#you either get it or you don't y'know

[uncanny-tranny]

I'm going to preface this by saying that I have really complex feelings about this, and much of it is inspired by my personal experiences and a bit of learning about what other trans people experience. If I come across as messy, it is because of these reasons.

There's this unshakable feeling I have that when allies and even other trans people talk about trans people, transition and motivation for transition, and anything related to such, that there's only certain things that x type of trans person can (and should) experience and talk about.

Like, when people talk about FtMs/trans men/transmasc people, a common idea is that we're motivated to transition to game the system, to manipulate people into treating us better because we're now seen as men. A huge reason I never even bought into that idea is because, since transition (especially medical), I have been treated worse than I ever have been. Since transitioning and being on testosterone, I've been catcalled, had people insist I hand my number over, and I have to emphasize that I've never experienced these things until a couple of years ago (to clarify, this was in my real, corporeal life). I honestly can say that, while transition has saved my life and soul, I am treated worse by others than I ever had been pre-transition. However, because the idea of transmascs is that "they were victims of misogyny and they only want to escape it through transition" is popular even among some trans people, I feel like it's almost... taking something away by acknowledging that. Add to this that I'm white and that TPoC have so many experiences that intertwine with race, and that race absolutely goes into how trans people are treated.

I am not saying that my experience is the only valid or true one. I am very aware that I'm probably an outlier. However, I just notice that, time and time again, people hear what they want to hear about transness, and if people have even slightly different points of view from their experiences, it doesn't matter, or worse, those people are duplicitous and conniving.

[front-facing-pokemon]

[airanke]

The urge to draw Dante and Touya making out but the urge to not draw it because I feel so bad for Touya 🤣🤣🤣

(Wow I'm so sorry I rambled aggressively in my tags WTF)

[sysig]

Rosawatts, from memory (Patreon)

[xxlovelynovaxx]

Something I've noticed but only just now been able to put into words, is that a lot of the people who are like "I could never fall for cult shit, I'm too smart", and "I would never be bigoted against marginalized people, I do all the Right Social Justice Things" also seem to be incredibly convinced that if they ever listen to what anyone they believe is harmful is saying to really try and understand it, not even to agree with it but literally just to understand it, that they'll be "brainwashed" into believing the harmful shit is good and being a harmful bigot.

That cognitive dissonance there, that "I'm immune to propaganda because I never ever ever look at propaganda of any kind, not even to learn to recognize how it works" - radicalization relies on that.

Long post about this below the cut.

It's how people fall down the te/rf, the incel, the far-right pipelines. It's how people who consider themselves "leftist" become anti-porn, anti-sex-work, pro-censorship. It's how people who are otherwise progressive go from a baseline level of ableism, antisemitism, intersexism, radi/cal feminism, etc, that hasn't been unlearned, to spewing violent bigotry against these groups thinly veiled as "justified resistance" against "fakers" and "able-bodied" people, against "zionazis" and "genocide apologists", against "tmes" and "TMRAs", all while the people they're attacking are none of these things.

No one is immune to doing this is some way. There is no axis of marginalization that makes you harmless, in part because there will always be people in your own marginalized group that you have privilege and power over along another axis of marginalization. There is no identity that makes you only a "victim" and never the one doing the harm.

But radicalization, bigotry, oppressive systems, they rely on this doublethink of "I can't do harm" and "if I listen to those who are Categorically Harmful, they will Seduce and Turn me into being One of Them and Doing Harm". Because then all anyone has to do is convince you that the Other is inherently a Harmer, and that therefore fighting them makes you inherently Harmless.

This is especially true when the victims (not necessarily victims of the alleged aggressors, but inarguably actual victims of horrific acts), have very little power to speak for themselves about who is really doing the harm.

Sexual assault victims and especially CSA victims are a rhetorical tool in arguments about censorship and queer people, despite many of us being anti-censorship and either queer or allies. Victims of foreign wars and oppression, particularly with limited access to communication, are used for racism, antisemitism, and xenophobia - despite often actively telling people that those bigotries make things worse for them too and don't help. Disabled people have the symptoms of our disabilities used to excuse the behavior of people who are liked and condemn the behavior of those who are not - disabilities are only genuinely disabling to others for as long as its convenient for them to be.

I don't really know what drives it? Is there at some level a recognition of a fear that maybe, actually, the moral cause you've championed for so long actually made you one of the Bad Guys, because of puritanical culturally christian thinking that is only worsened by the punitive, bloodthirsty mindset of social media nowadays? Everyone likes to watch whoever's been assigned Main Character of the Week get "justice" fighting in the coliseum, always aware of the eyes on us waiting to shove us in too.

It would make sense - it's not just a fear of hurting people, but that if you admit to doing so, "both sides" will descend on you like ravenous wolves. It's a fear of Being Hurt, from people who have already been hurt far too much. I've endured many types of trauma, and can say with confidence that online harassment and dogpiling is as horrific as any of them.

Is it just basic fascist ideals that haven't been unlearned, that the "enemy" is both weak and strong? That they can't get to you because you're not reading all that, because you know better than to try and understand your enemy, but that if you ever did they'd immediately corrupt you completely?

I don't know. But the reason it works is because if you think the people you're fighting will convince you if you listen, once you're convinced you should be fighting them, you'll see every last drop of blood spilled as righteous. This, all while radical groups and bigots rely on you not knowing or examining how propaganda of any kind - helpful, neutral, or harmful - actually functions.

I don't know what to do about this. I know I've unpacked harmful beliefs a dozen times because I actually listened to people. I know another dozen times, actually listening to people has only further shores up my own beliefs - but critically analyzing what they are saying, weighing it against my own knowledge and experience, giving it a space where yes, I genuinely evaluate it's validity.

I think that's what scares people the most. It's "well but then, aren't I saying that [bigotry] could be valid?"

The thing is, that's not really what you're evaluating. You've been successfully tricked, indoctrinated into believing that if you question "is this actually bigoted against that group", you're actually questioning "is it okay to BE bigoted against this group".

This, too, I believe is coming from a place of cultural christianity. Questioning whether something is "sinful" is itself "sinful". Critically analyzing the way you apply your beliefs is conflated with critically analyzing the underlying beliefs themselves.

And of course, there are times when critically analyzing beliefs themselves is important, also something tantamount to being seduced by the "devil". That is how the "enemy" is treated in secular spaces - an all powerful force waiting to corrupt you at every turn and steer you away from the Good Progressive/Leftist Path. Generally though, these questions are not "is bigotry actually okay", so I'll leave a wider discussion of these for a different post.

I will say, though, that I do think not having devoted any analysis to the above is part of what makes that conflation possible. Disabled people arguing against other disabled people for exercising their right to bodily autonomy in a way that affects no one else because it's "unhealthy" despite disability itself being based around abled standards of health, trans people treating other trans people as dangerous and/or oppressors on the basis of bioessentialism and/or gender essentialism, plurals arguing in support of the historically violently pluralmisic psychiatric institution and using it first and foremost to support their right to self-determination, rather than said right being inherent...

How much of this is simply based in, rather than valuing autonomy, rejecting bio and gender essentialism, and prioritizing self-determination, simply relying on things like "the logic of disgust" and what "feels" right, despite those "feelings" and "instincts" being largely guided by the bigoted socialization we all grew up with?

Of course, some people might genuinely have chosen to explicitly prioritize an oppositional value - conformity over autonomy, authority over self-determination, assigning inherent moral value to identity over decoupling morality from inherent traits.

But given the inconsistency I've seen, these people seem to be rather few, and those that do exist are almost refreshingly honest even when fundamentally opposed to my very existence. They typically don't make convoluted justifications for their actions, nor contradict the very values and beliefs they claim to uphold, nor undercut the causes they claim to stand for.

But everyone else... it goes back to something that I've seen talked a lot about in discussions about censorship.

It is important to read and analyze things you disagree with, and listen to people you believe are harmful. Even if you're right a hundred percent of the time - a true rarity especially nowadays when there's so many "ins" for indoctrination into bigoted and oppressive systems - doing so will only make you better able to fight bigotry. It'll also serve to make you able to either deradicalize, help deradicalize, or minimally avoid hindering deradicalization of, bigots and other radicalized people.

And it's also important because yeah, some of the Harmful people you think you Can't Harm in your Moral Crusade to Protect Innocents, you're harming. Full stop. No one escapes socialization in our societies unscathed. No one enters the wider world as a blank slate, sure, but no one enters the world without ignoring systems we benefit from and the harms that maintain those systems.

You have to be willing to be wrong. You have to be willing to admit you've hurt people. As someone with moral OCD, yeah, it fucking SUCKS. As someone with BPD and depression, we've split on ourselves (in the BPD sense, but also sometimes the DID sense) and been suicidal over it.

So we're not saying you have to be examining this and yourself every moment of every day. There's times where you won't be able to and that's okay. Those are generally the times it's important and healthy for a good portion of people to step back from social justice movements and activism anyway and rest - but in cases where it's not helpful, it seems that often people will still narrow their focus to issues which most directly impact them anyway, which does help reduce harm.

But people justifying lateral aggression and oppression by utterly rejecting the material reality and oppression of marginalized people, because of that depersoning and positioning of said people as ontologically Harmful? If you're viewing any identity as inherently, categorically, Dangerous and Bad before anything else, ironically, that framework makes you significantly more likely to do harm.

This gets complicated, of course, with nonmarginalized identities. But people don't exist on only one axis - and if we're actually using intersectionality theory as it was intended, acknowledging that each identity interacts with each other identity to form a complex, multifaceted, cohesive whole, well... even people with many axes of privilege may still be marginalized, sometimes significantly. There are severely disabled nonqueer people who have essentially no power over queer people, abled children who have little to no power over disabled adults, white trans people who hold power over all nonwhite trans people - and drive transphobia even as they uphold colonial gender standards and white supremacy.

And of course, this all gets even more complicated with rhetorical tricks used to obscure that identity is the actual thing being attacked.

People are convinced that it's not antisemitism to attack "zionists" while making the one and only criteria for whether someone is a "zionist" whether they are Jewish, all while weaponizing "antizionism isn't antisemitism" as a shield. If what you're attacking is the privilege of "being transmisogyny exempt"* it doesn't matter if you're basing that on someone's identity regardless of their actual experiences with transmisogyny or even whether their identity matches your idea of what that identity entails (for example, intersex people who were assigned female or male at birth).

*Obligatory disclaimer that we are not blaming any specific gender for doing this. We have seen this from everyone from multigender to transmasc to transfem to maverique people to plenty of other people.

Heck, if you attack a "non-marginalized identity", whether or not said identity is actually non-marginalized or has any power over you, that obfuscation isn't even necessary. If neurodisabled people are all able-bodied and always have physical access everywhere and are basically not even really disabled anyway, then how could it be lateral ableism to attack them for pushing back against those false and ableist narratives of their experiences?

If Jewish people are all genocidal Israeli oppressors, then you can go straight into "actually jewish people aren't oppressed and are basically powerful - and controlling the media - and the US government - and are babykillers anyway - and are stealing organs from Palestinians - and you've dove headfirst into blatant antisemitism. But wait! According to you, it's not, because you don't hate theoretical Jewish people, only any Jewish person that doesn't kowtow to you and sycophantically uphold literal blood libel and conspiracy theories.

And if you stopped listening as soon as I said something that you thought conflicted with your existing beliefs - about the tma/tme dichotomy, about Jewish people and zionism, about neurodisabilities being disabling and not all neurodisabled people being able-bodied, etc etc ad nauseum - then this post is about you.

Because you heard someone say "this harms people, you are harming people if you do this" and went "nuh uh I'm not listening actually you're the harmful ones", if you "interrogated" your beliefs without actually listening to what people who are calling them harmful are saying, or at most by decontextualizing and maliciously misinterpreting their arguments to reaffirm your own biases and cognitive dissonance...

You're who I started writing this post about in the first place.

I have laid out, frequently and extensively, the interrogations I have done of myself and my beliefs to come to the conclusions that the things I claim are harmful, are. I've actively looked for logical fallacies and ethical violations. In some places, I've found them, and been forced to re-examine my views. When this has happened, sometimes it's changed those views, and sometimes I simply shored up the foundation by removing the bits that were themselves not supportive or dangerous.

I've apologized and owned my mistakes. I've had the privilege to not just apologize, but undo the harm I did. I've gotten to work to repair not just my relationship with people and their trust in me, but the wounds - and work against the larger structures that I had acted as a single finger of.

And more than anything, I'm sure there's still harm I'm doing or will do that I'm not yet aware of. Out of over seven billion people, there might be several dozen who are not currently, passively or actively, participating in some kind of harm at some level. I can basically guarantee that if you're reading this you're not one of them. This is not because we are inherently harmful, but because we exist within harmful systems that make it impossible to exist without doing so.

"No ethical consumption under capitalism" as an example. Many of the things you might have zero control over right now.

The point of this is not "you are bad" - quite the opposite, in fact. It's "you are complex, and doing harm doesn't make you bad". It's "attempting to never do harm will often make you more likely to do so, and will certainly hinder or outright prohibit attempts at effective harm reduction". It's "the sooner you accept that you will do harm and evaluate that from a neutral standpoint, the sooner you can focus on doing less harm where it IS possible".

But to do this, the very first step is - you have to be willing to listen. You have to understand that you're not going to suddenly be brainwashed into being a hateful bigot because you critically analyze whether something is bigoted or harmful. You have to understand that if you're not willing to try and understand even the most truly harmful, awful people, that you ironically WILL be susceptible to being turned into a bigot by anyone who convinces you that someone else isn't worth listening to.

You have to understand that not listening - is actually just listening to the people who have a vested interest in telling you what others are saying. Who really benefits from controlling the flow of information that way - because it's not you or other marginalized people, I guarantee it.

...

One addition: Yeah, I'm literally the person that has my partner screening my notifs for harassment and hate rn. So this all might seem ironic.

The thing is, you don't have to respond directly to someone who you feel is harmful. In fact, especially if you're triggered or otherwise in a heightened state, I'd say it's often better not to. When triggered especially, you're literally less able to process and integrate information and critically analyze stuff.

It's actually usually better to do this in your own space and time. Privately or with trusted people is best, though yes this sentence alone makes me a hypocrite because I absolutely do this shit publicly and that's absolutely something I should be working on that I'm... not, really.

Anyway yes there's always exceptions, yes there's times where it becomes important to actively seek out people to talk with and find recommendations for reputable educational sources and ask good faith questions of people, yes, even regardless of who is actually doing harm. Sometimes asking those questions is key to deradicalizing them and sometimes it's key to your own deradicalization and sometimes is just makes you able to realize that you all are crab bucketing and you can start helping each other instead.

But while I'll admit to hypocrisy on the "public vs private processing" front, I very much am not on the "listening to people" front. I've had to put some trust in my partner to help me with this because of trauma lately, but as she's documenting any harassment anyway, I can go back to reference it later. And if there's literally anything other than literal slurs or fakeclaiming or similar, she is good about letting me know. So... yeah, I might miss something on the individual level, but I am still doing the work of listening to - seeking out, if I have to - people opposed to our beliefs and such.

[supernovasilence]

No. No no no no absolutely hell no.

(Diane Duane this is about tumblr not you you’re great)

Apparently tumblr has decided to give us note previews at the bottom of posts now and I hate it. Partly it’s annoying; if I wanted to see notes and replies I would click on the notes! The button’s right there! It takes an extra 0.2 second! This just clutters up the post layout without adding any functionality. But it’s also terrifying, because it is once again trying to make tumblr like other social media.

It’s trying to say “here is this Cool Thing (in our algorithmically-informed view). You don’t think/know yet you want to look at this Cool Thing but we know you want to look at this Cool Thing, because we know better than you what you should be looking at.”

See, this note is not the most recent note by a long shot, but it is by dduane/Diane Duane, who has been on tumblr a long time, pops up fairly regularly in the Star Trek fandom, and has written actual official Trek novels (among many other things). She’s probably the most “famous” note on this post (or what passes for famous/popular on tumblr). I’m guessing it’s not a coincidence hers was the note featured.

A quick look through the “tumblr update” tag shows people are also having issues like seeing terf comments previewed even though that’s the sort of content they would never willingly look at.

@staff @support​ @wip​ no thank you. We’re all still here because tumblr is the one social media that lets us choose what we see, not the algorithm. Get rid of note previews or give us a switch to turn them off. We don’t want them here.

[erdasmcnonsense]

Okay I know it's not guaranteed by any means, and it's common enough for reds to survive a good while after turning red, but wouldn't it be funny if Martyn were to also be the first out of the game in Secret Life? The canary curse broken by the previous winner because the Watchers are just that done with Martyn's shit by now or whatever

[dappy-dappernette]

Gonna be real with y'all ppl who say "G-rita is canon" are the most annoying mofos in this fandom /hj

[five-of-cr]

here's the thing about matthias: he isn't the honorable, reformed hero some of the fandom seems to see him as.

yes, he was raised by a tight-knit family of comrade soldiers and decides to betray them in the end. of course that took incredible strength. i don't deny that. but we also need to recognize that the drüskelle are not just some rogue cult. they are a core part of the fjerdan government, who is trying to wipe out the grisha because they are seen as dangerous. that's literally just genocide. however indoctrinated someone is, this is something that is evil from every angle, even if the character can't or won't see it.

and look, i love a good redemption arc, but matthias is such a passive actor in his. he falls in love with nina against his will. she changes his attitudes toward grisha because she's beautiful and kind so all grisha can't be bad, right? this a classic example of the trope of separating the "good ones" from the rest, where you cherry-pick specific individuals to point to as exceptions to a group's nature, which is still implied to be evil. you have to do a lot more than fall in love to truly unearth and address the roots of bigotry.

tbh, this is my biggest critique of the books as a whole. i loathe the "love conquers all" trope that pairs together a character from the oppressed group and one from the oppressors, letting the one show the other through the power of love that being bigoted is not nice. it puts all the responsibility on the former to prove their humanity, and gives all the credit to the latter's ability to be persuaded to recognize it. and then it inevitably leads to forgiveness, because the character has "earned" it by changing their views, once again making the victim seem like the villain if they don't absolve the oppressor of their past "mistakes". also, it's incredibly unrealistic for someone to fall in love with a person who actively hates them and considers them sub-human. in real life, people have to work on their bigotry before that happens, not use the relationship as a plot device for character development.

i think the idea of writing a character like matthias is neat. i think portraying someone's struggle to throw off the suffocating, hateful dogma they've been fed all their life is a story we need more of. i think personal growth of this variety should be celebrated, because otherwise people would never change. but i don't think the people, fictional or real, get to do this without facing profound consequences. it is not enough to feel sorry. it is not enough to apologize. it is definitely not enough to fall in love. and i think writing that lets people off the hook like this grossly oversimplifies power and oppression, and ends up being a feel-good way to romanticize people who cause a lot of harm.

a last note: my opinion is 100% influenced by my being bipoc. matthias is a classic aryan supremacist, even if being aryan isn't the thing he's being supremacist about. my gut reaction to that type of character is always going to be mistrust, both because people in real life have given me reason to be mistrustful and because characters like these are often written in a way that makes you sympathize with oppressors. i don't think matthias earns that trust, and i don't see why i owe him my affection as a reader.

[bredforloyalty]

you know what? it's fine.

[lady-shadow-and-darkness]

Listen, Listen, I'm aware that Chuuya is an amazing character and doesn't get enough screentime in the manga, but : we quite literally haven't seen characters like Kouyou, Gin, Lucy, Naomi, Yosano in ages. And Chuuya has an entire light novel dedicated to him, not to mention he is a part of the main plot of fifteen.

Aside from Naomi and Yosano, who are ADA members (who we haven't seen in a while as well), the other three are locked in Asagiri's basement and no one is talking about them.

[uncanny-tranny]

"The average person will not care if trans people exist in the same spaces as them," and, "some of the most powerful people are of the opinion that trans people must be separated from society, thus, it's important to not stop your allyship with 'I don't care'" are both true.

It is good that so many cis people don't care enough about who is trans and who isn't, that isn't solely what will save us. It's important to stop people in power from affecting the lives of trans people, from preventing them from pushing us out of every space and opportunity they can.

[front-facing-pokemon]

[judicent]

Yeah, I did fill 4 sketchbooks in 4 months so far this year. Huh? Am I gonna post even an ounce of it? Well, you see, I am allergic to my phone, so you will have to come CATCH ME

[stop-breaking-my-heart-dragonage]

Hawke: You knew my grandparents? Elthina: I dedicated your mother into the Chantry. She was a beautiful baby. Your grandmother was a very proper lady, but she was beside herself that day. And your mother put a fist in my eye.

Suddenly I like Leandra a little bit more. I mean, who hasn't wanted to put a fist in Elthina's eye at some point during da2?

"Excuse me, Grand Cleric Elthina, a templar used your official seal to get away with kidnapping and murdering qunari." "Ah, well, the Maker will figure it out. The Chantry is a gentle mother who knows her children learn best when allowed to learn themselves."

"Hey, Elthina, the templars are abusing mages. They're forcing tranquility onto them for minor things, which is against the law, and it's only getting worse. Can't you do something?" "It's not my place to decide who is right, but the Maker will eventually."

"Damn it, Elthina, my mother and several other women were murdered by an actually dangerous blood mage because the templars and city guard couldn't be bothered to do their jobs!" "Ah, I'm sorry, that's so unfortunate. May your mother find a place at the Maker's side."

"ELTHINA the qunari beheaded the Viscount and now Meredith has taken complete control over Kirkwall and is looking for any excuse to annul the entire Circle with her Andraste complex, will you PLEASE do something to stop her before more people die??" "Hmmm, I see, but no. The Maker's time isn't man's time, we have no need to rush."

"Listen, you useless moron, you need to leave Kirkwall because shit's about to go down." "No, I will not leave. Who would hurt me? I'm Grand Cleric."

Even as a baby, Leandra knew this lady was an awful person. This is why you got blown up, Elthina.

[mariocki]

Barbara Murray attempts a needlessly convoluted swindle, as Lady Diane Battersley in The Adventurer: The Not-So-Merry Widow (1.18, ITC, 1973)