autigender, genderqueer, who is specifically somewhere encapsulating genderfluid and trans masc nonbinary lesbian, this movie made me sob. 

I related to Nimona so SO MUCH. But due to my love of studying the intersectionallitys of queer struggles as my special interest, i saw a specific headcannon among fans that has my entire heart. 

I dont wanna put down anyone elses, i love them all, but i wanted to take a moment to talk about the beautiful lense you could look at queer intersectionality with the Trans Man Ballistar Boldheart headcannon. 

I want to be clear i do not mean this in a weird way at all!

I think theres a lot to discuss with how we could view there kingdom as being accepting of gay people (at least a bit more progressed past where we are where there may not be hate crimes or any problems but some people are still terrible homophobs far and few) 

But through the eyes of our child Nimona we see that the society only accepts queer folks who are “the good ones” aka constantly repressing little parts of their true self to appease others. The accept gay people and say they are willing to try with binary trans people but the bigotry and outward threat of violence to anything different has kept people in the coset, hiding beautiful, normal, facets of queer joy to be seen as acceptable to the kingdom.

That's why i am so inspired by the headcannon of Ballistar, maybe not openly trans but fully living as himself accepted by doctors and the queen fully at a young age, striving for his best life, with a loving and understanding boyfriend who truly sees him.

Because its him realizing Nimona isnt the enemy, they are just a transgender/shapeshifter child. Much like he doesnt understand shapeshifters at first, he doesn't understand their gender, but you start to see him see Nimona for who she is and love her so much.  This headcannon also makes me think so much about the scene on the sword of Gloreth and the ones right before. After he hurt her Ballistar immediately regretted it. The look in his eyes and the way his hand went weak in shock when he realized he almost threatened her. He sees the fear on her face and it strikes me so much in the headcannon of them both being trans because he realized he was threatening a child, and a queer one like himself who clearly wanted to just be accepted and not hurt. I also want to talk for a moment about the ending with Ambrosius. I may need to make a part two because theres a lot to unpack with ambrosius being a cis gay man who is very supportive of the trans community and having a closeted trans partner. i feel like when the dust settles he would feel so horrible for how much he rejected Nimona in the first place.  GOD I WANNA WRITE A FANFIC ABOUT THEM WORKING TO HEAL THROUGH THIS SHIT 

[harpagornis]

MTG Analysis: LGBT and the color pie

So this is something a bit out of left field since its not Pride Month but I felt like writting this so sue me.

MTG has had a long history with LGBT topics and characters, from Xantcha from the early days to an explosion of LGBT characters in recent years. Officially, homophobia doesn’t exist in the Multiverse (I call bull if you’re familiar with older canon) and that’s fine and dandy, not everyone needs bigotry in their escapism.

However, I like to keep things real, and the matter of fact is that the color pie is philosophical. So I though it’d be fun to see how the colours interact and react to LGBT topics.

White

White I think is the easiest to depict as homophobic/transphobic. After all, real world religions and politics have persecuted LGBT individuals, and White is all about marginalising the outgroup, imposing restrictions on community and using faith as means to dictate one’s life. Conversely, White is also likely to be shown as an ally, since it often also fights for the meek and vulnerable.

An interesting way to depict White in this regard is the different double standards it may have. For example, in some real world cultures trans individuals are accepted because they’re seen as a way to enforce gender roles, while non-binary or gay individuals are shunned because they dismantle gender roles. Conversely, homosexuality may be seen as means to reinforce military bonds, which plays in White’s love of community + militarization.

Overall, because White often governs over society and factions I think there’s a real potential for worldbuilding.

Blue

On the surface, Blue can appear as rather accepting since it believes in reason and science. Its philosophy of one being able to do anything one desires to improve oneself also plays well into accepting trans people. I don’t think there’s a coincidence that the two first non-binary planeswalkers are Blue aligned; one even defied fate for crying out loud!

However, Blue’s belief in tabula rasa also means that it doesn’t believe anything is inherent. Therefore, Blue is the most likely to believe in conversion therapy. Worse, given Blue’s factions penchant for amoral science it is the color most likely to dispense “cures” for homosexuality and make straight designer babies.

In conclusion, Blue’s allyship is highly dependent on what it feels self-improvement entails. On a good day, it rallies for LGBT rights. On a bad day, it makes White look reasonable in comparison.

Black

Black, being the colour of individuality and giving the middle finger to societal norms, is most accepting of all letters of LGBT. This comes with a big caveat, however: it is focused on the individual foremost. So if going to a pride parade displays one’s power and charisma, it will do so. If being a closeted bigoted politician provides that, it will be so. Black has no morals or obligations, why should it care if it can be a hypocrite or profit off pride?

A very fairweather ally, but a staunch supporter especially to spite bigotry.

Red

Red is the colour of freedom and self-expression. It has no patience for those tearing others down in the name of society and laws. Naturally, I think it’s a no-brainer that it is the most LGBT positive colour. It loves who it loves and indentifies as it identifies, and unlike Black it has a sense of empathy and a healthy dose of disregard for authorithy in any way shape or form. And its always down to experiment!

That said, I can see some violently homophobic characters being partly-Red aligned, with some other color to provide reasons as to why Red’s normal love of self-expression is restricted.

Green

Green, like White, is a double edged sword. It fundamentally believes in fate, tradition and genetics; on one hand, it can decry such things as “unnatural”, but on the other it can be supportive, especially if it sees such things as “always meant to be”. Unlike Blue, it believes things are inherent, so it is less likely to believe in “cures”. This in particular is why its dichotomy differs from White, as unlike it Green derives its beliefs from philosophical concepts rather than morality.

It’s opinions on trans topics in particular can be pretty interesting: does it see an individual’s body as the natural truth, or the soul? Loreley Writes once wrote a post I can’t find that Green magic could theoretically work with a person’s own identity to modify the flesh; that’d be a cool use of biomancy if made canon.

So in conclusion

I respect WOTC for not wanting to deal with topics that could backfire horribly, but I just can’t help myself!

[ventbloglite]

The thing is...I've read a lot of posts and listened to a lot of videos by binary trans men & women and non-binary people of any AGAB and intersex people to whom masculinity is assumed or desired.

Each group has unique experiences with unique bigotry targetted at them for being who they are. But each group also experiences misplaced bigotry, aimed at a different group but used to hurt them anyway.

There's also a distinct and very real overlap between transmisogyny and transandrophobia. The thread that connects these concepts for binary and nonbinary trans masc people, AMAB's of any identity (intersex and not), and yeah even some butch cis lesbians is what we've been harking on about so long - the inherent villianising of masculinity in particularly when deemed to be in the 'incorrect' place!

A butch woman is not expected to be 'too masculine'. If she's seen as failing womanhood in this way, she will face discrimination from others for doing this even amongst other lesbians.

Attending groups or events for 'women and nonbinary' only to find out they mean 'women and women-lite' and don't want anyone with any proximity to masculinity to be there. Being told or being able to quickly understand that your masculinity is making others uncomfortable despite the fact that you are amongst other queer people/trans people. Being expected to preform femininity to a certain stereotyped degree to prove you are 'safe'.

These are all specific things which could be considered both transandrophobia OR transmisogyny, depending on who they happen to but...now here me out, doesn't that just mean we need to sit and realise that the distinction between them isn't always rigid? That there is an antimasculine issue within the trans and queer community but it doesn't target any one particular group over another. The acceptance of queer masculinity is a must. It won't solve all issues not by far, but would go a long way into making sure trans women (especially but not just those who 'don't pass' and maybe never want to be feminine anyway) feel more accepted and less like they'll always be seen as predators for being born male/assigned male at birth. It'll go a long way into accepting the 'men' part of trans men and the 'masc' part of any trans masc. It'll go a long way to accepting butch lesbians are still women despite their outward proximity to 'maleness'.

And if you're seriously reading this and are about to go on a tirade about how masculinity is praised and desired in society - stop. Cis masculinity is praised and desired and even then it has rules.

The world is a lot more complex than men and masculinity good anything else bad but unfortunately if you keep seeing it this way even if you disagree you are going to be responsible for both transandrophobia and transmisogyny persisting.

[candiid-caniine]

so I've seen this going around lately, and I want to talk about it. I didn't want to add discourse to OP's post because I didn't know if/how much was welcome.

this is a very hot button issue for me. general tw for this post: mention of abuse within kink dynamics.

so. y'all all know that I have some very strict limits on this blog. I have a boundary against play with cis men. I have a hard limit on misogyny and patriarchy kinks being in my space. and I'm not alone in that: a lot of other queer ppl I know (mostly wlw, nblnb, t4t, and intersex) have the same limits.

for me it's trauma rooted. all dynamic abuse I've ever experienced has been at the hands of cis men, so I don't deal well with them. and growing up in purity culture as a closeted afab has ruled out misogyny/patriarchy kink. as a result, I am very avoidant of anything that rings of these dynamics...which happen to be overrepresented as dominance in modern pornography.

it is very hard as a t4t to find porn that isn't influenced by this binary, which usually plays itself out as:

to be feminine is to be weak, and vice versa

the submissive partner is the bottom

the dominant partner is controlling outside the bedroom

submission is holy for the feminine and deviant for the masc

dominance is holy for the masculine and deviant for the femme

existing power balances in society are utilized in play

the submissive is to be protected

the submissive is the dominants responsibility and not vice versa

aesthetic perfection is expected of the sub

and many more.

so to say "signs of domination in your social circle" may mean different things to different people. I'll be honest, I don't know what OP meant; this post was awhile back in their blog -- I'm just using this as a way to talk about some of my own hangups, hence why I made my own post instead of responding.

and yeah. if someone in my social circle showed signs of being controlling outside the bedroom, magnifying social inequalities in play, deeming submissives weak and demanding of protection, or expecting aesthetic perfection of submissive seeming people....would I call that evil? um. fuck no.

but I would recognize it as something I can't be a part of. I would form resentment if treated accordingly: as something inherently weak, defenseless, naive, and feminine due to my preference for submission, or hell, for being fucking Asian. cause yeah, that happens.

that said: if someones treating every sub, or every person they decide is submissive, like that...they're a fucking weirdo. their problem.

but there's another side to this. one that affects people who top, people with penises, and people who present as masc who...

may derive euphoria from aligning with a binary role in a kink setting

may genuinely share a desire to be protective and controlling with their partner/s

may face othering or prejudice for seeming like an angry trans woman or a violent butch or an angry Black person

are already only tenuously accepted in queer spaces due to masculine presentation or AGAB or race

so what's to be done?

simply put, don't put your trauma or your bias onto others. I really think that's the answer.

if a particular type of dominance triggers you, remove yourself from the space. unless it's your space, in which case set boundaries.

if you find yourself side eyeing people of a certain AGAB or presentation more than others, consider that this is a you problem.

understand not everything's about you. subs can be just as selfish as doms. just because your friend likes to dominate doesn't mean they want to Dom you. just because they Dom in a way you wouldn't want to be dommed doesn't mean they're wrong.

fuck off with your kink shaming. flat out, unless you are speaking about dynamic abuse or any other type of abuse, you have no grounds to judge the way other d-types or s-types roll. unlearn your purity culture.

learn a thing or two about top drop and/or Dom drop.

and for God's sake...in this hellish 2024 pride month where trans rights are backsliding and other lgbtq+ rights will certainly follow: educate yourself. cishets didn't invent kink. leather daddies have been doing this for decades. lesbian pulp fiction featuring s&m dates really far back. hell, ancient Greeks have art documenting s/m relationships, and y'all know they were gay as shit.

cause I have an inkling that in queer circles this comes from the decrying of evil, icky cishet culture in kink. you are entitled to your boundaries, but your bias and your judgment and your disgust can damn well be kept to yourself. my partner deals with enough guilt over their preferred role, and enough crisis about whether their masculinity comes off as creepy, without neopuritans exacerbating the issue.

and that includes me. I've had to unlearn this shit from the ground up since coming out. I thought coming out was the unlearning, but no: you are not immune to internalized bias. and your masc, amab, intersex, and Black and Brown queer siblings are not immune to the harm you may be perpetuating.

anyway. I'm stoned AF. and prepared to turn off reblogs for this post. lol