#which is simply not something we need to say. women are Forced to be feminine

[blood-choke]

Thanks for saying the bit about butch being identity more than presentation. I'm aware it is, like I'm not dumb, but I never feel like I show the fact that I'm butch enough, even if I'm soft butch. Like wearing androgynous clothes means fuck all in modern day since women's fashion is androgynous at a base line currently, plus I have very long hair and tend to keep my nails somewhat long so my identity doesn't show at all and it makes me constantly feel like I'm appropriating the label. But like if I were cis, I'd probably take testosterone for a bit like she/her Lea did; that idea is super enticing. As is I like being trans because it gives some masculinity to my physicality. If it were the past where women wore dresses, I'd definitely wear men's clothes (probably mixed with some parts of women's stuff). Just modern day doesn't let me visibly defy social norms as much as I want. My leather jacket and boots just isn't enough to show my identity.

Sorry for the ranble. Just made me feel way better, seeing confirmation that it's largely identity. Even if I don't have anyone to truly express it with.

you're welcome!

it was definitely something i had to unlearn; especially now with so much of lesbian bar culture having been pushed out and forgotten, a lot of younger people just.. don't know what these words mean, and when i was their age, butch and lesbian both were Bad Words that you never said at all except to demean someone.

reading older lesbian literature helped me overcome that and learning about all of the people that came before us; both about butches and femmes. digging through archives and putting myself into butch/femme spaces online has been hugely beneficial to me. i used to feel the same & like i could never "claim the label" because i didn't look a certain way, but that's just simply not true.

and this is especially not true for lesbians and other women who are already having other labels forced upon them by society; for not being white, for not being skinny, for not being hyper feminine, for not being cis, etc.

one of the things that made it really click for me was picture archives, specifically these kinds of pictures:

(pride, nyc, 1977 by meryl meisler)

this one is nancy tucker & her partner, and the two of them would switch shirts throughout the march. (1970 by kay tobin lahusen)

you can see how similar butches and femmes can look, and this is also what i mean when i say femmes are just as sanitized in popular media. butch and femme can be adjectives, but they are also nouns, they are genders and they are roles that people fill within lesbian relationships and within their community; how they move through the world, interact with society and how they interact with other lesbians and other women romantically and sexually.

this quote is one of my favorites:

“Butch is a trickster gender—and so, in a similar way, is femme. Lesbian gender expressions do not emulate heteropatriarchy, they subvert it. Femme removes femininity from the discursive shadow of masculinity and thereby strips from it any connotation of subordination or inferiority. Butch takes markers of “masculinity” and divests them of their association with maleness or manhood. Butchness works against the gender binary—the masculine/feminine paradigm—and reclaims for women the full breadth of possibilities when it comes to gender expression.”

— Caroline Narby, “On My Butchness”

[cl0ckworkqueerness]

in the wake of the reveal of the "pills that make you green" comic's creator revealing her true colours (something I've been aware of for a while but haven't had much specifically to speak about until now), i think it's important to take a step back and look at some of her claims about transandrophobia, as well as many anti-transandrophobia (or transandrophobic) talking points, and analyze them critically without, in any way, demeaning transmisogyny as a concept. let's start with some of the things i've seen on her blog and go from there

first of all, there's a lot of talk about how activists who are vocal about transandrophobia are "derailing" conversations about transmisogyny. while i'm certain there are some legitimate examples, many of the examples i have seen that i presume she is referring to are speaking about her comics that specifically strawman the stick figure who is an allegory of a trans man or transmasculine individual.

in these comics, this stick figure is often unjustly cruel and even oppressive of the lime stick figure, an allegory for trans women or transfeminine individuals, while simultaneously whining about how they also experience oppression and should be focused on instead. this frames trans men and transmasculine individuals as loud, taking up space, oppressing transfeminine people (who are More Oppressed), and simply cannot understand that they do not face as terrible of treatment as the other.

the problem that most people, myself included, take with this is that the author seems to be living in an alternate world where trans men, somehow, are a legitimate, strong, oppressive force over trans women, and want to take up all the space in the trans community's discussion to ourselves. there are definitely people who abuse the term transandrophobia to say transmisogynistic things, without a doubt, but in my experience most of us simply want to say that we, too, experience terrible types of oppression as a result of intersectionality that a trans woman, transfeminine, or trans person who's perceived as either of those things may not experience. transandrophobia is not meant to overtake transmisogyny, it is meant to stand beside transmisogyny and further prove that different trans people can experience different types of oppression, and thus should unite against both.

another thing i've seen on the comic author's account is how the idea of androphobia is anti-feminist and comes from MRAs or something, which... uh, again, i don't know what planet you're living on, but here on earth, there are men who are discriminated against and even treated with violence because of their ties to masculinity, femininity, both, or neither. and again, it is not our problem if MRAs decide to appropriate actual, useful terms in order to spread misogyny. we should not have to keep changing our language every time a bad person uses it. if we did, we would have no language, and thus once again be silenced.

since i don't have the time or the spoons to go through everything she's ever said or reblogged on her account, i'll just go over one more thing. no, the discussion and desired visibility of transandrophobia is not some kind of psyop or massive conspiracy to kill the idea of transmisogyny. if we didn't believe in transmisogyny, we'd have no reason to believe in transandrophobia either, after all. for me, at least, talking about transandrophobia is equally as important because trans men, like myself, have been forced into silence for so long and erased from most of history. trans men weren't even well documented until much, much later in history.

additionally, i doubt this needs to be said, but if any of you are actually intentionally ignoring transmisogyny in your discussion of intersectionality, you have no place in this discussion

and finally, to the author of these comics, i doubt you're reading this, but if you are, please reconsider your hostility. framing the discussion around transandrophobia in the way you are is not only equating trans people who face detrimental oppression to the people who are trying to oppress us and force us into silence, but you too are actively advocating for the silencing and erasure of, and subsequently the lack of resources for, trans men, transmasculine individuals, trans people who are perceived as either of these things, or anyone who primarily faces transandrophobia. i don't blame you for being defensive, and i will absolutely take your side should anyone be transmisogynistic towards you or anyone else, but you don't have to drag trans men who just want to talk about our shared experiences through the mud in order to support your point of transmisogyny's danger, especially within the trans community. if you want to have a genuine, mature discussion about transandrophobia and its dangers, and transmisogyny within the trans community, i'm sure someone would be happy to discuss that with you. but with the way you're treating and talking about trans men, it is unlikely that you will take anyone up on that offer

idk man. i feel like it's important to talk about transmisogyny and transandrophobia at the same time, as well as all other forms of intersectionality. we should be turning transphobes into couches instead of whatever the hell this is

[hesperocyon-lesbian]

Your post on the subject is relatively respectful of transmascs, which is great, aside from the inherent issues with the word "TME", but as a transwoman I also don't like egg culture because of how often and how frequently it devolves into uncomfortable flippancy at best and pressuring someone to be something else at worst. If AMAB people are less allowed to explore their gender because the rules for how they present is tighter - and that's also somewhat arguable, but putting that aside - should we not simply give them the chance to do so without saying a boy who wears a skirt might be trans, as we wouldn't say a woman who wears pants might be? Of course, they -might- be, but my point is that breaking down those barriers is better than pushing people through them. This is why I don't understand the hostility towards femboys, or even forced fem fetishists which historically have been very tied to realizing they were trans all along because a noncon scenario was the only way they were socially allowed to conceptualize their dysphoria.

The fact that you start out objecting to my post’s use of the phrase “tme” is already a bad sign frankly.

Anyway, as to your main point, you’re ignoring how much overwhelming pressure there is on people who are amab to be men. A few jokes from some trans women aren’t gonna outweigh that societal pressure. When you start to buy into narratives about trans women pressuring cis men to be trans, you’re just mirroring the same absurd rhetoric people use about us secretly transing everyone.

You need to understand that “you don’t have to be a trans woman, you can just be a guy who wears feminine clothes” is a thing a lot of conversion therapists say to trans women. I think what you’re calling hostility to femboys is a backlash by trans women against constantly being told “you can just be a feminine man”.

[bluespiritshonour]

Somethings I noticed:

Katara, Suki and Azula are the only ones who haven't ever expressed any sort of misogynistic sentiment.

Aang would come a close second with minor mishaps here and there.

First, the girls:

Ty Lee, while fighting the Kyoshi Warriors: you're not prettier than we are.

Girl, where did that come from?

Mai has several instances of this when she says the Kyoshi Warriors’ uniforms are too girly (I don't mind her not liking how colourful they are; that's totally different) and later lowkey slut-shaming Ty Lee. And while she's rightfully unimpressed with Zuko's seashell (she's right Zuko, step-up your game) she could easily have countered his “Don't girls like these stuff?” the way Suki did with Sokka’s ideas about gendered generalisation. Also, you must have noticed that Mai's feminine too. She's just dark feminine to Ty Lee's light feminine.

Toph: she has absorbed a lot of toxic masculinity that's for sure. She isn't feminine, she light-heartedly teases Katara for being feminine and Aang too. She does give off the “one of the guys” vibes. You know which ones I'm talking about. “Are we going to watch two little girls fighting?” and later mocking Aang for his passivity.

But it is to be noted that Toph manages to do this without being racist to Aang. She's the one who mocks him the most about his pacifist beliefs (which are cultural to him) and she's kinda misogynistic the way she goes about it. But she's never racist to him. (I guess she is in the comics but fuck the comics). Even when Aang was really really nasty to her when Appa was stolen and she had every right to be mad at him—she wasn't. Given her age and her sheltered upbringing Toph's surprisingly mature. But I digress. Among the comics, I love the Lost Adventures only—and I love the spa day Katara and Toph have both in those comics and in the show. It feels like Toph's healing from that internalised misogyny? My reading of it is that just like girls in real world, Toph derides femininity because it has always been a chain to her. Her parents forced her to confirm so she hates it. But being friends with Katara probably let her heal that part of her. She's still not as feminine as Katara and mind you, nor should she be—let some girls never want to be feminine—it’s fine. But she learns to not to act out of a place of hurt.

Sokka: Sokka's misogyny was literally a plot point and he overcomes it. Also he and Aang have actually done drag and not been mocked for it. It's rare to see in media. The only other example I can think of is Good Omens.

His misogyny also feels kinda surface level (as opposed to Zuko in whom it's less obvious but seems more deeply ingrained).

Also. Zuko never did drag. Shame on him.

Aang: is the least misogynistic of the boys. The only instances I can think of are either kinda vague: when he tells Sokka that “It's nice dress!” It's kinda ambiguous if his tone was mocking or complimentary but it upsets Sokka nonetheless. And when he's upset at being played by a woman in Ember Island Players. The first time I watched it I felt it was OOC. But he was also kind of justified as it was racism and misogyny combined on behalf of the Fire Nation in portraying him that way.

Phew. These were purely my own opinions simply by the virtue of gender expression meaning different things to different people. I might say Mai is actually quite feminine while Toph isn't... But what even is considered masculine or feminine?

I love Katara and Toph's spa day because Toph learns that being girly wouldn't kill her—but she also doesn't suddenly become Ty Lee levels of feminine either. Some women just don't wanna be feminine. Oftentimes it's because femininity is derided by society itself—and that's something that one needs to heal from, like Toph did with Katara’s friendship—but everytime I've seen a story like that, the girl, upon realising that femininity isn't a bad thing is suddenly hyper-feminine.

Like, can we have them heal from internalised misogyny and still not wanna be feminine—even though they don't consider it bad or embarassing or fickle anymore?

Toph and Katara’s spa days do it perfectly.

When those girls mock Toph and Katara tells her she's pretty, I can't tell you much I loved it. The same feelings toward Suki’s “I am a warrior, but I'm a girl too.”

[doonalli]

hi !!! i lauv ur analysis’ of yttd !!! would you consider doing one for maple :)?

Woah my first ask!!! Thank you!!!!! Maple is such an awesome character there is so much that I could say about her, I even went a bit into it with Mai's analysis Maple's character is such a tragic one honestly, and there is a lot I could talk about, but writing this on the spot I obviously won't be going as in depth as usual, although I really do want to write a full analysis on Maple sometime, but 3-2 seems just around the corner so idk if I'll get the time....

Regardless, for right now, I'll talk a bit about the way Maple is presented, how that plays into stereotypes, and most importantly how she subverts them too

Maple is immediately presented as a very girly girl, right as we enter her room we are hit with loads of pink fluffy furniture, and she particularly has a keen interest in tea, all things that are traditionally feminine

Even her fight follows this with its emotions gimmick, playing into how women are seen as hysteric by the people who don't respect them

and further playing into that girly stereotype Maple has a deep love for Midori. It's a common trope for women in media to be nothing more than the love interest for the men around them, or for them to fall head over heels for the men they love.

But for Maple this is revealed to be much more sinister, with it actually being something programmed into her, rather than her own true feelings

let's not beat around the bush here, Midori is by no means a good person, AT ALL, but compared to Maple's love, Midori's affection is incredibly twisted, with the prime example being how he talks about Shin

In Kanna's route Midori talks about how unfortunate it is that Sou had to die, as he wanted to kill him himself.

And with that context I find it interesting how when Maple ends up powering down and "dying" Midori takes her and goes to "revive" he with "the power of his love"

It's just peculiar to me the difference between them and how Midori treats them. On that point though, another thing to note with Maple is hands.

To even enter the discussion room a pair needs to hold hands. People holding hands can often be used as a sign of affection, or intimacy, even Ranmaru himself falling into this.

But when Midori decides takes her to get "upgraded" he notably grabs ahold of her wrists, rather than her hands.

Grabbing someone's wrists is usually done because it exerts more power over them, compared to holding hands where it's a mutual act from both parties, and can be let go when either party desires it.

He could have grabbed her by the hand, or any other place honestly, or nankidai could have simply chosen not to show it at all, yet a specific focus was put on Midori grabbing Maple's wrists.

It's clear Midori doesn't treat Maple with care like the green books suggest

Nor does he make any attempt to understand her emotions or sympathise with her like the manual says

I mean he literally gave her the manual in place of a love letter to her, clearly not caring enough to actually write something for her. It doesn't get more ironic than that.

And it doesn't stop there for Maple, as when she is upgraded into Maple 2.0 she is forced into fighting her friends, in particular Mai

And this leads to partway through the fight where she fully cuts off her last remaining hand, which with the context of everything I've said also cuts off her chance of simply holding someone's hand...

But its not all bad for Maple, after all if Anzu survived the way she'll reconcile with Maple is by holding and shaking hands

(fun fact: Nankidai showed an old version of the sprite where Sara reconciles with Maple on stream once and in that sprite she also held Maple's hand, but that was changed before release)

And by the end of her story, Maple is able to fight back against Midori and put the first crack in his facade, even pushing through his "I love you"s and outright stating that she won't believe him. She pushes back on this idea of being defined by her love and is able to truly show herself as a strong person able to stand up the abuser in her life.

And Q-taro will even call Midori out on his mistake here, on how he underestimated Maple, because of his prior expectations,

And coinciding with that, this happens after Maple's monitors all break, monitors that were all linked to emotions, and put them neatly into boxes. It's not like Maple suddenly becomes emotionless either, she still hesitates when Midori says he loves her after all, but it isn't as easy as just reading it on her face, because she isn't defined by her emotions either.

Maple is more than the stereotypes that can be pushed onto her by the people in charge, (or the people who program her,) and the way she is able to fight for her own power says a lot, and proves that she is so much more than what it may seem on the surface, after all, she is human too.

================================================

Thank you again anon for the question, this IS shorter than the others i've written due to me writing it on the spot but i really hope i was able to fufill ur expectations even just a bit I'd love to revisit Maple someday, hopefully we'll be able to see more of her in 3-2 too (or YTTS or a minisode or a page in the updated artbook or SOMETHING) but for now I really enjoy her place in the story and her portrayal and maybe i've been to do her some justice and was able to show some others that too!!!

[fandomsoda]

Y’know I actually think we really need to talk about how more fem/less masc presenting characters are treated by the utmv fandom.

Because characters like Ink, Dream, Blue, and Lust have had a very disturbing pattern in how they’re treated. There are usually three really bad pitfalls that happen with portrayals of their characters.

infantilization/uwuification

villainization/yandereifiction

fetishization/hypersexualization

With these tropes often overlapping.

The version of bastardization we’re all pretty familiar with is infantilization/uwuification, where the characters are treated as overly innocent/cute and are often denied their maturity or agency in things. We all know the Bluwuberry situation and how Ink was treated pre-2018 and how Dream is still often treated today with very little push back, all of these characters are treated as innocent or demure simply for presenting less masculine or being “good guys”. But this can also be deliberately done in an attempt to “save” a character from preexisting misconceptions. See the #SaveLustBean situation from 2020-2021, where people (primarily on the utmv side of YouTube, usually young creators) tried to dispel the negative connotations around Lust’s character by… basically infantilizing him. It’s right in the hashtag, calling him an “UwU Smol bean” instead of just- saying #SaveLustSans or something like that that is more definitive. Their intentions were very noble, but their methods were misplaced.

Now on the other end of the spectrum, villainization. We’ve all seen it with Ink being treated like an unforgivable monster post 2018, we’ve all seen Lust being characterized as a gross pervert or deviant when he’s not, and we’ve all seen the villainization and uwuification compound to make yandereification with how Blue was treated in the early days. Even Dream is starting to be villainized in very upsetting ways. The issue with these portrayals isn’t that they portray these characters as dark or complex or as villains, I myself find darker interpretations of Dream and Ink fascinating. It’s about either the extent to which they misrepresent and mischaracterize the characters or the way the behavior is presented. With Ink and Dream especially their actions are often treated as irrational and hysterical, to the extent of playing into common tropes of the “unstable fem person who can’t control their emotions”. On the other hand there is Lust, who is villainized and ostracized because of his femininity and often is forced into a more masculine role, with the way his fem presentation is gawked at often resembling the way people forcefully masculinize and ostracize trans women. He is treated like a weirdo creep because of his nonconformity compounded with his proximity to suggestive themes and it’s… not fun to witness.

Now finally, the hardest of these to talk about and the least talked about of these topics, fetishization and hypersexualization. If you are sensitive to these topics/discussion of suggestive themes I suggest you skip this section, though know that nothing will be described in detail here. This is not about people simply ethically depicting these characters in suggestive ways or as people who have sex lives/appeal, that’s not at all what I’m referring to. I’m talking about the way that these characters often have sexual themes forced upon them, how all of their traits are often sexualized, and how these things are specifically done because of their femininity. Ink’s neurological issues are often fetishized with people treating him as mindless or helpless and then somehow trying to make that something they can exploit. Blue’s infantilized and yandereified nature are often accompanied with heavy sexualization, especially in the earlier fandom days. Dream is very rarely given proper attention beyond potential sex appeal and being a goody two shoes, with his own damn creator infantilizing him and then putting him in deeply upsetting situations. Lust especially is often not given room to exist outside of sex and is treated like nothing more than a suggestive deviant.

And a lot of people will ask me how all of this relates to their femininity and will claim it’s not exclusive to them, but if you look at how people treat the other characters that’s just not true. The bad guys are allowed to be complex and interesting, they are allowed to take on respectable archetypes, the stars and Lust are often not.

And whenever people try to remove them from these bastardizations they often do one thing that is very telling: they remove the non-masculine or unique traits of the characters.

People make them more masculine, less cute, more sanitized, they take away what makes these characters special, as if masculinity and a lack of cuteness and being nonsexual is what is required to deserve respect or proper characterization.

All of this to say: just because we are the fandom of gay gender nonconforming skeletons does not mean that there isn’t deep-rooted misogyny we need to unpack.

Obviously if you’ve ever made a mistake in portraying these characters or accidentally participated in bastardization you’re not suddenly a misogynistic monster, I just think it’s good to take a closer examination at how we have historically and continue to portray certain characters and may accidentally perpetuate certain harmful ideologies.

Feel free to discuss, just keep it civil.

Shoutout to @letsatomicbanana for bringing this to my attention.

[yermes]

PAC 🍸:

I spent all day looming with 2% brain capacity. Literally just unwell gloomy tired. I was sitting feeling everything spiral away from me as I do my shitty ass chores and contemplating my current predicament. Anyways turns out my mid day spiral was because I was HANGRY. But anyways I have been looking into feminine aspects in relation to shadow work here are some ways divine femininity manifests within us.

Pick a meme

Pick up a card

King of cups (reversed) 🦟

Prince of the Chariot of waters, air aspect of water, 20° Libra to 20° Scorpio, Tiphareth, Vau

Artistically untrustworthy or so one may say. This card brings a type of intensity that the girlies don’t really like. But thats fine. As they baddies say and as one of the only universal laws I resonate with the most: as above so below. While the divine feminine aspect that may pertain to yourself may seem “undesirable” those aspects are just as deserving of love as the undesirable aspects. Just as there is a place for good there is also a place for evil. If you can even call those things that. Do not classify yourself as good or bad just simply be.

Eight of wands (reversed) 🕷️

Lord of Swiftness, Mercury in Sagittarius, 1°–10°. Angels Nithahiah and Haayah, Hod

You are claiming something in a clear yet sly way. The high mercury representation represents the swift cunning acts of the god and his desire to lie cheat and steal to get what he wants. AGAIN while this may seem as if it is manifesting in a “undesirable” way yet it needs to be embraced as much as the desirable ones. These cards are fr just saying is all y’all know is: McDonalds, Charge they phone, twerk, be bisexual, eat hotchip and lie.

Knight of cups 🦂

21° Aquarius 20° Pisces, Fire in the waters of Briah, Chokmah

The contrast in the balance which brings a type of instability to shift from extreme to extreme. While the warm waters may be exciting and inviting. Like a nice warm healing spring. It can also boil. This card represents how it can manifest in both extremes and be a healing agent and also a extreme force of nature.

Ruin 🪰

Sun 3. Gemini, Malkuth through air, ten of swords

I love this card because EVERY BAD BITCH I KNOW HAS READ THE PASSION ACCORDING TO CIXIOUS. Basically I see this card as genesis and how due to divine femininity human beings we’re actually able to gain divine consciousness. Yes I get the argument you need all sides but genesis itself is a representation of how femininity brought divinity and human consciousness. Also note how most deities of magic are usually depicted as women. This card represents when human intellect takes a final step. Bite that apple sezy lady. While with the nine of cups in the back fighting brings destruction. However with the sun above we are able to see that we can reach a beginning yet again and start that cycle yet again. Embrace that divinity queen save some for the rest of us.

[perotovar]

erin i LOVE your writing challenge!!! even though i don’t practice paganism, being nordic norse mythology and language is obviously very close to my heart and soul <3 i’m sure a bunch have been claimed already, but i’d love to write something relating to Freyr, Hel, Vidar (that’s my neighbor’s name asjshdghs), or Skadi! but am also open to any of the others if there are few left or unclaimed. thank you for making this and sharing !!! can’t wait to hear more of your thoughts behind the pairings etc <3

ZIGGY, MY DARLING i'm so happy to see you here and LOL at your neighbor's name being vidar 😂

you get skadi/frankie! and she's a fascinating goddess, so i'm excited to see what you do with her!

-

Jotun, goddess of winter, skiing, bow-hunting, and mountains. Unwilling wife of Njörðr, god of the sea and ships.

It’s possible she’s the mother of Freyja and Freyr, but there’s only one source that says this.

Her main goal is to avenge her father, but the Aesir settle her down with the compensation of trying to make her laugh. Loki plays the jester and succeeds in making her laugh.

She wasn’t allowed to pick her husband outright, because if she could, she would’ve picked Baldr. She was forced to choose by only seeing the group of men’s feet. She picked the nicest/cleanest ones (thinking they’d be Baldr’s), but they were Njordr’s.

There’s evidence within the language that we have that my suggest Skadi is actually transfeminine. Her name seems to have masculine origin. The mythological reasoning for this is in the gender roles between her and Njordr’s marriage.

In one of the few myths we have of Skadi, she gathers her weapons, dons armor and helm, and sets off to avenge her father (who was actually killed by Thor), which is typically a more masculine role in myth. Her quest for revenge is satiated by an offering of a spouse, which is typically a feminine role, in the form of Njordr. There’s also evidence in language and myth to suggest that Njordr is transmasculine.

As fascinating as this is, this myth suggests that there’s been other retellings of the same story, since Njordr and Skadi are very explicitly masculine and feminine, respectfully. It’s just another example of Norse myths and sagas bending the traditional gender roles, which was quite common.

Their marriage was not meant to last, however. Their associations (the sea and the mountains) could not be more distinctly different. This shows us how the Norse handled divorce, because their separation was amicable. They simply realized they were just two incompatible people, recognized that, and decided to separate so as not to harm one another.

Considered a “self-made” goddess, since she wasn’t born among the Aesir or the Vanir. Extremely independent. Described as encompassing all aspects of winter: the harshness, the resilience needed to survive, the icy beauty, and the comforting warmth of a fire after braving the cold. Very direct, but not unkind.

Appeals to women in male-dominated spaces or queer people in heterosexual spaces. Basically, anyone that feels “othered”.

Strong survivalist, self-reliant, powerful, and brave. She represents standing up for what’s right, even against impossible odds.

Offerings: Hot beverages to keep her warm on those cold mountain peaks. Meat from hunted animals. Acts of devotion (skiiing, archery, hunting, etc). Bear and winter imagery/iconography.

your moodboard:

[talisidekick]

Do you really and genuinely believe that nazis and feminists agree and have the same ideology

I'm not sure where you got this from, but I've never expressed that idea. Ever.

Feminists, the real ones, not the ones that brand themselves as "Gender Critical" or "TERF", believe that a womans' body, her biology, does not define her capabilities and position in society. There is nothing a man can do that a woman can't. Any restrictions placed on women by society about what they can and can't do are arbitrary and constructed. There are biological differences between all sexes, but none of these differences are the grounds or basis to build a social or class structure upon. A woman does not need to be married to a man to be successful.

Nazi's, like my great grandfather, believed in "Kinder, Küche, Kirche", which were the three responsibilities of women: Children, Kitchen, Church. This firmly put most women, save those the fascist regime couldn't easily or effectively replace, at home and out of the work force. It defined women broadly by their biology as child bearers and wives of straight men. This same regime also defined women by their biology, and tied their societal their capabilities to it not only to hold power over women but also to deny queer women, even transgender women, equal status or standing. This later helped form the many reasons for the pink triangle and the rounding up of queer individuals as the regime had criminalized what it deemed was 'sexual deviancy'.

If we take a look at the "Gender Critical" and "TERF" groups who like to try and associate themselves with feminism, their very reasoning for denying transgender women and transgender men their identity is based on the same ideals held by the Nazi regime. That a womans body, her biology, DOES define her as a woman. Furthermore those same two groups will additionally not only point out biology, but behaviours that aren't "traditionally feminine" as reasons why transgender women aren't women. Things like being loud, being gaudy, being outspoken, and even strongly opinionated and emotionally passionate, or dominant. As if to say women are supposed to be quiet, modest, reserved, and submissive. Yet when a transgender woman abides by these supposedly "traditionally feminine" behaviours, she's ridiculed for being stereotypical. Which is the same tactics used by oppressive governments and oppressive political movements, like the Nazi Party, to be contradictory to their own rhetoric for the expressed purpose of simply pressing down on those they don't see as equal.

So the short, is no. Feminism is in direct opposition to Nazi ideology.

However, "Gender Critical" and "TERF" groups that like to try and co-opt feminism to try and lend themselves an air of legitimacy (a similar tactic used by Nazis via the appropriation of symbolism and ideals, ie, Nazi's were grossly Capitalistic but painted themselves as Socialist) despite being closer to the ideals of the fascist Nazi regime. After all, why do you think Nazi's showed up in support of the "Gender Critical" and "TERF" rally held by Posie Parker in Melbourn Australia in 2023? Their ideals are remarkably similar if not identical in a lot of areas. Nazi's just take that rhetoric a half-step further and use it to justify the removal of rights from all women, not just transgender.

Glad we could have this talk. I love that we're still trying to paint me as some kind of conspiracy theorist or something. I've spent my whole life learning my families fucked up and aweful history of violence, abuse, and genocide with the expressed purpose of doing my best to make sure no one else becomes a victim of their bigotry and hatred. If you want a more modern example of what the hatred behind genocide looks like, go take a look at what the Israeli government is saying about Palestinians to justify bombing hospitals and murdering children. That is bigotry at it's climax. Mass extermination with a complete lack of empathy for the individual. And if the United States of America keeps going they way it is, you'll get to see the genocide against transgender people reach it's bloody stage too.

Feminism is an Egalitarian movement. Naziism, "Gender Critical" and "TERF" ideology, and Zionism is exclusionism.

[hoursofreading]

An article I read described a meeting of women who were raising boys. The women were asked what qualities they would like to see in their sons when their sons matured. The answers ranged from humor, to athleticism, to strength, to courage. When one woman said “kindness,” the others were taken aback. Well, of course, yes, kindness, too . . . an afterthought, almost an obligation. And so masculinity and femininity as a hierarchy of power were reinscribed unthinkingly. The author then added, in her own editorial voice, that she wanted boys to become men who would understand what “consent” means. A warning light started blinking in my mind. Feminists who have focused their analyses on sexually structured social power had wired that warning light in my head. It is attached to the term consent. Consent is easy to define out of context, but very slippery in real space and time. If a man and woman go on a date, and they are drinking, can her “consent” to sex after two drinks be considered meaningful “consent”? After four drinks? Eight? If she would not have consented when she was sober, but she does consent when she gets tipsy, is consent qualifiable along some continuum, or is it a cut-and-dried affair with some observable line of demarcation? If a woman works with a man who offers her money for sex, and she has sex for money, is that meaningful consent? How about if she is a sole parent who is in trouble financially? How about if she needs the money because one of her children is ill and she can’t afford a doctor? How about if she doesn’t work with the man, but for the man, and she fears for her job? Is there a point in any of these scenarios where we call it “rape”? Not according to law, because the law says she “consents” if she is awake and does not say no. How about a married woman who has no desire for sex, or who finds sex with her husband, for any one of many reasons, unwanted or unpleasant; and her husband threatens her with separation or divorce? Is she consenting or being coerced? Is the situation more starkly apparent if the woman will be reduced to poverty by a divorce? If her children will suffer? How about a woman who lives in a society where her chances of flourishing are curtailed simply because she is a woman, and having a man as a “breadwinner” is understood as a kind of long-term necessity? Or how about a woman who lives in a society where she fears all men, based on her past experience with some or many men, and she feels it necessary to cleave to one man as protection against all other men? Are these the “choices” of any women you know? Choice, in the real world, is never reducible to an instant. If one is honest, one can begin to see how this business of consent is not intelligible by law, which in liberal society is forced to reduce consent to a decontextualized episode — something with a beginning, a middle, and an end broken off from history, divorced from anticipated consequences. That’s why rape is defined by law as a particular kind of force and a particular kind of sex (yes, rape is sex!), and determined in a voyeuristic, after-the-fact, and detailed re-living of the episode that forces the victim of a rape to revisit the pain, fear, and humiliation several times over.

Mary Harrington & Cyborgs. A somewhat lengthy reaction to an… | by Stan Goff | Medium

[cat-in-a-mech-suit]

I pretty much entirely agree with what you’re saying here. When I made the original (half a meme tbh) graphic it was because I was tired of the way that exclusionists/radfems try to deny some trans people (trans men, trans women, and/or nonbinary people depending on the type of exclusionist) from experiences of misogyny and/or transphobia and the intersection of the two. I did think about the fact that bigotry is a collective and systemic force, and not something easily categorized - and putting people into categories of “men and women and nonbinary” already is problematic (like I acknowledged in the original post). Everything you bring up is true, cis people can be affected by transphobia and cis men can be affected by misogyny. Gender/sex isn’t a binary and experiences with bigotry aren’t easy to categorize. I don’t think it’s appropriate to call bigotry against someone “misdirected” because they aren’t the primarily targeted identity group of the bigotry. A feminine trans man mistaken for a trans woman or experiencing transmisogyny for his femininity doesn’t experience “misdirected transmisogyny” for example. Misogyny and transphobia are inherently connected forces and we all live in a patriarchy and are capable of employing patriarchal violence, people who aren’t cis men no less so.

I guess my single gripe with this line of thinking which I’m going to unpack because I think it’s interesting and worth unpacking is that the ideas that, for example, “cis people experience transphobia” and “cis men experience misogyny,” while true in many cases, shouldn’t be used to give cis people authority to speak on transphobia the same way a trans person can, or give cis men the authority to speak on misogyny the way a person who isn’t a cis man can. Thats a footnote that I immediately want to add after thinking about this, but honestly, I don’t know if my impulse to do so is correct! It might just be essentialism.

I think we are all the authority on our own experiences only, and that holds for anyone. No two trans people will experience transphobia the same way. So, it isn’t any trans person’s authority to speak on the experience of another trans person, and it also isn’t any cis person’s authority to speak on anything other than their own experiences with transphobia (if they have them).

I strongly resent the “non cis men vs cis men” binary that even I sometimes fall into when trying to articulate how patriarchy works in a more inclusive way. We could say, patriarchy targets cis women and all trans people, so simply all “non cis men.” But that’s not true. While I don’t believe in MRA talking points like the “male loneliness epidemic” (I believe there is widespread loneliness just not for men specifically), I do believe men, including cis men, are targeted by patriarchy in specific ways. The terminology currently used to describe this isn’t very good. It connects to capitalism, and competition, scarcity, homophobia, the viewing of women and marginalized genders (another term that has been used as a substitute for “non cis men”) as a commodity. These things are important to talk about even with imperfect language. But why is it so wrong to include cis men in these discussions, as long as they are participating in good faith and not only sharing their experiences as a way to belittle the experiences of others? I think having a distrustful reaction to this because of trauma from patriarchy is understandable, but is ultimately the same thing that leads to the exclusion of trans people on the basis of our supposed connection to cis men.

Another consequence of this, people will frequently use “cis men” as a substitute for “men” and vice versa without thinking of the implications because they do not think about trans men at all, and they are consciously or unconsciously transandrophobic. For example, grouping all men together when it comes to experiences of misogyny, reproductive rights, is very alienating to trans men who need resources for those things. Is the solution to this to separate trans men from cis men further, or to stop seeing cis men as the enemy and totally abandon all kinds of gender essentialism? No matter how many efforts are made to include trans men, if this inclusion is only there on the basis of us being trans, or being “AFAB,” not on the basis of us being men as well, it will always fall short. The idea that trans men are more victimized by patriarchy than cis men because of being born in a different body is true, but to say that we are either less dangerous or more dangerous than cis men on this basis, are both equally harmful.

Talking about patriarchy in terms of a binary, will always reinforce the binary.

Hope this helps. (I know it’s not perfect nonbinary isn’t a third gender i did my best trying to represent the intersections to show that)

[starryarchitect]

Gender Roles in Miraculous Ladybug

Miraculous Ladybug is filled with excellent subversions of gender stereotypes. And no, I'm not just going to say it's feminist, because what I'm talking about is much broader than that. The show is filled with characters that refuse to fit the standard roles their gender lays out for them, both for female and male roles.

Let's start with the most obvious example, Marinette Dupain-Cheng, or Ladybug. It's pretty clear that her character and function in the story revolts against stereotypes of femininity: she is a woman—well, a girl—but she leads her team, which is a traditionally male role. She is the decision-maker, the rationalist, the realist, the one who catastrophizes before she hopes—this is stark contrast to the traditional expectation that women follow and comfort, holding the team up with optism and joy. She is the head, not the heart (that's Adrien). She is driven, strong, determined, and self-assured.

Adrien, too, subverts stereotypes—perhaps more than Marinette, although it's not something you notice immediately like Marinette's subversions. (This is because we're familiar with the patterns of feminist characters, but not the anti-sexism found in Adrien.) At heart, Adrien is arguably the most clasically "feminine" character in the show. On the surface, it's easy to see—he is a model, objectified for his beauty, something that has been done to women for all of history and is still being done today. But it runs deeper, too. He is submissive, mild, willing to bend to other's will—both his father's and Ladybug's, as well as the desires of other people in his class like Chloe and Lila (both of whom are, interestingly, women). His kindness and sensitivity, as well as his role as the heart and support when suited up, all mirror traditionally feminine traits and roles.

And yet, despite all this subversion, neither of the main characters are simply a rebellion against stereotypes. It's clear in Chat Noir's tendency to flirt and his function as a protector, but it's especially evident in Marinette, who doesn't just subvert female stereotypes—she also fulfills them.

Marinette is a leader, a thinker, a pessimist, but she's also interested in fashion and art, both of which are considered feminine. More than that, she's incredibly kind, exemplifying that women can abandon the negative feminine stereotypes of submission and obedience without sacrificing the positives like kindness and selflessness. And finally, she's clearly not a "strong independent woman who don't need no man" because she wants a man. No, she doesn't need a boyfriend, but she wants one. True feminism doesn't mean women throwing aside all romantic relationships, it means not pressuring women either way, into or away from romance. Marinette can be strong and independent while still loving someone and wanting to be loved back.

The characters in Miraculous Ladybug are not governed by stereotypes. They were written to be good, nuanced characters, not feminist characters. Marinette has both feminine and masculine traits, proving that traditional "feminine" values are just as valuable as "masculine" ones. Adrien has both, but far more feminine than masculine traits, demonstrating that masculinity is not superior, and that toxic masculinity is just as harmful as classic sexism.

Miraculous Ladybug didn't say "We need to stop forcing women to be feminine," which is a common and harmful misinterpretation of the feminist vision. It didn't say "We should let women act like men!" or "Femininity is bad! Let's leave it all behind." It said, "Stereotypes—both for men and women—are harmful, and we should let people just be people instead of defining them by their genders." It created a world where there are no traditionally feminine and masculine traits, there are just people traits, and anyone can be anyone.

[mueritos]

How do you feel abt the topic of transmisandry? I personally don’t like the term (bc it implies that misandry is real), but a lot of discussions of specific transmasc oppression and transman oppression have devolved into people saying transmasc oppression is small potatoes and (in some cases I’ve seen) not real or just a by product of misogyny and there doesn’t seem to be any other term or tag where we can talk abt the oppression specific to transmascs , particularly trans men of color. So I wanted to ask your opinion on it, if you had one.

Hmm. I've had different ideas about transmisandry in the post and have sortve agreed with some aspects of it. I'll be inserting a read more.

It's true that transmen are treated much differently than transwomen, ciswomen, and cismen. But I also don't think coining this oppression as "misandry" is helping anyone. People don't hate transmen because we're men, they hate us because they think we're women. Terfs believe we're sisters lost to the patriarchy and trans agender, transphobes dont even see us as men, and lots of cis queer people infantilize transmen because we're seen as men-lite, again, not even as men. We're fetishized because we are seen as men-lite or as "pussy boys" (again, viewing us as women, and ofc theres nothing wrong with transmen calling themselves pussy boys, its just weird when cis people do it). I do genuinely believe we have, will, and do experience misogyny, only because misogyny affects everyone. Just because a cis man isn't going to be targeted by misogyny, he is still affected by it because of his distance from misogyny (he's not viewed as a second rate human for being a man), he profits off of it, but he is also forced to be a misogynist and internalize misogynist ideas that in the end do not allow him to be emotional, a caretaker, a father, a parent, a husband, and a good person.

Transmen do experience misogyny for the fact that we have lived as women, whether some of us view that period in our lives as us being women or just performing femininity; to be honest, it doesn't matter, because any perception of femininity is seen as inferior. I don't think its wrong to say that transmen experience misogyny, nor is it transphobic to say this. Like I mentioned before, misogyny affects everyone, and we all gain and lose from it in many ways. Female abusers gain from misogyny because they're seen as simply "crazy girlfriends/wives,etc" who do harm that is normalized within that archetype, harm that society as a whole accepts. Transmen gain from misogyny the moment we're seen as "cis-passing", because men will switch up their language around another man in regards to what they say about women. But transmen are affected by reproductive rights, sexual health access (abortion, family planning, birth control, STI/STD testing), and transmen are infantilized largely because we are still see as a lesser sex than cisgender men, something which I would argue IS misogyny. As a transmasc latine, I've had to face heavy gender norms that largely did not shift at all for me even after I transitioned. I was still expected to keep the house clean, cook, take care of children when needed, and while this should be expected of everyone, it was still something that was never expected or even seen in the cismen of my family. In fact, a lot of transmascs of color have to navigate the role of both, and while this is optimal as really everyone should just be doing both roles (and roles as in let's de-gender their functions, like everyone should be cooking, cleaning, doing housework, yardwork, child rearing, etc), it is again not really expected from cis men in communities.

I do think we can come up with a better term, and I've always opted to say "trans oppression" or "transmasc oppression", because while our infantilization and dehumanization IS different according to our status as transmen, I still have a hard time believing it is COMPLETELY different from womens'. I don't think there's anything wrong with being a transmasc who is open to the fact that we still have proximity to womanhood, much like transfemmes can be honest about their proximity to malehood. This isn't to say that transmascs or transfemmes have a "male priviledge" or that transmascs ARE women and that transfemmes are secretly men, or whatever else the terfs say, I think its just a fact that because we have to oscillate between various genders, roles, and identities, that that has made us gain the experiences of those roles we've had to inhabit, voluntary or not. I spend a lot of time in women's spaces, not just because as a feminist one should, but because women's spaces used to be for me! And truthfully, I think women's spaces should be open to trans people; our oppression is rooted in misogyny, just as it is rooted in racism, ableism, sexism, homophobia, and etc.

As for a better term, I think its best to leave that up to the members of our community who have largely shaped it. My proximity to whiteness is far greater than other trans people, so if anyone were to come up with new language or terms, I would prefer to use the ones created by BIPOC trans people. I think it's one of the reasons why I prefer saying "trans oppression" instead of specifying a oppression; when we use hyper specific terms, we move away from the various intersections and similarities between other communities and their oppressions, similarities and communities who I think we need to have better connections and solidarity with. I think we can talk about how transmisogyny primarily affects the lives and well-being's of transwomen and still acknowledge that misogyny also affects transmen without stepping on any toes. I say this, of course, with disclaiming that we can't say this without acknowledging intersectionality (as I always make these claims with intersectionality in mind, but I do have to disclaim because I also realize not everyone walks through life with these intersections constantly in mind). Racism, ableism, colorism, etc need to be acknowledged in order to help those who need social networks, assistance, and aid the most.

I understand the need to label everything we feel; it brings community and a term to rally behind. But I think using the language we already have can do the conversation justice, we just need to have these conversations with nuance, which unfortunately for a lot of people, they just like...do not have. The lack of queer history, solidarity, and queer experience that so many people have...and then these are the people that end up speaking the loudest. The best thing i can say is build solidarity and community, continue learning, continue talking, and get off the internet. Queer spaces are much more meaningful IRL than online.

I hope that helped a bit. It's a bit lengthy and i could keep talking, but I would rlly appreciate any further thoughts, ideas, or critiques :)

[tiny-katara]

Oh my god that post with the "Aang looks nothing like Katara's canon love interests" - he IS her canon love interest! Jesus Christ.

My type is girls with dark curly hair, but I've been in love with several blondes. It happens. Katara saying that her fantasy guy is tall and handsome is not a contradiction to her liking Aang, not in the slightest.

I don't think you all want to fuck Zuko. I think you just like the ship dynamic of a tall, strong, fire bending, short-tempered man and a smaller, beautiful, kind but feisty women. And yes I do believe that if Aang looked like Zuko and acted a bit more traditionally masculine, you'd totally ship Kataang instead.

I really don't mean to be rude but did you read that post? I said that the characters Katara expresses explicit interest in look nothing like her canon love interest lol. I know you're going to say "well look at the headband! she obviously liked him then!" or the forced ending, but I just have to say that it's pretty much irrelevant.

Kata*ng is built on a writing trope in which one character explicitly expresses romantic interest while the other is specifically written to ambiguous about their feelings. This is traditionally associated with a "superhero" type story as in the end the girl comes around and gets with the man who saved the world.

Katara is literally designed within the show to not express explicit interest in Aang until the very last moment for ~drama~ so when I say that Aang looks nothing like the people she shows explicit interest in, that is what I mean.

This leads into the section of my post that you are so vehemently distressed with. Here's a friendly little reminder of it for you:

Now, just to reiterate again with that screenshot, I say that the characters Katara expresses explicit interest in look nothing like her canon love interest. You can rest easy knowing that I am aware of how the show ended.

And sure, you can be in love with people who don't fit your physical preferences. I'm not going to say you can't and I didn't say that you couldn't in the previous post either. I'm simply pointing out that it's kind of weird considering there was another character who fit her preferences pretty perfectly right there, but this is all just speculation really. It makes sense to me and if it doesn't to you, that's fine. We don't need to agree.

I do enjoy the dynamic, although I would describe it a bit differently than you have. I enjoy the dynamic of two people who can fall in love against all odds and see each other as equals in a world that was torn apart by a superiority complex. I enjoy seeing two people who are similar enough to understand each other, but different enough to complement each other. That is the Zutara dynamic. That's why we love it.

I must express my distaste for your notion that I think Aang is not as ideal of a partner for Katara simply because he is less traditionally masculine than Zuko is. I love that Aang is comfortable with who he is. I hope that someday all men can feel comfortable with their traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine traits in the same way that Aang does.

Lastly, I've already said my issue with Kata*ng has absolutely nothing to do with looks. Stop saying this. It's a dumb argument. I don't like Kata*ng because Aang does not respect Katara's boundaries. That is something I cannot support in good conscious. It's disgusting.

⚠️Slight discussion of what I would consider sexual assault below!!! I'll leave another little message to indicate the end of the discussion⚠️

Aang forces himself on Katara on screen. There is absolutely no excuse for this decision. It is a horrible example for anyone watching. It violates Katara's boundaries. She is visibly upset and verbally angry with him for doing it. Aang does not even have to apologize to her or face any consequences for it. I am so angry about that and I will never stop being angry about it. I am going to move on because I am physically shaking with rage, but I will state very clearly that if Zuko ever violated Katara in that same way, I would be furious and I would not ship Zutara.

⚠️Potential sexual assault discussion is over⚠️

I have even more reasons to dislike Kata*ng on a personal level, which I mentioned in that same post you're talking about. It just proves to me that you either did not read the post in its entirety due to your blind rage or completely discounted my personal experiences. If you did the latter, it's extremely frustrating.

Personal experience is just that, personal. If someone says something makes them uncomfortable based on things that have happened in their life, take it seriously. That goes for people who ship Zutara too. Neither of us should be dismissive of feelings we do not fully understand. If Zutara makes you uncomfortable based on your life, that's completely valid. If Kata*ng makes you uncomfortable based on your life that's completely valid. It's your life.

Now anon, I suggest reading things a little more carefully to avoid confusion in the future as well as blocking tags you find irritating or distressing.

[daenerysstormreborn]

Thank you for taking the time to read my post and engage with me (: I’m grateful for it because at the heart we both love Arya and we share the fundamental belief that women should express themselves however they want and shouldn’t be considered lesser for it. The debate is more about semantics than anything.

Who is anyone to say they’re wrong?

I wouldn’t tell any specific woman who considers herself feminine that she isn’t. I only want to challenge general ideas and get women to think critically about why they care about being “feminine,” why they’re so attached to that word that they want people to broaden what it means in order to be considered feminine instead of embracing simply existing as a woman and abandoning the desire to be feminine. I think that most if not all women in this position who think critically about it and interrogate themselves will find that the desire to be feminine, regardless of how they personally define it, comes from a place of internalizing sexist gender roles and expectations. Which I can’t blame anyone for. I haven’t shirked it all myself. I think it also relates to a struggle to divorce the concept of “feminine” from the adjectives “female” and “womanly.” All women are womanly on the basis of being women. Female is the adjective for someone who is a woman. People are welcome to disagree but I wholeheartedly believe that letting go of the need to be “feminine,” no matter how a person defines it, is powerful for women.

If individuals just take a passive stance, nothing will change

True, but my stance isn’t passive. My stance is that being feminine doesn’t and shouldn’t matter and doesn’t determine a woman’s worth. My stance is that women are not inherently feminine and men are not inherently masculine (using the common definitions of the words). We’re all just people with a variety of traits. Patriarchy has a clear definition of what is feminine. If a woman who does not fit this definition declares, “actually, I AM feminine! I DO fit what you want me to be even if you don’t think so!” is something that still lends value to the norm of femininity. It still gives them power. They can still wield the concept of femininity as a tool to pressure women to conform. They are not going to change what they consider feminine just because you (general you) say otherwise. Whereas to assert “women don’t have to be feminine, the idea that women must be feminine means nothing to me, I don’t have to conform to your standards” takes the power away from them. If you don’t care if you’re feminine and insist that it’s okay not to be, it makes room for all women to just exist. Put simply:

Femininity is an oppressive standard because it is pressed upon women. The class in power (men) enforce the definition of femininity and they want to force women to conform to it and judge women who don’t. “All women can be feminine” = “your standard matters but I actually do fit it even if you don’t think so.” “Women don’t have to be feminine” = “your standard doesn’t matter and I don’t care if I meet it.” Do you see why I think there is more power in the latter?

I still think you’re not fully understanding what I am saying.

Arya is meant to question the traditional way we see women

Yes, I agree. That is what I am saying. We question the way we see WOMEN, not how we see FEMININITY. The traditional way we see women is: feminine by nature, should be feminine. Arya is not masculine, but she is not 100% feminine. It is how we see women that is questioned. This does not relate to how we see femininity.

Unconventionally feminine

This is an oxymoron to me. Femininity is conventional for women.

Internalize the setting

Internalizing the setting would be to say that Arya should act more “ladylike.” To say she does not conform perfectly to Westerosi femininity standards is not a judgement. It is an observation. It is a synthesis of the understanding of who she is and what Westerosi culture believes. There is no judgement in that. The power comes in saying that it doesn’t MATTER that she doesn’t conform perfectly and that it’s wrong for the characters in-universe and for the readers to want her to conform. “She conforms IF we change the standard” means nothing because we can’t change the standard. It’s an established fictional world. Arguing about whether or not she meets standards of femininity in our world is pointless for both sides because it is still hinged on valuing femininity in women. There would be no need for the argument if we acknowledged that being feminine or not doesn’t matter. When sexist people are criticizing her by calling her unfeminine by our modern standards, the better response would be to question why they have a problem with women not being feminine. Additionally, simply saying that she is less feminine by any standard is not inherently judging her by sexist stereotypes. Again, it’s an observation. It would be a judgement if you said that there was something wrong with the way she is, which I don’t doubt that some people actually. Everyone is seeing it as a judgement because they still believe deep down that femininity is the right way to be despite recognizing that femininity as a standard is restrictive and oppressive. It’s cognitive dissonance.

And this is out of order but

Nobody argues that

They kind of do. OP said that Arya’s “version of femininity” was more like “smallfolk femininity” i.e. drawing upon Westerosi culture. Also funny because again I never even said she WASN’T feminine at all. Just that by Westerosi standards, she’s less feminine than Sansa and that it isn’t an attack to say so unless you’re saying she’s wrong for it. Anyway.

Femininity is the cage. Saying women don’t have to be feminine allows all women to exist as they please without the cage. Saying that all women are feminine in their own way is just giving them room to express themselves within the cage. I don’t know how to say this any more clearly. Someone else created the cage. When we alter the cage but leave it in place, we are not really doing anything to challenge those who built it and try to force women to conform. And again most people aren’t going to change their minds about what it means to be feminine. They are still going to keep on judging gender nonconforming women no matter how much we insist that they are actually feminine in an “unconventional” way. We will not find liberation but trying to change the rules of their game. We need to quit their game. Their rules don’t matter. There’s no point in trying to touch them. We can find out loopholes but they’re going to keep playing by their version of the rule book until we abandon the game and assert that their rules don’t matter.

Not rejecting female identity =/= being feminine. Not rejecting her female identity makes her a girl. People are STRONGLY conflating the construct of femininity with simply being a woman or girl. She rejects many “feminine” activities. I am not saying she is unfeminine, but even if I was, that would have absolutely nothing to do with her being female.

People already use these words interchangeably in very harmful ways

You are so, so close to getting my point. These people are not going to change their definition of femininity. Why? Because their version of femininity is SUBSERVIENT. It gives them POWER. It is costly, inconvenient, time consuming, and disempowering to women. That is WHY they enforce it. They are re going to continue to enforce this as the standard for women so they can enforce the patriarchy and maintain their ideal of male supremacy. No matter what we (we being women) define femininity as, they are going to keep trying to keep us subservient. If we got to a point where feminine literally meant female? They’d probably just come up with another damn word for their idea of femininity and we’d go through the same thing all over again. This is the crux of my stance. We need to assert that femininity doesn’t matter and reject the notion of femininity as something that women are and reject the notion that it’s offensive to say a woman isn’t feminine in order to reclaim power from the patriarchy. At this point it’s not even about Arya Stark at all and it’s just about feminism, lol. It just loops back to Arya in that this is why I took issue with people “defending” her by saying she’s feminine. Even if you (general you, as usual) changed the mind of whoever was on the attack about Arya, it still sends the message that the unfeminine woman is the acceptable target. It throws unfeminine women under the bus. And they know exactly who THEY think the unfeminine women are.

There are still a lot of women who want to be considered feminine

And they are allowed. I won’t deny them that. Again, I’m encouraging them to ask themselves WHY they want that because I can’t think of an answer that doesn’t have internalized misogyny at the root.

Arya has low self-esteem because she isn’t considered ladylike

And you know what I’d tell girls like her? It’s okay to not be ladylike. You’re perfect as you are. If someone told her “it’s okay, you’re ladylike in your own way!” she’d continue to see that traditionally feminine women are praised for it. She’d still think “ladylike” is something that she “should” be and she’ll wish her way of being ladylike was praised like the traditional way. She’d still feel bad. That’s why the more helpful message would be to tell her that it’s okay to be who she is no matter what everyone else thinks. She doesn’t try and fail to be ladylike. That’s not why she’s hurt. She doesn’t want to be ladylike. She wants to be valuable and loved for who she is and she’s frustrated that she isn’t receiving that. It would be easy for a child to mistake these feelings for “I wish I was ladylike.” It’s because people tell her it’s what she should be. When I was her age, I wanted blonde hair and blue eyes. I wanted to be pretty. But that wasn’t what I ACTUALLY wanted. I wanted to be valued by my peers. I wanted to be loved. I needed to be told that I was valuable and loved for who I am regardless of other people’s standards. I know this in retrospect because I was an ugly duckling. Most people consider me to be beautiful now as an adult and I still feel the gaping void, the need I felt as a girl. Because it wasn’t really beauty I wanted. This is largely my own analysis for Arya, but it checks out. She likewise doesn’t want to be ladylike like Sansa just because. She wants approval.

Most Arya fans don’t give a damn

This has been my experience too, which is why I was so shocked that I got such hostile responses from Arya fans. In my eyes, I was DEFENDING Arya, a character I ADORE, just like them! But I understand why people misinterpreted what I said as sexist because of how Sansa stans often talk about Arya in a way that IS very sexist. The problem is that we’re just operating on different definitions of femininity and different ideas about how to combat sexist gender norms. And it’s okay to disagree with my ideas about how to combat it. I feel very strongly that I’m correct, but that doesn’t mean I AM correct, and I recognize that despite feeling so strongly about it. I’m sure many who disagree feel just as strongly that their way is the right way. So I don’t mind disagreeing. Ultimately our hearts are in the same place: we love Arya and think she’s perfect the way she is and we don’t want girls like her, and by extension, women and girls who are truly not “feminine” to be thought of and treated as lesser. We all recognize that the patriarchal idea of what is feminine both in fiction and the real world is sexist and oppressive and we should fight that. All these things, we agree about. Thank you for discussing with me. It allowed me to really critically think about and strengthen my own thoughts about this!

Nothing you said is dumb and it’s okay to misunderstand people. I’m happy to clarify because the topic is close to my heart and I don’t judge you or anyone else for misunderstanding. You don’t have to read and respond rapidly, or even at all, if you don’t have the time and energy.

Well I got blocked and this my reblog failed so I lost the reply I’d initially written up so I didn’t get to reply (which I think is cowardly. If you’re going to block someone over their reply to your post, just block them. Responding and blocking so you get the last word is just kinda … petty).

I never try to be condescending or obtuse. This is just how I talk.

No sexism was pointed out in the original post. It’s literally not sexist to say that a woman isn’t very feminine. I’m order to believe that, you must, on some level, think that it’s good for women to be feminine and bad for them to be gender nonconforming.

It’s sexist to focus on feminine characteristics in a woman if you’re praising them and calling them superior to less feminine characteristics. It’s sexist to focus on masculine characteristics in a woman if you disparaging them and calling them inferior to more feminine characteristics. But simply saying that Sansa is more feminine than Arya is not misogynistic or pretentious. Sansa conforms to Westerosi standards of femininity. Personally, this makes me like her LESS. I didn’t disagree with the post because it “painted Sansa in an unflattering light,” I disagreed because it painted female gender nonconformity in an unflattering light. Arya has feminine characteristics and Sansa has masculine characteristics. That’s true. But certain MAJOR aspects of their characters rely on Sansa’s conformity to femininity and Arya’s rejection of it. Wanting to fight with a sword is a HUGE transgression against female gender norms in Westeros. It may not be a big deal to us, but think about how Catelyn—a character who believes in upholding gender conformity at least to some degree—reacted when she realized Brienne was female. She was horrified.

I’m not even going to address the classism argument because it is still hinged on the idea that it’s insulting to say that Arya is less feminine than Sansa. I am not placing any judgement on these character traits. They simply are. To me, it’s the same as saying “Sansa takes after the Tully family in appearance and Arya takes after the Starks in appearance.” They’re just things that are. Sword fighting is something that’s also much more accessible to nobility. People focus on Arya’s less feminine traits because they are more important to her characterization.

And they are what I LOVE about her. I LOVE Arya for rejecting feminine norms in Westeros. I admire her. My favorite character is Dany, followed by Jon and Arya, who are tied. Meanwhile, Sansa isn’t even on my top ten list. I love Arya’s chapters because I love ARYA, meanwhile Sansa’s are interesting because of what happens around her.

My main point in all of this is that it is not an insult to say a woman is less feminine than another woman. When Sansa stans are criticizing Arya for not being feminine, we should be saying, “it’s okay for Arya to be exactly who she is,” and not, “well Arya is plenty feminine too!!”

[possumcollege]

Explain to me the sides

Today a person on twitter explained to me that in their country- they didn't specify which but, it'll be clear why it doesn't matter in a sec- the concern around gender affirming care is that young girls are being "gaslit into into thinking they're transgender because they don't fit into the preconceived notion of femininity."

They then stated that the biggest spike in those seeking GAC were teenage girls , "the same demographic most susceptible to self-harming social contagions." They admitted that persistent gender dysphoria does exist, but then stated, "the problem is the lack of interest in weeding them out by a medical industry that receive lifelong patients from [GAC]"

"It's a difficult subject," they said, "with many on the Left advocating for the increased access to reduce harm to the potentially transgender children. Whilst many people on the Right and in the Center advocating for reduced access to reduce harm to false positives."

For context this arose because I found a political cartoon by someone terrified that "tomboys" were being preyed upon by the Homo-sexual Underground (not the artist's term) and railroaded into becoming trans instead of simply being a "cute girl."

This is why both-sides-ing an issue like GAC is goddamn near impossible right now. People who want to reduce access to care argue publicly that their concern is protecting children from irreversible harm foisted upon them by woke parents and an insidious LGBTQ agenda to inflate their numbers (and profits) by convincing impressionable kids that being trans is just the coolest goddamn thing. Some claim to support the need for people with gender dysphoria to receive treatment after they've been screened, and that's all they want to do, "weed out" the real cases from the patients looking for GAC like it's an ankle tattoo on vacation. They are concerned that people will regret it and the Trans agenda just wants their money.

The stated positions are fucking fictional coming and going, and just as binary as the gender identities conservatives largely support.

That interpretation is horseshit. For one, it's massively disingenuous, because a significant portion of the people who want to restrict access- Poster said reduce, but when you have to prove you deserve something, it's fucking restriction- want to keep people from receiving GAC because they think it's an affront to god, a sin, an abomination, or a plot dreamt up by Jews to dilute the power of Western Society. A significant portion of that "side" wants to hunt down and kill transgender people. That is a significant wedge of the pie to completely omit while pointing out the difference in people who support or oppose Gender Affirming Care.

Secondly, the stated intent for many on the Left is to funnel patients into the lifelong cash extraction scheme that is transgenderism. Why is this so strictly a Left vs. Right thing for these people? Because they're fucking lazy, but sorry, not the point. My point is, No. That is absolutely not even in the top 69 reasons people who support access to GAC claim. Anyone who believes in respecting the gender identity of others knows that it's harmful to force any gender standard, not just the ones we don't like. We don't just want more trans people.

For clarity, I don't ID as trans, but I do believe gender to be spectrum of possible states that a person can exist in, not determined by their reproductive anatomy. I believe trans men are men and trans women are women and everyone else is what they know themselves to be, even if that changes throughout their lives. When I say "We" please understand me to mean people who broadly view trans people as real people, deserving of self determination, happiness, and access to healthcare, unburdened by bigorty. Thanks.

We understand that a person's right to live their life in the identity that expresses their humanity, their personhood should go unfucked-with by people who want to enforce a false binary or defend the impressionable girlchildren of the world from their wanton fancies.

Saying "you don't look girl shaped so you have to be trans now", is just as evil as saying, "Of course you can receive care, but convince us first." The first is just not happening in clinics providing GAC and sacrilege to anyone believing in bodily autonomy. The second is happening now and it's killing people.

I say what country Poster is from is irrelevant because they were parroting the same lines that bigots use when they don't want to look like bigots, wheresoe'er they be. They ignore the contingent of anti-access proponents who want trans people killed or forced to live a fake life for the convenience of people who don't believe they are real. They completely made up a bizarre reason why pro-GAC folk support it. And I need to point out, they cited a concern that has historically been used to justify the torture, subjugation, mutilation, and dehumanization of women.

Referring to Gender Affirming Care as a "self-harming social contagion" is the kind of language doctors used in the late 19th, early 20th century to justify subjecting boys to painful devices and process to discourage masturbation, chemical castration of children and the "mental defectives," and literally lobotomizing girls who were deemed too wild and unruly. Look up Rose Kennedy if that sounds insane. It is. And they did it. This is the language of honor killings.

Couching opposition to GAC in an innocent desire to protect young girls from self-harm reinforces the notion that they are not capable of properly managing their own mental or emotional lives. Poster states that statistically, these young people are at the highest risk for suicide and self harm, while ignoring the crushing burden that being forced to present an identity that is not you places on a person. Young people are at heightened risk because they are under nigh inescapable pressure to live a life that is acceptable to others while subjugating their own needs and identity. It is paternalistic trash and it can fuck right off.

These talking points speak to a deeply flawed understanding of what gender affirming care even is. They sound like teens are fed into the Transgender Mill where their bodies are surgically mutilated into a humiliating parody of reality. Most of the time, people leave their first session with pamphlets. Maybe some referrals. Hormone Replacement Therapy, counseling, puberty blockers can be GAC. They can also help people suffering from conditions unrelated to gender identity. A very vocal segment of anti-access advocates seem to believe GAC just means genital reconstructive surgery. That's great for those who choose it, but it's not the only way a person can become trans. Transition is not a single destructive act that obliterates a healthy human in its execution.

I believe the poster may have conceivably been trying to present an equitable encapsulation of what they see as a complicated issue but the language they used bore the veneer constructed by people who admit they just think trans people are sick in less public settings.

So thanks, poster for explaining that both sides of the issue as you see it are entirely made up perspectives crafted by people who neither know or respect trans people, and wish to package their discomfort with the fluid potential of gender presentation as the duty of benevolent father figures to control young girls until they're old enough to become another man's problem.