#we have to understand queerness the way they do

[softness-and-shattering]

Thats a good point, I see all kinds of neurodivergence in my family but only a couple of us in my generation, afaik, have a diagnosis.

However, my gp attended a recent talk about overlap of queer folk with neurodivergence and also a group of comorbid illnesses including, iirc, POTS/MCAS/EDS/CFS theres a couple others Im just blanking. Digestive issues? Things that we've broadly noticed as a community, and it seems like its starting to be studied.

And also, everyone has some kind of trauma, idk how many people if any have no kind of disability whatsoever, humanity is vast and diverse. And we're wired to look for patterns. Interpret this information how you will, I certainly cant say for sure if these patterns are broader than trans people, or are more people trans than we expect, are we seeing correlation or causation or is there a mechanism in common with all these labels thats the deeper cause, is queerness an interchangeable/'sometimes' factor or a central one, we are way too early to know that yet.

I think its probably not nothing. But we're also not uniquely fucked up. Maybe we're just sticking out, so to speak, so thats where the research is starting. Many people werent taking ME/CFS seriously until long covid prompted more research bc, iirc, there was now a lot more people affected who were harder to ignore. And who were seeking help. Like a lot of people have an allergy or a dodgy wrist or "that weird thing with my digestion" and they dont consider it a disability or seek treatment, yknow? And especially mental health and especially what runs in families, it looks normal to you so why would you ever bring it up to a dr? "Everyone struggles with these things. Everyone feels this way" well you do and your parents and aunts and uncles do and your siblings do, and maybe you told a dr forty years ago you were in pain and they brushed you off so you thought everyone was walking around in agony.

And that gets into an adjacent conversation about medicalising and diagnosing and when does that help and when is it like, making a negative thing of normal human experiences and variations, its not a disorder till its negatively impacting your life, if youre surviving but treatment could help you thrive is it worth the side effects etc etc plus the whole discussion of psychiatry in particular which can be an amount of guesswork and diagnostic labels are often just patterns of symptoms that we see oftrn go together and we dont always yet understand the underlying neurology. (One of my all time best therapists kept up with the latest neuroscience and always had very good and effective suggestions. I only stopped seeing her bc I moved away. If you can be seeing professionals who are keeping up with research, definitely prefer them over someone who hasnt learned anything since they completed training 50 years ago. Always.)

Tl;dr I agree with OP and also this stuff is extremely complex and we're always learning new things about us!

something that should be taken with a grain of salt are the statistics talking about the high rates of mental illness + neurodivergence among trans people (ocd, bpd, adhd, autism, etc)

I see both sides of the political spectrum taking these studies at face value - conservatives say we're broken, and trans people try to come up with reasons why for example autism + gender dysphoria makes sense and why one of them feeds into another

at the end of the day you have to remember that we're the one category of people on this planet who are legally required to go see a psychiatrist in order to receive non-psychiatric medication and surgeries.

more trans people are in therapy by law than any other demographic of people, and as a result, this captures more comorbidities.

if I had to look at my own family & rates of mental illness?

mom, dad, 2 maternal aunts, maternal grandmother, paternal grandmother, sister, sibling, and me all have OCD.

7/9 of them are cishet, never been to therapy, never diagnosed. 2/9 are trans, required therapy for hormone treatment, and were diagnosed.

you don't have to do any math to just see that the resulting statistics end up intensely skewed.

and we can think back to how autism was virtually never diagnosed more than 50 years ago - ruling out any grandparents being included in statistics - and even my parents' generation (they're in their 60s now) wouldn't have been included either.

I don't think it's to anyone's benefit to accept these studies uncritically. a lot of these things are hereditary and far more prevalent in the overall population than people realize

[genderkoolaid]

While 4B has been a topic of conversation online for a few years, sporadically gaining popularity among U.S. TikTok users in moments like the “I chose the bear” trend, Trump’s reelection brought it front and center again. In the days following Trump’s win, online searches for the 4B Movement saw an unprecedented spiked. Across social media, women are posting that they need to divest from men, amassing hundreds of thousands of likes and millions of views. But the conversation about 4B in the U.S. is rife with misconceptions about the movement, including false assertions that 4B accounts for the majority of feminist thought in South Korea. It’s important to note that despite the global attention, 4B is a fringe movement in South Korea, and Han says the vast majority of South Korean feminists do not abide by it. “I just want to make sure that people understand that 4B does not speak for Korean feminism,” Han tells Them. “4B is not representative of Korean feminist politics. A lot of us see something a lot more diverse and a lot more intersectional than what 4B calls for.” Though the 4B movement is quickly gaining wind in the U.S., this is far from the first time American feminists have called for a divestment from men to combat misogyny. In the 1960s, political lesbianism emerged from the second-wave feminist movement as a means of decentering men from the lives of women. Like 4B, political lesbians aimed to divest from dating and having sex with men. They asserted that any feminist can be a lesbian, defining lesbian as any woman who did not have sex with men. “We call it 4B now, but it's political lesbianism,” Han says. “Essentially it's the same thing too, but the one aspect of being a political lesbian was you may or may not [actually be a lesbian], and sometimes you really didn't have sex with other women, but [instead lived by] the idea that you prioritize your relationships with other women, that you prioritize your solidarity with other women.” But with the 4B movement both in South Korea and the U.S., Han says this isn’t the case, as men still find themselves front and center in the discourse. She adds, “I've never heard so much discussion of straight men. Can we just decenter them?” [...] Han says that they hope this blip in interest about 4B fades into the next news cycle, as there are so many other forms of intersectional South Korean feminism that do include queer and trans people. Ultimately, many of the current discussions about 4B are coming from a place of privilege that queer people don’t have the luxury of accessing. “Queer and trans folks know that isolation or imagining a life ‘just on our own’ — that's not our reality,” Han says. “That's not our vision. In many ways, I think our experiences tell us that we have to live with people who hate us. We have to work with and against and fight folks who mean to harm us and simply disavowing them or refusing to interact with them or somehow running away and keeping to ourselves, that's never been possible.”

[fatalism-and-villainy]

This is gonna sound like a morality cop sentiment without the context that I am a person who is deeply enthusiastic about the aestheticized, eroticized violence of NBC Hannibal. But with that context in mind… I often find myself deeply put off by how violence is handled in fanfic, particularly post-canon fanfic.

Because Hannibal is a very dark show. It is thematically centered on the darkness that resides in all human beings, as embodied by the irresistible black hole that is Hannibal Lecter - a theme that most obviously manifests in Will Graham’s corruption arc, but also in subtler, more mundane ways with characters like Alana Bloom and Jack Crawford, who keep repeating their mistakes despite their self-awareness. And it’s a very nihilistic show, concerned not with ethics but aesthetics, with the pursuit of beauty in the absence of moral scruples.

And yet, violence and death always feel significant on this show. Despite (or perhaps because of) the frequent surrealism and black comedy in their presentation, they feel as if they have gravitas. And that’s precisely because of the show’s aestheticism. The corpses we see are so exquisitely mounted, and presented with such deliberation and intention, both in-universe and in the show’s cinematography. And thus these deaths feel as though they have weight, as though they mean something - even if the only meaning we derive from them is that they look beautiful, if ghastly, or that they convey cinematic symbolism.

But there is so much Hannibal fanfic where the violence feels so… disturbingly banal to me. Where the deaths don’t have any narrative weight and are completely trivial to our main characters. And this is imo completely out of keeping with even Hannibal Lecter’s own philosophy on the show, when he says that life is precious - not because he places particular value on life’s preservation for its own sake, but because he fully understands the gravity of what he is doing. His arrogance and sense of superiority is contingent on the understanding that the taking of a life is a serious thing, and a transcendent thing. Not flesh and blood, but light and air and colour. And I don’t see much light and air and colour in the kinds of fics that I’m talking about.

This is all very much entwined with the fact that a lot of these representations of violence seem to be bound up in the understanding that the show, and Will’s arc, is subtextually queer. And it absolutely is. But I often get the sense that these representations of violence, and the relationship between Will and Hannibal, are trying to overlay them with a very 2020s Positive Queer Representation approach, wherein Will and Hannibal’s love is misunderstood by the world, and thus their violence, as the symbol of their transgression, has to be portrayed and received by the audience an unalloyed good.

And this feels hard to explain, because of course this is a show that is very much about the pleasures of transgression. And it invites the viewer to share in that pleasure, in all the aforementioned ways. It’s drawing from a very 19th century Wildean mode in that regard - a sensibility that irreverently collapses all transgressions into one, and deliberately refuses to differentiate between the morally repugnant and the merely socially unacceptable. And that is very powerful as an engine for queer subtext, as it takes the very real feeling of being corrupt and tainted and wrong and leans into the seductive glamor of that corruption, rather than attempting to counteract that narrative (in ways that can feel, when in the throes of internalized homophobia, shallow and artificial).

But, within Hannibal, that thrill of transgression is inextricably bound up in horror. The pull of violence - and the bond it engenders between Will and Hannibal - is irresistible, but it is also a source of deep seated pain and terror. And those things are fundamentally not separable. There’s a sublimity to violence, and to desire, on this show - pleasure and pain, wonder and horror, are intertwined.

And a lot of the portrayals of violence-as-transgression as symbolic of queerness in fanfic just don’t grasp this. There’s an attempt to paper over the horror and the sublimity of the violence, and how it serves the queer symbolism. It always strikes me as though writers grasp that symbolism, but are trying to fit it into the mold of representation-as-a-means-of-social-advancement. It never lands for me and it leads to the aforementioned callous disregard for life that I just find distasteful. Which is not to say that I think portraying violence and murder in a manner that strikes a similar note to the show is an easy needle to thread - certainly not. (Not the least because it’s hard to translate the show’s visual language to writing.) But it is something I notice and that breaks immersion for me very quickly.

[whineandcheese24]

911 bisexual representation

so the thing about representation is that it's important for 2 reasons. the first is that it allows people to feel seen and understood. there's an excitement and emotional response to seeing yourself represented on screen. But part of that excitement hinges on accuracy. the more inaccurate a character seems, the more it breaks immersion, and the less excited a person becomes.

which leads into the second reason representation is important: it teaches people about groups they might not often interact with. often the first and interaction people have with groups unlike their own is through tv. now there is a certain responisbility of a viewer to understand that no one representation of a given group is going to ring true for every member of that group. but there is a responsibility of the creators to do that group justice and provide a sound jumping off point for anyone just starting to learn

now for how this relates to Buck. we here on tumblr are well versed in sexuality. we know that even if Buck never goes on to look at another man he's still bisexual. we, who truly care about this show and representation, who hear Oliver saying he's bi in interviews and reposting fanart of Buck in the bi flag on his insta story, we don't need Buck to say he's queer to understand that he is.

but for stay-at-home mom Cathy in Nebraska who, to her knowledge has never met a bisexual person, this might be her first and/or biggest interaction with bisexuality. and because she has no prior knowledge she's going to come away from this thinking that bisexuality is a phase or an addiction or just a one-person thing. if Oliver has his way and Buck gets to fuck his way through LA, then she might come away thinking that all bisexual people are sluts. of course, she might not have even made the connection that Buck is identifying as bisexual because he's never said it, and Cathy most certainly does not care about cast interviews.

the point is, to all the people saying that Buck dating a woman doesn't erase his bisexuality, you're right, it doesn't. Buck will always be bi, he will have always dated and fallen in love with a man, he will have always had a boyfriend. but 911 is trying to get away with saying they have bisexual representation without actually taking care with it. they're trying to score points with us, queer fans who care about this stuff, and trying not to upset or make uncomfortable the general audience, which is largely straight. and what that's doing is it's giving people who maybe don't understant what being bisexual means a certain idea that is harmful and offensive to actual bisexual people

[sparklecryptid]

You know I wasn’t going to be a bitch about this but then people began misreading my post in a way that is quite frankly infuriating so now I’m gonna be a bitch about it.

This post was how quickly people are willing to villainize others for disagreeing with them. This post was about how those most vulnerable are most likely to be targeted for having an opinion someone doesn’t agree with. This post was about how as a disabled queer person of color I’m constantly on edge that a horde of people are gonna go after my ass because I said the wrong thing.

This post is about how quickly people are willing to believe something with no proof and proceed to go on to say that because of whatever claim they are believing that this person deserves to die brutally or having other horrific things happen to them.

This post was about how people want others dead and want to deny them the right to live based on past crimes. This post is about how people’s emotion should not dictate how justice is served.

If you wanna bring rapists and such into this conversation then hi! I am a child sexual abuse survivor! I still don’t think my abuser deserves to die! And I don’t think that he should be given free rein to do what he did to me to others! What I think should happen is he should be in jail and given counselling in order to understand why what he did was horrific and the impact it’s had on victims.

Is the justice system in my country in need of an overhaul? Yes. Do I appreciate the misconstrued idea of rehabilitative justice that you have? No! I don’t! Saying that ‘op likely means that rapists and sadistic murders should be given counselling and hug’ is completely wild given you know nothing about me, or how rehabilitative justice works in my country.

As for why people of all kinds still deserve to have access to water, life, and food it’s rather simple:

Because they’re human. Doing a horrific act doesn’t magically make them not human. They are still human and if their rights are taken away then anyone’s rights can be taken away. It’s very easy for people to go ‘well if this is a horrible crime then all we have to do is connect that to this other thing and no this group of innocent people are criminals too and we can justify doing horrific things to them!’

Human rights are not negotiable. If they are taken away from one person they can be taken away from the rest of us.

some of yall don't understand what human rights mean and it is legitimately worrying how some of you think that if a person is 'bad' enough they should have their human rights taken away

[honeydewdonutgirl]

I don't think the Buck/Tommy break up was bad writing.

Finally got to the Buck/Tommy break up after hearing about it since it happened and without going into some of my major icks into some peoples reactions to it (I will never understand the Tommy haters), that was honestly really sad. But I don't think it was bad writing. I get it. That hurt like a sonofabitch, and I do think it sucks that Tommy is like gone gone now. Especially because I think in just about any other show this would usually be the time to actually explore Tommy's character even more, delve into his history, explore who he is outside of his relationship to Buck. But we're not getting that, which sucks. (Lou's going off to another show, which possibly played a hand in this decision to have Tommy exit.) But I also think that in shipping, we sometimes forget that characters exist as their own individuals outside of the ship dynamic. As Lou himself stated, Tommy breaking up with Buck was about Tommy, not Buck. It was about Tommy's fears. He essentially said "I already like you so much that when (not if, when) you break my heart, I will not be able to handle it."

As much as Buck believes Tommy to be this fully confident and unapologetic gay man... he is still a man with his own insecurities and his own fears and feelings.

I think finding out Buck also dated Abby scared Tommy. Not just because they both dated the same person but because dating Abby meant something to Buck. Buck is going on and on about how Abby was so important to him. How she changed his life and helped him grow as a person. But Buck's not with Abby anymore. And Tommy doesn't really know they're history, he just sees Buck comparing their relationship to the one he had with Abby. A relationship that did not last. And I think Tommy suddenly comes face to face with the possibility that him and Buck won't work, and he's thinking about how much he already likes Buck, maybe even loves Buck. And if... no "when", they don't work out..... that's going to destroy him.

So Tommy does the only thing that will keep him safe from that. He ends things with Buck now, before it REALLY has the ability to hurt him.

And as much as it sucks that... THAT is where it ends. Sometimes that happens. We as the audience knows that Buck would never do what Tommy is thinking, but Tommy doesn't. Tommy just knows that he could get really hurt if this doesn't work out. I kind of hope that perhaps Lou will come back for a small Cameo appearance to have one final conversation with Buck, to give Buck (and hopefully even Tommy) closure, similar to what we got with Abby. But also.... sometimes we don't get closure. And we just have to figure out how to move on from there. Either way, I don't think this is the end of Buck's queer journey, and I think it's worth it to stay tuned in to see where he goes from here. He still has a lot of self exploration left, and I'm excited to see it.

Also, big shout out to Lou Ferrigno Jr. for giving such a nuanced and honest portrayal to Tommy. I am sad we won't be getting more of him, he was absolutely amazing while he lasted.

[babyseraphim]

okay, i'm gonna yap for a sec, because that's what i do here.

do i love payneland? yes. do i hope that they would have been endgame in the show? sure. but not for the reasons you may think

like, look. i have written payneland as romantic, and i have written them as platonic. i see them as being in a long term queerplatonic relationship already, and personally? i'm completely fine with that. romantic reciprocation would be lovely, sure, but so long as the bond they share would have continued to be as insane and strong and exclusive as it was in season one, then you would have heard no complaints from me, even if that meant they never actually kissed on screen (i don't mind sticking to fanfiction for that).

however. i’ve been in as many fandoms as the next guy. i have seen dozens of amazing friendships squandered by the introduction of outside romantic interests simply because writers have NO IDEA how to properly handle the nuance of queerplatonic-coded friendships. i wish i could say i trusted the dbda writers to do it correctly, but one season of good television is not enough to earn my trust in their understanding of queer relationships. i think the only way that i could have gotten the connection and intimacy i craved between those two dead boys would have been for the relationship to progress into a romantic one on screen (though i do hope that if they had stayed plationic, then the writers would have proved me wrong).

anyway. romantic payneland is lovely, and queerplatonic payneland is lovely. i would have been fine with either, as long as we had gotten one of them done properly.

[slaaverin]

In my world 2 guys who are just friends don´t act like they do. And def not when these guys are straight. And don´t get me wrong, i live in a very progressive country! Not like SK when it´s abt LGTBQ.

Okay I'm not gonna be toooooo annoyed at this anon (or you whose inbox I'm currently in) because I used to think like that. BUT!

That's just untrue. I'm from a progressive and inclusive country, and the spaces I'm in are all very lgbtqia+ positive, and I thought Jikook were very different too. Despite seeing other friend groups online (not from kpop and based in the US) where affection, expressions of love and flirting were very normal - most of the friends in the group are pan/bi but in longterm hetero relationships - I thought Jikook had that something extra.

Until I got closer to a new group of friends irl, most of whom are in happy hetero relationships, and the men (we're all 26+) treated each other with such casual love and affection that it made me reconsider things. I don't know if any of them are bi or pan, and it's not really relevant. Especially because members of the lgbtqia+ community present vastly differently even in the same social group.

What I am trying to say is not that jimin and jungkook are definitely straight. Imho, all members of BTS have made me wonder about them in that sense. It's not something I ponder for long times - as it's not my place - but I can understand why other armies might.

I'm also not denying them the possibility of having or having once been in a romantic relationship.

I just want to caution you and the anon a little because yes, while Jikook definitely are incredibly close, their expressions of love can very well be platonic. It's very heteronormative to interpret everything they do as gay just because it doesn't fit with your view of male friendships. It's not that I (or others who leave room for the truth) don't see or understand your pov, and want to avoid falling into the trap of viewing queerness as "just good friends". It's just about considering that we simply don't know Jikook.

We as fans only see a very (very) limited chunk of BTS, and only what they want us to see. Our perception will be coloured by our opinions, backgrounds and biases (not the kpop kind) and thus no piece of content or interpretation is objective.

Jimin and Jungkook are imo at least best friends. Everything beyond that is pure speculation, and we should treat it as that. I know us Jikooker want to be the sane and smart shippers in the fandom, a counterweight to the very loud and a bit...unhinged ones, but that includes (imho) understanding our own fallacies and knowing that for all the theories about Rosebowl, GCF , Letter and Who there is the possibility of it being just two incredibly close friends that love each other, protect each other and fight for each other.

Jikook = real love. That's a fact. If it's the rainbow color kind or something else, will most likely remain a question of perspective.

As a little P.S.: Please do not read this as an attack or me trying to force my views onto you. One of the great things about tumblr imho - and sth I liked about the Jikook space especially last year - is the way we can properly exchange opinions and discuss them in depth.

Opinion.

There's no definite answer.

But in my point of view the scale is more going towards romance.

But of course we might be biased and wrong.

I personally don't see the appeal of staying unbiased. We can't help feeling what we feel I guess.

But feel free to all express on this, it's interesting to have several point of views!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts 💜

[kimyoonmiauthor]

Might be more of a white culture thing. I get called names often when I point to actionable things one can do. Usually from particularly Black and other PoCs, they're more straight with me than white women are when they assume I'm a woman, even if I point out I'm NB and particularly don't subscribe to white (US Middle Class) woman's speech, which I never could quite master nor like.

There was a study on white women's speech about an Italian family, I think, granted US-based immigrants, where women of the family were taught more to be "peacemakers" and use indirect questions, (not the Jewish kind of questions) to particularly needle people into doing action.

Jewish speech (since I was raised Jewish as part of being adopted), tends to have more rhetorical questions to challenge people to think more deeper or examine their thoughts. (Plenty of papers on this, I actually wrote a long post about it)

But outside of (white) Jewish circles, often questions are used as passive aggressive behavior and ways to diffuse conflict. Such as the white woman speech of something like, "We do not hit other kids. How do you think the other kid feels?"

BTW, this is far from the white woman's tears and toxic white women's speech as pointed out by Robin DiAngelo, but does show the gulf between how women are treated between cultures and often I've observed PoCs are more likely to try to conform to white ways of gender when faced with someone white due to mainly stereotype threat and also some speech patterns which are harder to deal with if you aren't versed with how to deal with the toxicity. People tend to hedge their bets.

By the way, straight pitching here, but I'd really, really like a philosophical discussion on two things, though I'm well aware these are loosey goosey. And yes, maybe influenced by the US election:

The questions are these two:

Does true altruism exist? Is there a way to make an outgroup care about the in-group, when they have no skin in the game and keep showing up? I remember the episode you did about Sam Altman? But it didn't get into this question. We're stuck worldwide with people who don't care, but is there a philosophical way to get people to care about groups they don't belong to?

And the other question is how does one sell an idea of masculinity that is not the Alpha, Beta, etc set and can we escape that to men in such a way that they feel invited? I've read about sacred masculinity and also the secure masculinity models, but worldwide the shift towards that ultra masculinity seems to be winning because it feels powerful. The current movement of feminism is asking how to reframe masculinity itself.

I'd like to see it in an intersectional way for both topics. Such a way that it sees internationally and through lens of intersectional queerness.

You've circled around these topics, gone through them talked about queerness, communication, but I've felt like it's a glancing blow. I'm aware this is a hard ask. But I have to admit the last US election and watching other elections where people have swung far right on self interest alone over community has left me wondering if I missed something. Distrust of community that deep leaves me reeling.

I encountered women who were willing to, for example, stick it to trans people over protecting their own rights and philosophically I do not understand why they would choose hate over saying everyone deserves rights. I did the sit down and listen, but hit hard dead end walls, like I was being an elitist for going to college and the pursuit of knowledge is being snobby. Or literal professed Neo-Nazis, like telling me people should believe in Mein Kampf. And I'm sitting here thinking what more could I have done to make people care and care about people unlike them as a really marginalized person. It hit so many walls, and I tried very hard not to yell, scream, but reason through emotions, logic, but I can't help feeling a little frustrated that maybe I didn't know enough in order to get them to see a different way and move them that little bit or at least crack their wall through the interaction.

Separating The Art from the Artist ('s Gender)

an interesting thing I've observed:

I've been making art for my whole life, and I publicly transitioned a few years ago, and it's super interesting how much criticism changed when I came out

When I was in the closet the criticism I got for my work was a lot more useful. It was generally constructive, usually specific and actionable, usually coming from a place of sincerely engaging with my work even if it didn't always like it. So even the negative stuff was usually helpful?

Whereas now, most of the criticism I get seems a lot more "vibes based"? It's more vague; it's more likely to contain factual errors like "The work says X" when the work doesn't say that, or even says the opposite; the criticism is often less actionable; and it's more likely to treat my work as something that has accidental features to which the audience has a reaction that is the most important thing, rather than something that has deliberate features because I chose to put them there? And so it's judged much more by whether people vibed with it rather than by whether it achieved what I intended it to

idk, it's just interesting, maybe it's not a gender thing maybe it's just that people's media literacy is changing? maybe i'm attracting different audiences now? maybe I'm just worse lol

[plutotheforgotten]

Something I think a lot of trans men need to understand is that the reason that transandrophobia isn’t real isn’t because trans men don’t experience transphobia. It’s because transandrophobia is an inherently nonsensical term.

Transmisogyny is not “transphobia that trans women experience that trans men don’t”. Transmisogyny is the intersection of transphobia and misogyny, and also the idea that trans women can experience misogyny while not being perceived as “fully women.”

There is no such thing as androphobia. There is to an extent a phenomenon in queer spaces specifically where masculinity is put down or feared, however this is not something that happens in wider society and I believe that that is a separate conversation to be had.

People are not saying that trans men don’t experience transphobia (at least not the vast majority of people. I’m sure, because this is tumblr, you could find someone saying that, but that is not what the vast majority of people are saying and if you think that it is, check your reading comprehension).

All of the things that I have seen people claim are “transandrophobia” are actually things that still come from some type of misogyny.

Trans men have trouble accessing reproductive health care because “women’s health clinics” are seen as places that need to be protected from men. (Or possibly because they are not seen as deserving that care, which would just be transphobia)

Trans men have trouble accessing gender affirming care because they are being seen as women who are therefore baby making machines, and most gender affirming care for trans men will affect your fertility.

Trans men are less respected than cis men because they are seen as women.

Trans men are seen as “delusional women” because of misogyny.

You are not experiencing “transandrophobia” you are experiencing misogyny.

I do think that there is a conversation to be had here. However I think that transandrophobia being used as a term to describe these things muddies the waters and ignores A.) what transmisogyny is and B.) the fact that what we are experiencing still come from bigotry against women, not bigotry against masculinity (as the term transandrophobia would imply).

I would also like to say that a lot of trans men need to get more comfortable with the fact that, when you pass, you do have privilege!

I am a trans man who is about 1 year on T, has long hair, hasn’t had top surgery, and has what would often be considered effeminate mannerisms and speech patterns. I pass about half the time at best and when I do pass, I’m more often passing as a faggot than as a man (which are often different categories).

My access to male privilege is restricted. Similarly to how men of other minorities’ (men of color, disabled men, gay men) access to male privilege is restricted*. But this doesn’t mean that I never experience male privilege. I do! When I pass, I experience male privilege.

You having access to male privilege doesn’t make you a bad person. It doesn’t mean you never experience bigotry. And it doesn’t mean you should feel bad about being a man.

It does mean, however, that you may need to check yourself sometimes. Make sure you’re not playing in to toxic masculinity as a way to affirm your gender. Make sure you’re not speaking over women.

I don’t have a good way to end this. But I guess my point is that, while there is a conversation to be had about the type of transphobia trans men specifically experience, I do not think that calling it “transandrophobia” is helping the conversation at all. And also trans men need to remember that they are not immune to being men. Just because your access to male privilege is restricted does not mean that you will never experience it.**

*obviously all these minorities have their access to male privilege restricted in different ways but the concept is the same.

**even if you are a trans man who never plans to go on T, never plans to have surgeries, and will likely never pass, my point first point about the term transandrophobia not making sense still stands.

[woman-respecter]

My goal was to be off tumblr for a year but girl I just saw the most absolutely rancid take and needed to tell someone. I saw someone in a youtube comment section (I know, I know) genuinely argue that 4B is insufficiently intersectional because if men aren't having consensual sex, they'll go out and rape more, and since woc, queer women, disabled women, etc experience disproportionate rates of sexual violence, it'll be them getting raped probably, so going 4B is actually sentencing less privileged women to be raped. I genuinely think my brain is broken from that. "If you don't have sex with a man it's your fault if he rapes another woman" is one of the most insane things I've ever seen someone try to spin as leftist and that is fucking saying something. Like I could sit here and list all the reasons that's wrong but. Oh my god.

They started off their insane essay with this: "I heard a good point, and someone described this as taking a toy from a petulant child. (The toy being seggs, not women). If the child isn’t made to understand why the toy was taken away, they will continue to keep saying how unfair you’re being. And they might just steal a new toy from someone else if they don’t get their way." I LOVE how predatory men are children that have to be handled gently and delicately and have it explained to them with a little Blue's Clues song why they aren't getting laid, and if you don't do that you're responsible for their actions. Men are adults! Men CHOOSE to rape women! Why are we blaming women for men's actions! Why are we doing that and CALLING IT FEMINIST??? Like I thought we agreed that men don't rape due to a lack of consensual sex, they rape because they like having and exerting power over people? I thought that was like, one of the basic things we talked about in rape culture 101?

Jesus fucking Christ. I know that person sat back after writing their dissertation so satisfied with themselves for being One Of The Good Feminists, intersectional and socially aware and apologetic of their privilege, not one of those evil radfems who think men should be held responsible for their actions.

Anyways sorry for subjecting you to this but it actually broke my brain in half and I needed someone else to suffer with me.

omg first of all hey girl its been a while! good to hear from you even if it’s in this shitty scenario!

and yeah, what a rancid, yet not unexpected take. blaming women for men’s actions is like. classic misogyny. like i am a certified misandrist but even i don’t believe that the majority of men will go out and rape random women just because they’re constantly rejected. and even if they would it is NOT the duty of any woman to give a man sex that she doesn’t want to give, just to protect hypothetical other women. that’s such a shitty guilt trip. in that situation it would be a category 5 KAM moment, if giving in to sex was the only thing we could do to prevent rape.

[forkaround]

I'm tired of Westerners acting like they are the authority on queerness when in fact, until they colonized it Asia was a queer friendly place. And we are all supposed to care so damn much about their problems be it knowing about Stonewall or which new trendy word they want to use to define things that have existed for centuries before them while they refuse to do the same for us or even acknowledge that we just do things differently. They want it done exactly as they've done it. When it's Indian or any other Asian person choosing culture/history/family over themselves it's because they are repressed/religious/uninformed/bigot, etc. Not that we just wouldn't do that. If we were straight we still wouldn't do that.

[crying-adamantium]

I think its important to remember that Nandor and Guillermo knew each other for many years. A lot of it with a great power differential between them. When you consider how slowly their relationship is detoriating, it doesnt really matter if it was or couldve been romantic. The pain of watching the bond that maybe never really worked die, its hard enough and its full of grief. There really is mourning in the loss of a relationship, and I think its starting to be realized. And the realization is very ugly.

[hephaestuscrew]

I'm not the first person to say this, but there really is something groundbreaking about the lack of romantic plotlines in Wolf 359.

Wolf 359 is a story aimed at and about adults. It's partly about what it means to be human. It's partly about how we exist in relation to other people. It's partly about interpersonal connection and understanding. It has character relationships at its heart. It features so many moments of love and care between characters. It takes place across just over two years of the characters' lives, with 61 episodes and a main cast that grows to a decent size.

And despite all this, the show doesn't feature a single canonical 'on-screen' romantic (or sexual) relationship. Perhaps that shouldn't be as rare as it is, but it's one of the many things that makes Wolf 359 special to me.

[gottagobackintime]

I find it fascinating to witness the straight audience of any media not being able to pick up what the makers of the movie/show puts down.

It’s like when people reacted to the “You wear fine things well” scene in Our Flag Means Death with “aw, they’re such good friends” whereas the queer audience went “omg, this is happening”. We all had access to the same scene, we’d all watched the build up to that scene but the straight audience wrongly read it as friends/straight whereas the queer audience had suspected they were building up to a romance but this was the confirmation. Even the creator of the show was baffled that people were surprised that Ed and Stede fell in love. Because he thought they had made it obvious.

And as I said, we, the queer audience picked up on it. And I feel like the same thing is happening with Ted Lasso. Do I know that Ted and Trent will get together? No, I am unfortunately not a writer on Ted Lasso. But you can’t deny that there are clues pointing to it. But the straight audience barely pick up the fact that Ted and Trent like each other, be that in a platonic way or romantic way. I’ve seen several reactions to the last episode of season 2 and ONE of them included the scene where Ted reacts to Trent not being in the press room. All of them severely cut down the scene in the parking lot. One of the scenes most of us Ted/Trent truthers point to as a huge piece of evidence for it going canon. The parallel of them meeting in an empty parking lot, just like Ted and his ex-wife and Roy and Keeley. But because Ted and Trent are both men it couldn’t possibly mean anything. And Ted has an ex-wife and a kid so he can’t possibly be into men, as if there is no such thing as being bisexual. “But I’m pretty sure Trent has a family, he has a kid right?” So? He could be divorced, we also have no idea if his daughter has another dad or a mum. And the same thing applies to him, it doesn’t mean he can’t be into men (take also into account all of James Lance’s interviews, and his choice of shirt in one of them, friend of Dorothy anyone? He's the captain of this ship, we're just along for the ride tbh.)

Then we have the wonderful “I’m so not homophobic, in fact, you are homophobic because you think Ted is gay just because he likes musicals and has ‘feminine’ traits” um no… it’s the fact that he kind of acts in a way that an ally wouldn't. Yeah, he called himself an ally in that one episode. But every single person who is now out as queer who at one point considered themselves an ally because "I’m not one of them but I sure think they're neat" raise a hand 🖐�� (been there, done that. Was very into queer things before I realised I myself am one of them). What it always comes down to is "it's pandering", "it's tokenism" (having the main character on the show be queer wouldn't be fucking tokenism), "not everything has to be gay", "why can't men just be friends, there is a severe lack of male friendships on tv". And like the last one makes me go??? There are a MILLION friendships between men on TV. There are even multiple friendships between men in Ted Lasso. Beard and Ted, Ted and Higgins, Ted and Roy, the himbos and so on. Having Ted and Trent become a couple wouldn't really change anything because there are still friendships between men. They also claim that Ted is needed as the "straight without toxic masculinity" representation. As if Beard isn't right there. The man who has no problem going to an immersive show about the menstrual cycle. Has no problem with shrieking when he's surprised and so on.

I also like that if we'd get Ted and Trent together, we'd get two middle aged queer dads. Which isn't that common. It's not even super common to see people realising they're queer late in life on TV, and yet it happens every day. Because let's face it, most queer men on TV kind of look like Colin, and I don't mean that as a bad thing. And I'm looking forward to his storyline. But it's also nice seeing middle aged or old people finding themselves and being allowed to be who they are (see Ed and Stede from OFMD). Also would enjoy seeing people lose their minds when they realise they've been fooled this entire time. It'll be like Black Sails all over again.

I do not have any doubts about the fact that, had Trent or Ted been a woman and they saw Trent give up his career because of Ted's influence, they sure as hell wouldn't protest people thinking they'd become a couple. But because it's two men it's just delusional for some reason (homophobia).

What I'm saying is, it's clear that the straight audience has a hard time picking up subtext and clues that the makers are planting. Because they've never had to do that. Because they are always clearly represented. They don't have to look for minor side characters and hope that they might be queer. Because the main character is straight and most of the supporting cast too. When you've grown up with a lack of representation or with representation that is meant to be subtext, you'll learn to pick up on it. And you do look at media differently. I just wish that the straight audience could listen to us for once, without getting defensive and dancing around the fact that they are uncomfortable relating to a character that turned out to be queer.

[leandra-kinard]

I can see your point that there's a clash of intention/topic here from your perspective. However, for me it was an opportunity to make a connected/related "counter" point (also not solely aimed at your original post but the added screenshot as well), because I also feel posts like yours could - under certain circumstances and through certain readings - be adding to a general harsher rift between the two factions than necessary. I'm definitely not saying that was your attention, but personally it's something that, let's say, slightly miffed me about this whole conversation a couple of times now, in a variety of posts.

I do understand why you think I should have made my own post on it, rather than adding to yours. But then again, I do enjoy a conversation and polite debate rather than just "ranting to the void". I believe it can be very beneficial to those engaging in such a debate in good faith and the ones reading it. But that's my POV. So I guess this is where we both clash in our preferences on how to add/debate or not debate/add to such posts, and that is fine.

Regarding the main points you made, you know how you meant it and what context you brought it up from - so in that regard it's fully valid - but some people may take it as "Ah look, this person, too, says the Buddies are homophobic (in general/often)". Tumblr reading comprehension and all, you know?

I am also definitely not saying you are erasing anyone's experience. I'm just saying, in general, this tendency to point to homophobia sometimes does that - albeit unintentionally, I assume. It is a bit of a slippery slope, imho, because sometimes the people expressing their wishes for a specific type of queer story (like what they imagine Buddie could have been like) are queer people who have made those very experiences or similar ones themselves - lesbians who fell on love with their best friend and finally gave up on comphet behavior, or people who believed themselves to be straight and realized they were bi after all (not dissimilar to Buck). I know you're not saying these people all come from a place of homophobia, but I personally see a risk of it being read that way. Of people falling into that mentioned trap of dismissing ANY pro-Buddie sentiment as homophobic /otherwise problematic.

So, regarding the last statement you quoted, this was meant more generally to the Bucktommy fandom and not per se you or your post. We are not having a private conversation here, we are doing it in front of an audience who will approach both what you and I are saying with highly individual biases and viewpoints.

There is no issue with the things you said per se, but imho the risk of certain takeaways that I have already seen expressed callously by other people, e.g. "Most of the Buddies are straight women who are deeply homophobic" or similar.

The whole Silken debacle is cringe AF, and embarrassing for the whole 911 fandom. And we really do not have to talk about some of the much more vile and toxic things that were said and done. I am in absolute and full agreement to call those instances out and, like you, am disappointed to not see enough of such calling out from the Buddie fans. That is highly regrettable and cowardly.

I also understand (through posts like yours even more deeply than I already did before, as a 44 year old queer woman who lived with a gay guy for many years and has known many gay men), that many especially young shippers have a sort of watered-down image of the "ideal gay relationship" that isn't reflective of reality. There's nothing wrong with having certain preferences when it comes to reading and writing fic, but there IS something wrong with painting things outside of that comfort zone as icky or bad (like all that shitty discourse on Tommy being predatory and similar stupid takes).

In years of shipping and engaging in fandom I've seen takes that were bordering on or veering into (unintentional) homophobia, or rather bigotry towards gay men in particular, because so much of it is based on a sexually/romantically inexperienced and predominantly female perspective. There's a difference between how lesbians and gay men live out their sexuality and love life - at least in tendency - and it's important to acknowledge that and, as you said, read up on gay culture if one isn't too familiar with some things. Or to simply acknowledge that many preferences and approaches are valid and good, and, as you said, here's not a limit to what kinds of queer representation should be present in popular media.

Anyway, I also appreciate that you replied calmly and in good faith. Just to make it clear again, I do not disagree with the things you said or with pointing out these particular examples. I just personally think it is important to also remember (and remind others - the "audience" of these debates) not to generalize as a takeaway from these very valid observations.

the more and more time i spend on tumblr and come across insane Buddie takes and behavior, the more and more i am convinced that the small, vocal, toxic subsection of shippers who don't know how to behave are, how shall i say it?

homophobic

they don't seem to actually like gay men. the situation with richard siken is an example of that. what they appear to like is their made-up version of what gay men are like and what they do. there's no concept of nuance or an actual understanding of queerness that informs their ship.

and i don't think you do need to understand it. sometimes you can just enjoy something without looking into it differently. but if you're going to be out on main talking about Buddie this and Buddie that, then you absolutely need to do the bare minimum and inform yourself on gay culture and gay issues so you don't, you know, go after a gay poet because you didn't like his tone.

sorry, there's a reason gay men of his demographic don't take shit. it's because they took so much shit that a large percentage of them died. the ones that survived don't owe you a tone when you act like an idiot.

the internet is free. wikipedia is free.

use a search engine and educate yourself, just a tiny little bit, and stop fetishizing while holding onto homophobic attitudes