#i really get the sentiment and it is valid and true but

[plaguedoctormemes]

“But what if one of or both halves of the seemingly cishet couple at pride are passing or closeted bi or trans!” how about we shut the fuck up and stop headcannoning Jessica and Nathan’s theoretical orientations because cishets at pride that are attending in earnestness will not give a shit whether or not i decide to show up in fishnets and kiss and hug my friends and serve bisexual trans goth realness. Them being around does not hinder my endeavors whatsoever. If they had a problem they wouldnt show up or just leave. The only people that would be baffled at gay and trans people being at the gay and trans event are other gay and trans people that think there is a “right” way to be gay and trans

[ocean-breeze-pier]

Trans guy talks about the issues with male hatred

It’s EXTREMELY frustrating the way that specifically cis women treat me as a trans guy. We are often acceptable targets for hatred against men because we don’t have the ability to oppress like a typical white cishet man (especially if you’re like me and don’t pass) so they can get away with it.

The more I think about why it’s so frustrating that the second a cis woman finds out I’m a man (after already misgendering me because I don’t pass), I get vilified and hit with sentiments that shitty men are hit with regardless of if it’s true or not.

It bothers me because a huge reason I didn’t come to terms with being a trans guy for awhile was because of my own feelings towards men. I’m a survivor of abuse from (mostly but not limited to) cishet men and I was so traumatized from those experiences that one of my initial trauma responses was a really intense hatred of men.

I didn’t know how to process what was done with me. Not only that, but I was in a vulnerable place with no support system and super lonely. I discovered this community online that made me feel less alone (radfems). They would validate my feelings about men which felt good at the time but in the long run, wasn’t healthy. I started to be even more fearful because of the lens I saw the world through. I was even more scared to be around men and struggled to interact with them.

At the time, I identified as nonbinary. If you know anything about radfems, they’re more often than not transphobic. So as a byproduct I did end up seeing that stuff from time to time despite my focus on during my time as a radfem being stuff concerning cishet men specifically. During this same time period it is no coincidence that I suppressed my gender feelings even more, presenting feminine despite it feeling hollow. I wanted to fit in. I felt like this is what I had to do. I felt like since men are evil (radfem rhetoric, not what I believe now), I cannot associate with masculinity. That if I relate to men in any way I’m a traitor and it’s an insult to me as a woman (bc ofc they saw me as a woman).

These circles are insanely predatory. It’s one big echo chamber. Even though at the time I was involved in that community, I still identified as nonbinary. That never stopped. But I was so self hating that I would let them all misgender me and refer to me with an emphasis on my agab. I tried to be lowkey about my identity. I knew if they found out, I would be ostracized as I had seen them do to others. They were either super pitiful towards trans men or they were very hostile towards them, viewing them as gender traitors who were just trying to escape oppression. Plus I was so ashamed of who I was and desperate to fit into a community where my trauma towards men was validated. This is why when radfems interact with me now in the present day, I am so over it. Like I was already fell for this shit once. I’m not going to again. Fuck yall from the bottom of my heart.

This combined with how my abusive exes would treat me led to me hardcore repressing my gender. The abuse I experienced was not solely about my gender, but it played a huge factor. These men would invalidate me so much that to this day, my internalized transphobia is horrific. They really tried to push me to be more feminine and would refer to me in invalidating terms. Telling me I would always be a woman and just needed to accept it. The constant misgendering. It really mirrored that of how the radfems treated me. Like who I was came down my genitals. Like I didn’t have a say in who I was. That they could tell me who I was.

So when I see cis women hit me with the same types of shit that radfems would say about men it takes me back. The fact I get treated similarly to the way abusive men get treated except simply on the basis of being a trans guy… I think it’s fucking capital W Whack.

I haven’t ever opened up about this on here because I’m ashamed of that time in my life. But I want any trans radfems to know it’s possible to get out of that. You can find community elsewhere. To them, you’re just a pawn in an argument. They will never see you for who you are.

And to the man hating radfems. I really do understand. Men have done fucking horrible things to me. But when I used to be stuck in that mindset, I was fucking miserable. Yes, sexism is a HUGE problem. But treating every single man like a threat is not going to solve anything, and by extension you’re vilifying marginalized men.

You can talk about sexism without acting like every single man is evil. The association between evil and masculinity prevents trans men from realizing who they are (which I’m sure you’re glad about) but it also sucks in general because if you hate how shitty men are, don’t you want a version of masculinity that’s not toxic? If you think men and evil are inherently linked, then what? No one can get better. I don’t want to live in a world where the only option is femininity like I used to believe. Femininity ≠ good and Masculinity ≠ bad

When you’ve experienced such toxicity, it takes awhile to untangle yourself from those harmful ways of thinking. For some people, all this shit is just discourse. For me, it shaped my life in ways I’m still suffering the effects of.

TLDR: Hatred of men + trauma played into me not accepting that I’m a trans guy

[lurkinglurkerwholurks]

Sometimes I see a post circulate that says something both true and positive about an interaction—writers love to see a deluge of comments in their inbox, feed trawlers who resurface old posts are valid, commenting on an old fic is not only allowed but welcome, etc. etc. And that post will have tons of notes agreeing with and explicitly reaffirming the sentiment shared, folks who do not know each other and who could not possibly have coordinated in advance all saying "Yes, this is exactly true for me, I'm telling you directly that this is my experience and how I feel about these interactions, please do this."

And yet inevitably I'll also see in the replies or reblogs or tags other people saying something akin to "I wish I could believe that, I wish that were true 😞" And to those people, I say, with the utmost care and goodwill,

Get over yourself.

Really! Get over yourself.

There is no grand conspiracy to lie to you. There is no whispering, snickering plan to trick you. You are not so special that truths that apply broadly somehow magically do not apply to you. You are not so unique that when thousands of notes all say "I really like this behavior, it makes me happy, it helps me, it affirms me," they are not leaving unspoken "except when performed by Random Tumblr User #838237894598834, they are the One And Only Exception."

You don't have to believe it, of course. You can choose not to believe what you are being told, but it is a choice, and one you are making without evidence or support.

It can, paradoxically, sometimes feel very good to feel bad about yourself, but that, too, is a choice you are making in centering yourself as the fixed point at the center of all human experiences and concerns, the One Lone Exception to the reassurances and encouragement. It can make you feel special, even as it makes you feel very bad.

You're not that special, and isn't that a relief.

Get over yourself. And try believing people every now and then.

[romancerepulsed]

maybe this is a "hot take," but it's something i genuinely believe is true. aphobes can broadly be sorted into 3 categories: the uninformed, the bigot, and the bully. there is overlap between all 3, and i'm sure there are some people out there who are aphobic in a fun new way that i can't possibly conceive of yet, but i think these categories are fairly accurate and helpful for an aspec to recognize.

the uninformed aphobe is what it sounds like– they either don't know anything about the aspectrum or they've been fed false information about it. this is the only type of aphobe that is ever worth engaging with, and only to politely correct them and point them towards resources that would help them broaden their understanding. i'll be completely honest though: you'd be pretty damn lucky if you managed to actually singlehandedly change their mind. if they're not receptive to your corrections, simply move on. it's not worth the headache. you at least gave them something to think about.

the bigot, in contrast, is absolutely never worth engaging with. the bigoted aphobe is aphobic simply because aspec people are queer and they hate queer people. terfs famously used (and still continue to use) aphobic rhetoric as a sort of gateway drug for transphobia. the people who will argue that aspec folks aren't queer are often the same people who despise us because they associate us with queerness.

the third aphobe is actually the most common on this website, i think, and they're the reason i'm making this post. the aphobic bully may know full well the fundamentals of the aspectrum, but they will simplify and misrepresent it on purpose in an attempt to make aspec people look bad. aspec people have long been "acceptable targets" of bullying on this site for a reason that is fairly obvious to me but one i haven't seen anyone else point out: aspec people are largely neurodivergent. it's really no coincidence that ace discourse and cringe culture peaked at around the same time– they were one in the same, and the treatment aspec and autistic people received were (and still are) damn near identical. portraying aspec people as cringey teenagers who watched too many cartoons and are just too socially awkward for anyone to love them or whatever... it's a sentiment thats existed for years and years now. it took me a while to realize it, but this is why so many "tumblr funnymen" and other assorted popular blogs were/are aphobes too– they've got egos the size of china but they know they can't get away with blatantly picking on autistic people. so they'll hide behind a guise of aspec exclusionism, something that's unfortunately viewed as a real and valid ideology for someone to have. even aside from the thinly veiled ableism, bullies are always coming from a place of insecurity and projecting it onto other people. i've found that a lot of the most vicious aphobes are people who are struggling romantically or sexually. you can see them post about it, you can see even in the most recent discourse so many of these people are deeply stressed and hurt from whatever romantic or sexual struggles they're facing. to them, someone being unconcerned with those sorts of things is almost offensive because it means so much to them. they read it as a challenge to their own allo identity. so, why not take out that frustration on the aspecs?

it goes without saying that the bully isn't worth engaging with, either. they want to rile you up because it makes them feel better about themselves. don't give them that satisfaction.

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

Why did they change Fellow’s and Gidel’s name for EN but not Rollo’s? So weird you’d think they’d at least be consistent and change all the names or none at all.

[Referencing this post!]

hchfxbjsbajCgwhq Deep breaths, everyone 😅 Deeeeeeep breaths…

I know a lot of us might be displeased with the name changes (moreso with Fellow’s than with Gidel’s) but let’s remember that, at the end of the day, they’re just names. They’re not erasing the original names, they’re not changing the context of the event story, and no one will force you to use the new names if you don’t want to. Your feelings are valid, but please be mindful about how you express them (because unfortunately I fear it can very easily veer into insulting or talking down to the localization/the localization team or fans who don’t mind/actually like the name changes 💦 It is partly for this reason that I did not include the other asks I received on this topic, as they could be needlessly inflammatory).

That being said, here are my thoughts on the matter: initially, I didn’t like the names. My automatic thought was that they sound like a corny 4Kids dub where they changed the Obviously Japanese Name (ex: Ichigo) to something Very Western (ex: Zoey). However, I’ll also be the first to admit that I also initially found the Japanese names odd because who names their kid FELLOW?? It’s like naming someone Person. I’m used to it now, but it definitely took me weeks and weeks to consider “Fellow Honest” a full name.

I’ve seen some people say that Fellow and Gidel’s names are meant to be silly sounding (and so the localized names are actually fitting), but I don’t agree with that sentiment. To my knowledge, no one in-universe ever laughs at their names or says they’re out of place. If the names were intended to be perceived as silly, there would be remarks indicating this. For example, “Tsunotaro”/“Hornton” IS silly because characters make explicit mention of how strange the nickname is. This is not true of Fellow and Gidel, so I don’t believe their names are supposed to be unserious.

I’ve also seen a lot of people poking fun at “Ernesto Foulworth” because “it sounds like such an obvious name for a scammer”. And yeah, maybe that’s true depending on who’s looking at it. I get where people are coming from. Buuut to play devil’s advocate, “Fellow Honest” invokes similar vibes. Both names have that element of honesty/earnest, but “Fellow” is more of a “John Doe” or generic name whereas “FOULworth” sounds bad since we associate the word foul with negativity. Essentially, both names are shady in their own ways but “Ernesto Foulworth” gets more flack because foul triggers an automatic negative association whereas fellow is more neutral.

So then I sat with the localized names for a little longer and the changes started to make a little more sense. To me, both sound very Italian, which fits given that Pinocchio has Italian origins. Additionally, “Ernesto” looks and sounds like “earnest”, which refers to being truthful. His surname, “Foulworth”, may be a reference to Honest John’s full name? Worthington Foulfellow. (I have no insights for Gino, unfortunately… other than making him “match” Fellow’s name better since they’re a pair?)

In all honesty (heh) though, I still don’t really like the new names even considering that context. I’ll probably keep calling them by their Japanese ones. I’ll never be a fan of any name changes because it means I have to go back and edit the tags on ALL my related posts, lol

Side note: shoutout to all the folks saying the names sound Ace Attorney-esque, how you think of Ernesto de la Cruz from Coco, and/or joking about how the EN names are Fellow and Gidel’s fake identities/aliases while they’re on the run from the cops 😭 I laughed too hard reading those comments cbwhebjzbwiwhwlek

Now, I’m not sure why the names were changed considering that names prior have largely been unchanged (Cheka, Marja, Najma, Rollo, etc.), save for maybe some spelling changes (Meleanor -> Maleanor, Baul -> Baur, Farena -> Falena, Leven -> Raverne, etc.). The only huge exception to this is Kifaji, who became Neji in EN. Here’s some theories and speculation going around in the fandom about Fellow and Gidel’s changes:

Copyright issues???? For example, you can’t really trademark “Fellow” and “Honest”, but you could maybe trademark “Ernesto Foulworth”. (This doesn’t explain Gino’s name or why they couldn’t trademark “Fellow Honest”.)

Another interpretation of copyright issues theory is that there’s weird legal stuff happening between Aniplex and Disney (international), which forced the name changes. (I think this one assumes a lot of tight regulations and hinges on how litigious big corpos and especially Disney are when it comes to “protecting” their brand and properties.)

Some have suggested that “Fellow Honest” is noun-adjective word order, which is uncommon in English. In “Ernesto Foulworth”, the first name looks and sounds like the adjective “earnest”, meaning the adjective(s) come first, which is more common in English. (This theory is a little incomplete though; there is no noun in the localized name to complete the thought. Additionally, Japanese also usually goes with the adjective-noun rule, so “Fellow Honest” would be an unusual name for JP too. And again, no explanation for Gino.)

… ITALIAn REP BABY 🇮🇹

[pinkroseblooms]

I've seen a quite a few people in my feed justifying simping for Remmick (and hey, fair, Jack O'Connell is a handsome, talented man and the character is interesting and even sympathetic to an extent) under the reasoning, "he's not actually racist, he kills/infects people indiscriminately and is not targeting the black characters because he sees himself as superior" and similar sentiments.

Like guys. Guys. Even if that's true (I was skeptical but Ryan Coogler does point out Remmick is from a time before this sort of prejudice and actually isn’t racist, so hey, hes jot that evil) and Remmick considers all humans as potential targets and isn't intentionally singling out this community of black people (Sammie in universe is apparently one of many people from different cultures that has the ability to use his music to connect with past and future ancestors) the metaphor of white assimilation and cultural appropriation is still valid.

It really doesn't matter why Remmick is doing what he's doing, but the movie is very clearly and intentionally drawing a comparison to what black people have (and still do) deal with when it comes to white people stealing their culture and then expecting black people to engage in a way they deem appropriate. Black people are expected to just deal with it and adapt. It did happen to the Irish, they were colonized and when they started coming to America they had to assimilate into American (white) culture to be accepted as "white".

Trying to downplay Remmick's character as solely a misunderstood, "I don't see race", well intentioned extremist so you don't feel guilty simping for your newest tumblr sexyman is not it. I'm not saying you can't enjoy the character, (Ryan Coogler loves the character and Irish culture) but Remmick also isn't some ally for the oppressed. The best I could say is he's a manipulative opportunist who doesn't have any issue giving lip service to whoever he's trying to get on his side as long as it benefits him. Remmick's the guy who claims to not be racist or biased against the black characters, he genuinely sympathizes and emphasizes with them, but ultimately he still has no empathy or regard for their humanity. He wants to steal their agency and freedom. And again, you want to write fanfic and thirst, cool, valid, whatever, but to argue "Remmick did nothing wrong" and to flame black people for rightfully pointing out what his character represents when it comes to cultural appropriation and white assimilation is just weird copium.

[varpusvaras]

At this point, for me, one of the most interesting paralles in Ace Attorney is actually Mia and Miles and Maya and Franziska.

They both start their careers for very similar reasons - Because of DL-6, because they lost their parents, because their families have long-running discourses in them. These things also shape their law careers a lot: Mia chose to be a defense attorney and Miles a prosecutor because of how their shared past affected them.

They meet for the first time in court on the opposite sides, and both go through a really messed up first trial that ends up with neither of them winning.

Most interestingly, for me, as an older sibling, is the fact that they are both the older sibling in their families.

Especially what hits close to home for me is the fact that they are the much older older siblings in the family. I have a similar age gap with my younger siblings as Mia and Maya have, and the one Miles and Franziska have is not that far off, either. I moved away from home when I was 16, on top of the large age gap, so my youngest sibling was a literal toddler when I left.

I can't help but feel like I've left them behind in some way.

This sentiment is very much echoed in text with Miles and Franziska. Franziska feels like Miles has abandoned him, gotten the attention of their father, the one thing she wanted, by just the virtue of being first (this is not the whole truth, but for a kid, the perceived truth is in practise the very same as the real truth). Miles does care about her, of course, but he is a traumatised and messy person who largely sees things from his own perspective, especially as a young adult, and thinks mainly about how he is supposed to do things and how he is supposed to operate his own life. Franziska does get left behind in all of that, and the resentment she feels is completely valid. It's maybe not fair to Miles, who did not ask for the many horrible things that drive him forward, but it does not mean that Franziska should just be understanding of his feelings to the ends of the universe, without ever feeling anything herself.

And then there's Mia and Maya.

Mia had, arguably, very noble reasons for moving away from their home. She wanted to find out what happened to their mother. She wanted to remove herself from the arguably very toxic situation that was primed for pitting her and Maya against each other, in order to lift Maya up. They are still in contact with each other, and are very much in good terms.

Mia still, just by being so much older and by removing herself so thoroughly from their home, left Maya behind.

Maya does not show any resentment about this outright, but when reading very closely between the lines, you notice that she is anxious and worried about her future, about the rest of her family, about her own abilities, about...everything. She hides all of this very effectively behind her otherwise bubbly personality, but it does end up coming through, especially towards the end of the first game. She has a lot on her shoulders, and she feels inadequate to deal with all of it. Her home is not really supportive either: the other adult in her life, her aunt, does not hold any true affection towards her, and most likely cannot show the type of support that Maya needs, either. If she could, Maya would not be saying things like "I wish that I hadn't woken up at all" when faced with things she perceives as failures.

No matter her reasons, no matter how much they love each other, Mia still left Maya behind.

And there they are: Mia Fey and Miles Edgeworth, standing on the opposite sides of the courtroom, one of them barreling head first into the tragedy that binds them together, and one of them running away from it as far as possible, while being chained to the ball.

[akkpipitphattana]

I've seen a lot of ppl frustrated at Kant/the Captain for meeting up outside the bar, but my take on it was that was a deliberate power play by CC (not that I don't think he's inept enough to do so out of sheer stupidity!) - Kant had clearly been ignoring his calls, as implied by his convo with Style and explictly seen in his convo with Bison (and when he says he's sick of his 'customer' flip-flopping and doesn't want to talk to him anymore, that's obviously a declaration of intent vis a vis continuing his relationship with the police), and what do cops do when their informants aren't co-operating? They pile on the pressure. And one way to do so is to turn up in front of their informants in public spaces, because they are happy to use the threat of blowing their cover as leverage - talk to us, or else we'll make sure everyone sees/knows what you are. Wouldn't surprise me if they had someone tracking Kant and CC sent him a message along the lines of 'either you come out or we come in.' Look at Kant's body language - he doesn't want to be there, he's frustrated, he's on edge, but at this point he's also visibly exhausted and probably on some level thinking slightly self-destructively - if he gets caught then at least it'll be over, at least CC can't use him anymore, at least he doesn't have to tell Bison himself and see with his own eyes what the truth does to him.

I know fandom in general is sympathetic to the ACAB sentiment, but I'm getting the feeling ppl don't fully appreciate just how fucked up the dynamic between a handler and an informant can be at the best of times, let alone when the handler is corrupt or at the very least abusing their position! I've seen (valid) accusations of grooming levelled against Lilly, but it's not something that only happens to children - all it takes is a significant power differential and someone who is at risk. And we've seen CC using the classic combo of praise and pressure - he switches from flattering Kant ('I know you can do this', 'you certainly lived up to my expectations') to threatening him (which goes beyond the initial outright blackmail - when he says stuff like 'you think they'll let you live once we arrest them?', that is a threat, that is him saying to Kant: we won't protect you - you quit now, you're on your own).

I really appreciated your tags on the height as power play thing, because that jumped out at me when I watched that scene, and it was so sad seeing Kant desperately trying to wrest back the upper hand and suddenly looking so much younger and more vulnerable as soon as CC stood up. And I admit we're veering into fanon rather than canon now, but it just makes me even more curious about his timeline - how old he was when he got caught? Did CC start off as a sort of quasi-father figure? Is that how he reeled him in? Did it begin, not with blackmail, but with manipulating Kant into wanting his approval? Perhaps my most burning question, however, is: what if this isn't even the first time he's been used as a honeytrap?? And I know it's most likely just First being incaptable of not having ridiculous chemistry with every single man who so much as breathes in his vicinity (let's face it, there's a reason the top three 'ghost ship' pairings on that poll are all First-based! But isn't it also because of the potential Kant brings as a character - the potential backstory tween him and Style/CC, the potential hate-sex with Fadel...), rather than anything deliberate but...the *vibes*! If you lean into that side of things and headcanon that yes, Kant did in fact fuck that cop, then phew, there is SO much to unpack there!

This is why I don't get viewers sleeping on Kant - imo he's the most interesting character! There are so many layers! Out of the main four, we probably know the least about him, and part of that is because we can't even trust that what we've ostensibly learned is even true! That whole riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma thing? That's him! And not even because he's that complicated a person deep down - most of the meta I've read here has, I reckon it'll turn out, already nailed it. It's just that a combo of the tricksy and subtle way he's been written/played and the narrative role he's been given requires us to do some of the legwork ourselves (by which I apparently mean, you know, actually paying attention and caring??) to determine what in his words/actions/feelings/face is authentic and what's not, and when, and why, etc (heaven forbid we have to read between the lines!). Maybe some more casual viewers aren't used to that in their bls, and I totally get that ppl go into shows for different reasons and some just want the light entertainment/aesthetic appreciation of it all and aren't interested in deep dives and 10,000 word analyses, and that's absolutely their prerogative! We've all been there! But equally, you don't then get to complain about the writing/acting/characterisation when, by choice, you've skipped/missed/misinterpreted what's being put onscreen (disclaimer: I'm not saying no criticism allowed - there's things I'd have tweaked - just not when it's unfounded cos it's based on viewer indifference/ignorance). I don't want to use the term 'spoon-feeding', it feels ungenerous, and yet...!

Eek, this got away from me. Long story short: don't underestimate the lengths CC will go to just to keep Kant dancing to his tune, including risking his cover by showing up outside his favourite bar!

first of all, thank you for such a long ask, i love getting things like this in my inbox and be prepared for an equally long essay of my own shskdhd i will put it under a cut since your ask in itself is pretty long, but i agree with everything you said basically

i feel like every complaint i hear about kant just leaves me so very baffled. like at a certain point, you’re just coming up with reasons to be mad at him. and like i really wish that people would just fess up to the fact that they just don’t like him. that fundamentally something about him annoys them and that’s okay! you don’t need to like every character, but it pisses me off when people try to justify their dislike of anything by pulling reasons out of their ass. and like, okay, i understand that i obviously over analyze the shit out media i enjoy, and there are a lot people that don’t do that and watch with their brain turned off or just don’t put all the little things together. and that’s fine, but if you’re gonna complain about things at least make sure you’re complaining accurately. like some people didn’t even realize that christ was a cop until ep6 and apparently thought kant was doing it all for money?? when in their FIRST scene together, it is made explicitly clear that not only is christ a cop, but that kant is being blackmailed into this in order to keep his brother in his custody. you may not personally agree with everything he does, you may disagree how much of a choice he has in everything he does, but that does not change his motivations or the power that christ holds over him - and if you don’t realize at least those things, it’s not even a matter of media literacy, you are just not paying attention! or you’re skipping scenes and like, im not telling you how to enjoy shows, if you wanna skip scenes go ahead! but you can’t then complain about things that aren’t actually happening just because you tried to piece together what happened in the scenes you skipped 💀

and this complaint is especially silly because not only does kant explicitly emphasize that he’s been avoiding the captain and therefore we can assume the captain showed up to put pressure on him, but i feel like it’s been made pretty obvious that he doesn’t really have a choice in the meet up spots regardless? like they either meet at the police station/christ’s office, or he shows up in places that kant already is to talk to him, like the pool or the bar. so, i feel like getting mad at kant for that is so stupid? especially considering even IF meeting at the bar had been kant’s decision… he didn’t know bison was gonna show up?? he thought bison was in hiding and it’s his friend’s bar, so it’s a perfectly reasonable place for him to be and to be willing to meet up with the captain like?? he could not have predicted bison showing up after disappearing for a week post-failed murder attempt. like be serious.

when it comes to the acab aspect, i think trying to dive into people’s actual beliefs on that is a can of worms that will not end well shskdhd but in the very least, looking at it from a media perspective, i think in general people expect us to be supposed to root for the cops. like whether or not what you personally believe, the general sentiment in most media is that the cops are the good guys - because that’s the way we’re trained to believe that in society at large, so more often than not, it’s assumed that the cops in most shows are the good guys.

however, when you walk into a show like the heart killers, where 3/4 of our main protagonists are criminals (two murders and a former car thief) and the genre is explicitly a romcom, you have to also understand that the cops in a show like that are not gonna be the good guys! and i think in general, you have to be willing to understand that your personal morals and beliefs are not going to line up with the things these characters are doing. this is a show about assassins! if you’re going to try and argue for who’s morally in the right or who’s the most fucked up one, maybe this isn’t the show for you. and that’s okay!

all that to say you SHOULD be suspicious of the captain and his intentions - you should not trust him as some morally good figure because he’s been explicitly shown to be blackmailing and manipulating kant in all of this! he is a villain, explicitly so. and while i know we don’t have an exact age for when kant’s parents died and he had to start raising babe or for when he got caught, it’s very safe to assume this has been a long time thing. kant says their dad died young, babe says that kant raised him, so kant had to have been young when he had to start taking care of babe, and i’m assuming also pretty young when he got caught for his car thefts. so, it would not at all shock me if the captain saw a young, college-aged kant, who’d just lost his father and was desperately trying to keep himself and his pre-teen brother afloat, and saw an opportunity to put on the mentor role and mold this kid into what he wanted and needed. i think the lilly comparison makes perfect sense - because we’ve already been shown time and time again the similarities between the captain and lilly and the ways they manipulate kant, bison, and fadel. this being another way theyre similar would be no shock to me.

nor would it be a shock if the captain also made the relationship sexual at some point and kant having daddy issues and therefore being into it makes perfect sense as well shskdhd like you said i think it’s a combo of first having insane chemistry with everyone but also just kant’s character making these dynamics interesting - which is why first was the perfect casting choice they could have made shskdhd kant’s character in general is exceptionally fascinating to me, but i feel like i’ve made that pretty obvious with all my kant posting, and i don’t get how anyone can just write him off or view him as being one dimensional in anyway when he has SO MANY layers to him. he’s incredibly complex and that’s what i adore about him.

[velvetvexations]

my whole thing w/ the arguments against the sentiment of "you dont need to transition to be trans" is that they're all anecdotal & personal and lowkey i kind of feel like... get over it?

my first partner was a cis lesbian who was deeply horrible to me & did, in fact, use that rhetoric to keep me from coming out to my parents & persuing both social & medical transition. she insisted i could still be a valid trans man while she actively tried to feminize me by making me keep my hair long & asking if i was "really sure" and you know what? i still think it's worth telling people that they don't have to transition to be trans. because it's true.

your ability or desire to transition has no affect on the balidity of your identity & it never will, and if that upsets these neo-truscum weirdos then that's another stick i hope they'll find the sense to dislodge from their asses someday.

it's your body. you can do whatever the hell you want with it, including absoloutely nothing.

love you for this <3

[artist-issues]

Idk if you still think about Wish (2023) but I feel like a huge problem with it, specifically Asha's character, was that she just fit the "adorkable" stereotype instead of being her own character.

It made sense with Rapunzel - she's never been outside before, so of course she will be a socially awkward clutz. The same goes for Anna, but this character archetype started going downhill for Disney in Moana. It might seem like it fits since she's never been off of Motunui before but it's not like she's never talked to anyone.

The "adorkable" trend became its worst with Asha. What do you mean she's socially awkward and clumsy but still has the trust of the ENTIRE KINGDOM and wants to be the King's apprentice??? How???

I feel like if they made her personality a little more like Cinderella's and Tiana's she might have been more likable and believable - being a stern, gentle, and hardworking woman who takes no crap but is still kind and caring deep down. This could contrast her with the naïve, cheerful, and bubbly Starboy (I always mourn the storyboard drawings of them together) and even make a comparison between her and King Magnifico, maybe even becoming a central conflict with how Magnifico's ambition for power turns him evil because of his lack of morals, and without Starboy Asha would've gone down the same path if it weren't for him reminding her about what really matters - being purely good and not letting anything stray you away from being a good person.

Sorry for the ramble but I just have SO many thoughts about how Wish could've turned out 😭

I don’t find Moana “adorkable.” If “adorkable” means “socially awkward” or “spazzy with her emotions,” (like Rapunzel going “I KNOW! -playing it cool- I mean…I know.” Or Anna going “It’s TRUE LOVE”) then that’s…kind of just “being young.” And I’m sure, with Rapunzel and Anna, being lonely for a long time contributed to that My-Emotions-Splash-Everywhere-Every-Time-I-Get-the-Chance thing their personalities have.

But Moana doesn’t have that. If you mean she cracks jokes, like rambling to Pua about not eating pork, or singing at Maui, those aren’t “adorkable” traits. They’re just a teenage girl’s sense of humor. Teenage girls mock their friends’ little phrases all the time. Teenage girls shriek at the top of their lungs when they’re excited. Teenage girls ramble when they’re nervous. That’s just one shade of normal teenage girl behavior. If you’re tired of seeing it, maybe you’re tired of teenagers.

And she has her own personality besides all that. Moana is intensely stubborn in a way that can be insensitive or bullheaded. She is prideful—she thinks she’s special because the Ocean choosing her validated those feelings. She also has what Asha does not—believable motivation for most of her decisions.

I mean, what do you want instead? Is it time to admit the “adorkable” thing started with Ariel and Mulan? Did you want a mature-adult-type teenager, who have “maturity,” or “patience” as character traits, like Belle or Cinderella? Or were you hoping for a Jasmine type—immaturity in the form of sharp tongue and temper? “They tried doing the whole “no jokes, this is a serious adventurer” thing with Raya, and it sucked.

What I’m saying is, giving a girl a rambling mouth—especially when she’s on a solo-adventure for a significant portion of her movie—isn’t a cardinal sin. Neither is giving her moments of dorky clumsiness (especially in Moana’s case, it’s humanizing when she runs into something or gets something wrong, because she’s otherwise phsyically pretty capable.)

As far as Asha goes, I definitely still think about Wish, and I actually agree with what I think is your main sentiment—she doesn’t have any personality so they just slap “sometimes clumsy sometimes unflatteringly goofy” onto what’s an empty husk.

The thing is, her main motivation isn’t relatable. It’s not very human. She spends three seconds in the presence of the leader of her whole known world, worldview, and culture, and instantly knows exactly what’s wrong with that worldview, world, and culture. No confusion, no hesitation, perfect right answer instantly. She wants her grandfather to have his wish—but he was fine without it, and nobody ever clearly defines what a wish even is in this movie in a way that’s relatable, so we can’t relate.

It would be like if you took Mulan’s desire to save her father from physical injury, mixed with a desire to prove herself—and then you replaced that with “Mulan desires to speak with the tongues of dragons.” Mmmkay that sounds neat but what the heck does it mean and why should I care, or remember it when I leave this theater?

Everyone who defends this movie likes to say, “Asha’s selfless, she just cares too much about everyone else’s wishes, she wants them all to be happy!” But you know what, that’s not relatable. Because it’s flawless.

Belle is selfless. Belle gives up all her dreams and goes into her worst nightmare—living with a selfish, conceited monster—to fave her father.

But did you catch that? She has dreams. She doesn’t know exactly what she wants, but she wants to have a big, important life. That;s not necessarily selfless, and it’s part of her personality. Guess what else? Her worst nightmare is living with a selfish, conceited monster. So she actually has something to develop.—being able to be kind and loving, anyway, and give conceited monsters a chance.

Asha has nothing like that. From the first moment conflict is introduced, she knows what the right thing to do is. She has no self-focused desires, allegedly. She’s just a told virtue with no showing, no real person inside.

I mean jeez, even Aurora, whose whole character is supposed to BE a “Symbol of Virtue, Personified” still lays her head down and cries when she can’t have the man she loves. Even Cinderella gets annoyed with Lucifer.

And what’s the deal with that recently? Where’d all the annoyance go? Why is it Moana doesn’t get into any serious, believable arguments with anyone on her crew in Moana 2? Loto starts chopping up the BOAT THEIR LIVES DEPEND ON and Moana’s just like, “heyyy budddyyy could you maybe nooot?” All passive-aggressive and smiley, she’s not even a little irritated. Neither is Loto. And no matter how grumpy the old man is, nobody is ever fed up with him. What’s the deal with that?

Why is it Asha is never fed up with or loses her temper at Valentino? Nobody hurts each other’s feelings in these movies anymore. (Sabino yelling at Asha doesn’t count because it came out of nowhere and again, the THING he’s yelling about isn’t believable, it’s nonsensical.) Why doesn’t she talk back or argue with Sabino at the table like Mulan does? Why is she fine to argue with Magnifico, though, the villain? What happened to all that self-righteousness? Oh, we can’t use it. Not when it’s a character that is a good guy. Because our good guys can never do anything slightly unlikable to fellow good guys.

What’s the deal with that in these movies nowadays? The relationships have no flaws or teeth. What’s with that? Am I the only one noticing that?

Anyway

[nohara-rin-dot-mp3]

Falling in Love With Shuriken Gets You Thrown Out of the Narrative?!: Typical Character Motivations in Naruto, How They Act as a Stand-in for the One True Nindō, and the Privileges Allotted to Characters Who Possess Said One True Nindō

This analysis will be discussing the ways the narrative’s treatment of Tenten deviates from every other character and the reasoning behind it; I argue that Tenten’s love of fighting represents the ideal Nindō and as such removes her character’s need for other common “replacement” motivations such as love and patriotism. Tenten is free from the narrative’s judgement because she has managed to become the narrative’s platonic ideal of a shinobi.

Tenten is allowed a freedom of expression and existence that other characters are not. Her gender and sexuality are queer, and when this queerness is focused on by the narrative, explicit approval is given. Considering the Naruto narrative’s typical attitudes towards sexuality and gender, this is extremely unusual. 

As I have discussed previously on this blog, the way the Naruto narrative presents queerness can be divided into three primary categories: accidental, comedic, and villainous. These categories are not mutually exclusive, and often can and do co-exist with one another. None of them endorse or accept queer identities. Tenten displays queerness that does not fall into any of these categories. 

I am explicitly interpreting Tenten as aromantic and allosexual, although an asexual reading is certainly valid. However, I personally would like to focus on her aromantic identity, as I believe that this is the one primarily emphasized by the text. It may simply be a result of the narrative’s refusal to seriously examine sexual attraction, but Tenten never expresses any sentiment that marks her as axesual. I am interpreting her identity in this way because, all too often, characters who are aromantic are also automatically considered asexual until proven otherwise. An aromantic allosexual reading of Tenten also contributes to her gender-nonconformity, and further challenges the binary the narrative presents of sexual attraction being masculine and romantic attraction being feminine. 

Tenten is one of the few female characters in Naruto who does not display romantic attraction for anyone. There is exactly one scene in the manga that could be interpreted as her feeling anything towards someone, and in my opinion, her comment of reads more as sexual or aesthetic attraction than romantic. She never develops a crush on anyone, and in Boruto, she is unmarried and single. She does not have any children, and there is nothing to suggest that there has ever been anyone she has had feelings for in the entirety of Naruto. 

However, a lack of shown attraction can be easily dismissed as accidental queerness. Tenten is a side character, and the focus of the narrative is rarely put on her. In order to prove that the narrative accepts her aromanticism, we will have to prove that it condemns other character’s aromanticism and directly acknowledges and accepts her’s.

The narrative does accept Tenten’s aromanticism. In the light novel Konoha Hiden: The Perfect Day for a Wedding (which Kishimoto did work on), we read the following passage.

“Marriage, huh...well it’s a nice thing...” Tenten exhaled, leaning against one of the stakes. Her hands silently played with one of the kunai she’d collected. This was what had been bothering her. Naruto and Hinata were getting married. It was a happy occasion. Tenten herself had always been getting caught up in thinking about shuriken or kunai or flying guillotines, so she’d never had a boyfriend. She lived her life without any thoughts for romance or femininity. Hearing about someone close to her getting married suddenly made one disturbing thought fly into Tenten’s mind and refuse to leave: Was it really okay for her to be like this? From morning until night, it was always Ninja Weaponry, Ninja Weaponry, Ninja Weaponry... Was it really okay for a young woman to be like that?

This brings attention to the fact that Tenten has no interest in romance. The section focuses on Tenten’s insecurity (a trait she has in regards to many aspects of her life, not just romance) before finally resolving by accepting Tenten the way she is. 

She didn’t have any more doubts. Tenten was very confident. Why in the world had she been worried? Compared to dumbbells, her gift was excellent. She felt relieved. She was fine just the way she was, after all. “Alright then, back to training, training-”

The narrative acknowledges Tenten’s aromanticism and then accepts it. Her insecurity over love for weapons is the flaw she must overcome rather than her lack of attraction. Other characters’ lack of romantic interest is either accidental/a result of lack of screen time (ex: Shizune), played for comedy (ex: Anko), or used to villainize them (ex: Sasuke).

Tenten’s gender-nonconformity is slightly less explicit than her aromanticism, but it is still undeniably present in the narrative. I have discussed what traits are considered feminine by the Naruto narrative on this blog before; Tenten subverts or outright lacks most of them. She is not a mednin, nor does she have any healing or supporting abilities. She is, in fact, completely lacking chakra control, something which female characters in Naruto tend to possess in spades. Her abilities consist of taijutsu, weaponry, and sealing. All of these are typically masculine fighting skills. Tenten uses them in masculine ways- she is brash, seeks improvement, and directly attacks enemies. She is considered her teammates’ equal and her character development doesn’t align with the typical female arc. 

Her aromanticism also contributes to her gender-nonconformity. In the Naruto narrative, romantic attraction is a feminine trait. Women are defined by their relationships and attraction to men. Tenten is disconnected from her teammates and every other man in her life. She is defined by her love of weapons, and nothing else.

The spin-off gag show Rock Lee and His Ninja Pals examines the issue of Tenten’s gender more closely. Her gender is explicitly discussed during the second half of episode three. In it, she becomes insecure about her lack of feminine traits and attempts to become more feminine before ultimately failing. She then proceeds to become more masculine to resolve her insecurity- actions which are treated with the same comedic weight as her attempts to become more feminine. In the end, Tenten’s insecurity is dismissed- but her ambiguous gender remains. This is a pattern which is often applied to Tenten’s queerness; it is brought to the attention of the narrative by her insecurity in it before being validated by resolving her insecurity. 

Other characters are not allowed the same freedom in their gender. Failing to perform a gender role is either a tool for comedy or villainization. Although accidental gender-queer and trans narratives exist in the text (ex: Tenzo), they are few and far between, and not intentional. The narrative’s intentional acceptance of Tenten’s non-standard gender is exceptional. 

The narrative acknowledges and accepts Tenten’s queerness, something that it does not do for any other character. It also allows Tenten to escape the narrative in more textual ways; for instance, in the war arc, Tenten is generally exempt from the grief and violence that other characters are subjected to. In the anime, she is aware of her infinite tsukuyomi dream, which takes place in the Road to Ninja alternate universe. She does not experience a perfect world; because of the Sage’s weapons, she merely experiences a false genjutsu created for someone else as practice. While everyone else is tempted by perfection, Tenten falls outside of the narrative.

The cause of the disparity between the narrative’s treatment of Tenten and its treatment of other characters is clear once we look at the guiding thread of Tenten’s character: weaponry. Tenten is aromantic because she loves weapons more than people. She does not conform to gender norms because she only cares about weapons. She is awake in her dream because she has the Sage’s weapons. Everything about her character is centered around weaponry. 

Other characters conform to narrative roles and frameworks to make up for their imperfect Nindō. These roles and frameworks bridge the gap between being a shinobi and wanting to be a shinobi. Sakura, for instance, endeavors to be a shinobi so that she can win Sasuke’s affections. By conforming to narrative roles and frameworks for her gender and character arc, she is accepted into the narrative more than she might have otherwise been. However, this acceptance is reliant on Sakura’s continued adherence to roles and frameworks, and is shaken at times when she behaves in ways the narrative does not agree with. 

Tenten’s only motivation for being a shinobi is being a shinobi. Unlike other characters, who have underlying goals (finding closure, serving their village, being accepted, ect), Tenten does not have any reason to be a shinobi besides the fact that she loves weapons, and she loves being a shinobi. She is completely intrinsically motivated by her love of existence- and this Nindō gives Tenten freedom. 

This Nindō is the ideal that Naruto tried to deny at the beginning of the manga, during the Wave arc: the Nindō that shinobi are tools. As the narrative circled back on itself, denying structural change and character development that would have challenged Konoha and its power, it centered itself around this idea. By the end of the story, everything Naruto once stood for has been discarded, and shinobi are meant to be tools. However, despite what the narrative believes, the characters are more than tools- they are people because of their goals and motivations. Tenten is the only shinobi who conforms to what the narrative says, and because she does this, she is exempt from all other forms of narrative control.

Tenten is a tool. All shinobis are tools- this is the truth the narrative chose when it refused to let characters acknowledge the flaws in their way of life. Tenten accepts this narrative truth in a way that other characters are incapable of because of her love for weapons. By finding fulfillment specifically in being a tool, Tenten escapes the narrative's roles and frameworks. She doesn't need them- she's already the ideal shinobi.

[hwnglx]

this one was a little! harsh. again, please remember i'm entering other idols' energy and looking into their pov of hyunjin. this is a very subjective and superficial perspective.

hyunjin's reputation among idols

based on tarot. i do not know these idols personally. energies are always changing. what i say is NOT straight fact. pls take it with a grain of salt!

female idols

song: lost cause by billie eilish

their energy was crazy. i just casually started tearing up and getting weirdly sentimental while writing this, so.. definitely some strong emotion present here? also immediately thought of the song mentioned above. especially the “i used to think you were shy, but maybe you just had nothing on your mind. maybe you were thinking about yourself all the time.” line.

so, hyunjin's reputation among female idols doesn't look great persé. he's viewed as a guy who's likely to have flirted with anyone fitting his idea of attractive. a bit of a ladies' man, who for sure enjoys the ego-stroking that comes with female validation. he's great at these short but emotional flings, meaning in the moment he's great at deceiving and deluding people into him being serious about it. there is this huge perception of him just being kinda.. delusional and unrealistic, living in a dream world of his own and willingly wearing these rose-colored glasses. if hyunjin connects to you romantically, he's amazing at dragging you with him into that world. like dating (? or hooking up? energy is mostly physical with this perception of a shortlived emotional bond) with him can be a bit of a rollercoaster.. with an irresistible high, and the following disappointing low. definitely a certain addictiveness to it. he knows his powers and what he can do to people, how he can use them to his own advantage.

he's very good at appearing a certain way but being another. meaning he puts on this prince charming on a white horse act, but once you look beyond that, or you just get close enough to knowing his actual self, he's much more selfish and greedy for his own good, than you'd expect. many female idols have this view of him as someone who only enters connections in order to gain something for himself, mostly validation. he puts a lot of importance into superficial things, such as fame, popularity, reputation, image, money, power.. they think he struggles finding true emotional fulfilllment, doesn't really know what he sincerely needs and is disconnected to his inner voice. he therefore just goes on hopping from one person to another. pretty bad at committing to relationships. he's great at entertaining the idea of them, but doesn't live up to the idea in reality. he's very in or out, not always available. prone to ghosting people out of nowhere and not recognizing or not wanting to acknowledge the toxicity behind his actions.

he's not very self-aware in their eyes. he hates confronting or acknowledging certain realities and therefore runs away from them. like he just runs away from his problems essentially. doesn't take accountability for his actions. hyunjin is a bit like an immature and irresponsible child to them. he gets afraid to admit to his mistakes because he's scared to get hurt, or make himself appear weak or flawed. some of them think it's pathetic. (they're very harsh in their judgement for sure lol)

there are some female idols though, who view him as mysterious and intriguing, and very desirable too. they think he has a strong presence, and he has this aura to him that awakens your interest, makes you wonder who he truly is. i can sense he's probably someone who does most of the approaching (surprisingly straightforward and direct) but doesn't have many people actually approach him, since he doesn't have very accessible energy. there's a good portion of female idols just staring at him like 🫢😯 and whispering and gossiping. they look at him as this unapproachable guy full of mystery, someone they can't figure out.

male idols

so, male idols look at hyunjin in a lighter manner. opinions do seem to vary though.

he's someone who's also just kinda in and out in their eyes. like at one point, you'll be with him, enjoying his company and seeming like you became pretty close, in the next he'll just be gone and unreachable. he's someone unpredictable and moody to them, like you never really know what phase in life he'll be in. someone very sensitive and easily affected by external influences, who therefore naturally goes through many ups and downs in life. however, they think he doesn't really let people in when it comes to his internal world. he's good at the superficial connections, i can see him being a lot of fun at parties, but many male idols feel like they don't actually know him as well as they think.

however additionally, there is this perception of him being.. overly sensitive. like do not touch hyunjin when he's going through something. some male idols think he's way too easily stressed out about things, makes a big deal out of everything, constantly self-sabotages and creates himself problems when there's none. in their eyes, he's a bit of a pain in the ass in this way. like just unbearable. you won't get him to open up easily, but once he does, he'll probably puke all his concerns out in hours and overwhelm the hell out of the person he's with.

but i have to say, he has an immense amount of respect from his peers in a professional manner. many male idols think he's the stand-out member in stray kids. they think it's impressive how he's been able to pave himself a way and reputation of his own. a lot of approval and acknowledgement of his not only his abilities, but also his efforts career-wise. it's giving this role model among quite a few idols, especially rookies. i can tell there's this tendency for them to be in awe of group members who just stand out and have these main-character vibes among the rest. many of them would like to imitate hyunjin's career trajectory and are eager to reach a similar reputation professionally. he has this image of having fulfilled his dreams with his own efforts, probably because of them turning him into the main dancer of the group, rather than him being “born talented”. the professional applause for hyunjin is something that's for sure spread among the majority of male idols. his career is very commendable and praiseworthy in their eyes.

[mikotos-nape-nibbler]

I like your take, but I will say that while many fragmented personality states do not experiences discrete differences, some brains do. Yes it seems "performative" but sometimes brains do that becauae drastically different behavior/views are sometimes required for survival. It's as annoying for the person experiencing it as the person witnessing such a "switch" irl, because both parties are thinking "this seems totally fake."

The whole thing the brain is doing is convincing itself that the thing it is experiencing isn't actually real. Most people don't have distinct parts because the opposite is necessary. However, sometimes parts are extremely distinct because it is necessary.

How this manifests in 09 is completely up to the viewer so your interpretation is completely understandable and valid. However, do understand that overt symptoms don't make someone a sideshow freak. A lot of people carry that sentiment, but it's not true. It's not something that doesn't happen, it's hidden because it scares people.

The language we use to discuss these things is very valuable, and your input is deeply important and well-put. The language many communities use to discuss these things is unhelpful, and catering your discussion experience how you like is great. Still, no one who is truly expressing symptoms like "stereotypical" DID is enjoying their brain's performance. We hope more people can understand that, too.

What if 09 was free to be different day-to-day even when it's deemed weird? You're right that it's dumb to just focus on his self-states, but we can't toss aside their differences as entirely irrelevant. Yamanaka gave us ways to differentiate them because they are influenced by different life experiences.

I hope this doesn't come off as a rant! The way you explain things is very skillful; I understand what you're getting at. Still, it bothers us sometimes that these symptoma tend to be seen as a "circus performance."

nods nods. "discrete" is a different from "different" in the sense that a "discrete" thing means an individually separate entity with no overlap with anything- there is no possibility of continuity. whereas "different" can include some continuity despite a shift from an origin point. yeah, dissociated states can appear vastly different but, due to the fact that there's a continuity via co-existing within one body/brain, it doesn't qualify for the definition of "discrete". and "distinct" just means to appear different enough that it can be considered a haecceity, but not necessarily be inherently discrete. "different" ≠ "distinct" ≠ "discrete"

besides, to be "discrete" is to be static. isn't it kinda strange to call a person a static, non-changing, non-evolving entity? i don't quite see the point in caring if someone appears to be "performative" or not, nor do i care if someone appears "stereotypical" or not. and i especially do not give a shit if someone's being distinct or not; everything's a form of expression in the end and who's to dictate how one is to express their existence? besides, what really matters is how actions and subsequent responses impact an agent(s) or entity/entities. what matters more is how those expressions affect things and if a person is cognizant of why/how they express/phrase something as they do- the deliberation and understanding of one's acts of agency. it's better to know why you chant some slogan rather than to do it mindlessly, right? the same premise goes for what a person says or does or acts.

What if 09 was free to be different day-to-day even when it's deemed weird? You're right that it's dumb to just focus on his self-states, but we can't toss aside their differences as entirely irrelevant. Yamanaka gave us ways to differentiate them because they are influenced by different life experiences.

i think there's some misunderstanding here. analyzing the overarching systems in place that developed Mikoto Kayano in all his complexities isn't casting aside his differences, it's - instead - focusing on what caused X or Y etc. to manifest in Mikoto (which ofc includes whatever caused Z-difference to manifest); analyzing the macrofactors of the world that molds its inhabitants rather than analyzing the expressions of the microworld within a single human being. if you need an analogy, think of anthropology vs psychoanalysis: one is the study of a group of people/community and the other is the intimate study of a single person — patterns within many vs singular expression of individualism. once more, i really could not give a single modicum of fuck about how Mikoto expresses himself, freely or not. i care more about the Cause-Effect in the Cause-Effect-Response continuum when it comes to analyses. everyone's free to focus and approach analyses from whichever angle they choose to, i just happen to like thinking about the more overall structure of things - the panopticon of society itself and its effects en masse rather than the individuals. if you know the foundations of what causes something, it's more effective in changing more things - the structure of things - ergo affecting more people for better or for worse. genuinely if you want to analyze 09 and his psychology, by all means you've always been able to. all i'm yapping about on this account is wanting to see other topics of conversation about him- discussions that aren't just focused on MILGRAM's unethical abductive-reasoning diagnosis of the DID of Mikoto Kayano. i'm all for expanding discussion, not stopping or limiting them lol. and if prohibiting a few words makes it so people have to think and come up with their own ways to phrase things, it would expand the diversity of conceptualizations, understandings, and perspectives all because of phrasing things differently- all because you place yourself in the variety of lenses that gives meaning to the world that different words offer through its usage.

i can understand the frustration of the symptoms of a stigmatized disorder being seen as a "circus performance" and displaying overt symptoms being seen as "freaky" since that's just dehumanizing but there are ways to help destigmatize it. one of many ways is figuring out the language that stigmatizes or destigmatizes because meaning, thus image/stigma/preconceptions/nuance, is constructed in language. it's one of the basal instruments that is actively perpetuating or changing the current mores of thought, thus philosophies, thus people through its usage that is as essential as breathing. why do you think some people have a notion that a disorder like DID is "circus"-adjacent or "freak"-adjacent if not because of the language used to talk about it? words have nuances and if enough of those words-with-nuances surround a community enough, become embedded with it, it affects how its speech community members and outsiders/most of the population will understand it. now, how do you deconstruct stigma in language? (1) be critical of existing language; (2) educating and making speakers understand the meanings embedded in what they say; (3) once that's achieved, it's up to those persons to choose what to do with that further insight and if they'll be more deliberate in how they say things. this can apply to the individual or a/the community that's affected that deliberates what they will do with that language and how it's be approached and transformed to their will. language is a living, communal and mutual instrument that requires the effort of many individuals within the speech community to exist. language isn't static nor are thoughts nor people. things can change for the worst or better.

[corviddusk]

hey, as someone who does believe in transandrophobia i think your point of view is interesting and nuanced, unlike some other people on this website who just use the discourse as an excuse to harass and make fun of transmascs. (which is why the term “transandrobro” personally makes me uncomfortable but that’s neither here nor there)

what i wanted to say is i think there’s a common misconception by people who don’t think the term should be used or that it is flawed. specifically, the term “transandrophobia” validating misandry as an axis of oppression. i don’t think anybody’s ever really claimed this, aside from a few outliers? most of us know that men aren’t oppressed on the basis of being men. trans men, however, have way different experiences from cis men, and i would agree that they have slightly more privilege than trans women because of how society values masculinity. however, that doesn’t mean they aren’t subjected to their own specific form of oppression. in short: transmascs are uniquely oppressed for being transmascs, which isn’t the same as claiming they’re oppressed for being men.

i think another sentiment a lot of them share that’s causing a lot of friction is the idea that man-hating is harmful to trans movements. in my view, it’s more so the idea that men are more capable of evil, SOLELY BY THE VIRTUE OF BEING MEN, than women, without claiming that the reason for that is actually due to being socialized within a rigid patriarchal culture. it’s a facet of bioessentialism that regressive radical feminist movements have tried to push for a long time, and it IS inherently harmful to all trans people- not just trans men.

it seems to target transmascs and transfems differently, the latter being mostly affected by the way TERFs use it as a transphobic battering ram against them. for transmascs, it affects their ability to be heard in any space, contributing to their invisibility. in transphobic spaces, they’re seen as women, and told to shut up (a result of misogyny as well), and if they’re clocked as trans, facing transphobia. in (SOME) lgbt spaces, they’re rightly seen as men, and then silenced because some people wrongly believe that they share the same privileges as cis men now. no matter how well a trans man passes, that just isn’t true. overall, i don’t think being wary or distrustful of men due to patriarchy and oppression is a bad thing at all. automatically assuming that someone is bad because of their agab or gender they identify with, though, does absolutely nothing but get our true allies caught in the crossfire. once again, that’s not the same thing as saying misandry is a systemic form of oppression, but that overall, unconditional man-hating is bad praxis.

you can skip over this if you want, but i just wanted to share my views as a genderfluid person. i’d love to hear your thoughts! once again i appreciate that you’re being respectful about this discussion and not just automatically dismissing arguments for transandrophobia or harassing people. i don’t claim to be an expert so if i get anything wrong please let me know!

tl;dr i think transandrophobia is valid because it focuses on transmasc-specific oppression, which is valid, and not trying to claim misandry as a legitimate form of oppression.

“transandrophobia” validating misandry as an axis of oppression. i don’t think anybody’s ever really claimed this, aside from a few outliers?

Unfortunately, you are misinformed this is a well-known factor of Transandrophobia as a theory and has been confirmed by St. Dionysus the person who made Transandrophobia as a term. In fact the entire concept starts by claiming the oppression comes from hatred (implied) and fear of men. Thus it by definition is a claim of misandry.

All of these experiences are claimed to be due to fear of men existing. You know what the claim that one is oppressed for their maleness is called? Misandry.

This also is something that is reaffirmed in the Carrd by Genderkoolaid

This was from under the section entitled "sexism", this is a direct claim that this is misandry. Sexism against men is called misandry. I am sorry but you are genuinely misinformed on this theory. It's core is the idea transmascs and men are oppressed for their MANHOOD first and foremost.

however, that doesn’t mean they aren’t subjected to their own specific form of oppression. in short: transmascs are uniquely oppressed for being transmascs, which isn’t the same as claiming they’re oppressed for being men.

Transmascs absolutely are oppressed in a unique manner. This is in the form of transemasculation/anti-transmasculinity. Where in they are regendered as "confused dumb women" and when transitioning to a point they're seen as unable to return to cissexist womanhood standards they're degendered as "mutilated abominations" that need to be purged. It's a deeply violent form of oppression and it stems from anger that trans men prove the cissexist patriarchal class of man is just as socially constructed as ever other one.

some people wrongly believe that they share the same privileges as cis men now. no matter how well a trans man passes, that just isn’t true.

This is another point where I'm just lost. Yes they can't get the exact same 1:1 privileges as cis men but they do have massive privileges over trans women. Trans men who are out make more than trans women who are out, though they both suffer with less income than cis people. (Source)

Trans men can contribute to conversations where they uphold the patriarchy. They, especially those who are stealth, can be in mens spaces where the patriarchy and sexism is upheld and anything that is short of purposefully pushing back is a form of contributing to it and contributing to the system. Stealth men get paid the same as cis men (it's conditional of course) but stealth women get paid the same as cis women... which is still less. They are still treated worse due to sexism.

You are capable of accessing higher levels of privilege if you are a man. It's not a surprising or groundbreaking idea to say women are oppressed more than men. You will experience less sexism the second you pass. I know because in the past when I did identify as a man (I'm transfem now, my case is weird as I'm intersex. You can read about my experiences here) and I when passing stopped getting assualted and harassed nearly as often, I stopped getting catcalled, I got treated better literally everywhere.

It's not the same as being cis, but you do gain privileges for being a man.

[frogwiththephatahh]

I really like the Leveling System in God Games

I think it's really interesting how Athena's trial is written. She's the goddess of wisdom, so everyone, including Zeus, knew she was going to use her wits to convince each of them. And Zeus seems to have set up each God in the order of easier to hardest.

Only for it to backfire in his face.

Apollo's up first. And honestly, I don't think he wanted to be here for the sake of arguing against Odysseus. He literally opens up his first with, "you all know I'm a fan of catchy songs." Which is a very fitting thing for the god of music to say. I think, no matter what Athena said, Apollo was going to agree just for the sake of being included in a catchy song. But I don't think Zeus knew this.

Obviously, he would know Apollo's intentions- being part of a song. But Apollo says a "catchy" song. Not just a song. I think Zeus believed he'd come up with an argument in order to get more time in the song. But Apollo, as a true enjoyer of music, would know there's only so long he can stretch his time before the song lost it's catchiness. And he's right. His part is an earworm, even if it's short.

Then there's disciplined, strict Hephaestus. Who has a very solid argument against Ody. "Why should I give him my support? He sacrificed his own cohorts." Odysseus doesn't deserve mercy because he showed no mercy to his own men. This is a good case, and one Zeus probably agrees with. But the thing about Hephaestus is that I don't think he was EVER on Zeus' side to begin with. Instead, he seems more like he was waiting for Athena to give an answer, daring her to prove him wrong. And she gave him a satisfying enough answer for him. Yes, Odysseus sacrificed his crew, but they also disobeyed him multiple times, and then literally stabbed him in the back. And that's also a valid argument. Hephaestus isn't hard to please.

Now the levels are getting harder. We're at Aphrodite. Leaning more into the mythology itself rather than the characterizations we're given in Epic, Aphrodite is notoriously a very vain, very prideful goddess. Just like Zeus, she wouldn't want to change her mind so easily. And, famously, she was also one of the only gods to sit out on the Trojan War, seemingly because of a disdain for conflict. Which is why Athena mentioning the war and fighting doesn't do anything to pierce Aphrodite's shield.

Aphrodite is the goddess of love. So of course her argument mentions Odysseus hurting the people he loves. It's interesting, however, that she specifically mentions his mother and not any of his crew, friends, or his wife and son. I think this actually says a lot of Anticlea. "Claimed to love his mother, but let her die of a broken heart." None of the rest of Ody's family is "heart broken." Penelope and Telemachus still have hope that Odysseus will return. They're still alive, fighting every day to keep his place as king, even in the face of adversaries who want to hurt them. But Anticlea can no longer do that. Her disappointed that she waited so long to see her son, only for him to never make it home, must be immeasurable. And according to Aphrodite, Odysseus did this on purpose by antagonizing Polyphemus.

Is this a good argument on Aphrodite's part? No, not really. Obviously, it was stupid of Odysseus to reveal his name, but he wasn't doing it to purposefully spite the cyclops. We know this. He was doing it as a warning, so that Polyphemus would always remember what happens when he chooses not to have mercy. It's a good sentiment, on Odysseus' part.

What's interesting about Aphrodite is that we never see Athena truly convince her. There is that moment right before Ares enters where Athena asks her to reconsider her decision. I, personally, think that Athena was going to mention Odysseus' other loves- his wife and son. And Ares choosing this exact moment to interject is most certainly planned.

It's not that Athena was using "old tricks." It's that Aphrodite was about to start agreeing with her.

Ares' part is by far the most interesting to me- because he's the most right! "What kind of sick coward holds back his powers while his friends get devoured?" We've seen Odysseus think his way out of tight spots before. We know he could have spent longer trying to find a way around Scylla. Ares knows this, too.

And the way Athena goes about convincing him otherwise is fascinating to me. She could mention that Ody is "just a man." He can't possibly be expected to have the energy to think his way out of every situation. By the time he gets to Scylla, he's exhausted after three years at sea. Of course he wouldn't be thinking clearly. But Athena knows Ares wouldn't care about this.

Instead, she appeals to Ares' on a more human level. "You want more bloodshed? Then set him free!" Ares, as the literal god of bloodshed, would love that shit. Now, I've seen Ares be called a hypocrite over this, as he was literally just talking about how Ody let blood shed when it didn't need to be.

But it's actually fitting. Ares isn't just the god of bloodshed and violence, but the god of war. Odysseus standing by and letting his ALLIES die is shameful to Ares. That's not how you win a war. You don't sacrifice the many for the good of the few. Odysseus instead killing enemies as a means to get home is a much more honorable act than letting his comrades die. It's the message Ares has probably been wanting to scream in Odysseus' face for three years.

I think this is why Ares is so far up. Because honestly, it doesn't take MUCH for him to agree with Athena. But that "much" takes a lot to get to. Because anyone who didn't know Ares would try to be actually reasonable, and point out Odysseus' circumstances and why he came to make the decisions he did. Ares is Athena's brother. And her rival god of war. She knows him. And Zeus underestimated that.

Then we come to Hera. This is speculation, but I think Hera is in the same boat as Hephaestus. She was always willing to agree with Athena, she just wanted to see what kind of argument Athena could come up with. But unlike Hephaestus, she's hard to please. Athena's first tactic is going all in, giving the reason why she, personally, is drawn to Odysseus. "He's got the mind of a genius." To which Hera answers with, "Try Harder." She immediately sees through Athena, and knows she just named the first good trait that came to her mind. Throughout her verse, Hera is waiting for Athena to give her "one good reason." One good trait, is what she's looking for.

This one is also interesting because it takes a moment for Athena to appeal to Hera specifically, like what she did with Ares. "Never once has he cheated on his wife." Which is a hilarious dig! For those out of loop, Hera is the wife of Zeus, a serial adulterer. Zeus has more children with mortal women than he does with Hera herself. So of course she'd be against cheating. But THEN you remember that Hera is also the goddess of marriage. So of course she's won over by the mention of Odysseus' faithfulness to his wife and family.

I don't remember who said it, but I do recall a post mentioning that it's strange Athena didn't immediately mention Odysseus' family and his need to get back to them. I think this was actually smart on her part. Hera could have easily shot back with, "okay, but what about all the men he let die who also had families and wives waiting for them?" So I don't really think that argument would have worked anyway.

Zeus is technically the final level, but I don't think he thought of himself like that. At the beginning of God Games, Zeus names all the other gods then says, "OR me." That doesn't mean, Apollo OR Hephaestus Or Aphrodite Or Ares Or Hera Or Zeus. It means Apollo, Hephaestus, Aphrodite, Ares, and Hera OR Zeus. As in, convince the other gods, or just try to convince me.

Zeus sees himself as just as hard to convince as all the other gods combined. And he's pretty much right. Considering he denies Athena's wishes, even when she won the game.

[wordsandrobots]

Something I've been pondering since answering this ask, which decided to spin itself into a couple of thousand words:

McGillis and Mikazuki spend the entire show talking past each other.

This is a common problem when it comes to McGillis. Indeed, the majority of his interactions with Vidar can be summarised as two men yelling at the top of their lungs from completely different scripts, neither twigging that they are stuck together in the same tragedy.

But there is a special frisson to doing this with Mika because of the extent to which McGillis fetishises both him personally and Tekkadan in general. I mean this non-sexually, obviously (the 'reduce to an object by imputing an excessive degree of importance' sense). In McGillis' eyes, Tekkadan possess wildly outsized potential. They are heralds of the changing times, a beacon of power, recapturing the spirit that won the Calamity War and 'proving' lowly individuals can have a massive impact – all beliefs his personal philosophy requires be validated. Because if they can do it, so can he. Mika, as the pilot of Gundam Barbatos, is the epitome of this image.

Mikazuki himself doesn't see his accomplishments as anything special, having achieved most of them by dint of being completely free of ego. Besides, he simply doesn't have the context or really the interest to grasp what McGillis is going on about. He isn't completely indifferent; there are grounds to argue he is genuinely curious about the mobile armours, given his astounded reaction to Hashmal's appearance. This, however, seems a broadly professional interest. Mika is nothing if not diligent about his weapons and his adoption of Hashmal's tail demonstrates attentiveness to the practical applications of his enemies' stuff, not a wish to channel pre-Disaster legends. The same is true of his comrades, who are generally too busy to appreciate the historical parallels that might be drawn around their activity.

McGillis, on the other hand, operates from a place of ideology. In that he has one, overtly, whereas Tekkadan are ultimately just trying to make it to tomorrow. This leads him to grant special significance to their actions, to the detriment of everyone involved. In this respect his attitude towards Tekkadan is little better than those who view them as vermin. It's no less dehumanising because he's bigging them up rather than doing them down. His final discussion with Orga rams home exactly how far outside reality his views of them are and how harmful, that he would continue to lean on their supposed pride and prowess while standing in the smouldering ruins he's made of their lives.

(Tangentially, this behaviour is one of the reasons I like Steve Staley/Cannon's performance so much. I freely admit coming in on the English dub biases me toward it, irrespective of its undoubted quality, but with McGillis in particular, the pitch chosen for his voice allows such an incredibly smooth slide between 'thoroughly reasonable calculation' and 'batshit fairy-tale nonsense'. It creates the wonderful flip from thinking he's a conniving puppet master, manipulating everyone by appealing to their vanity, to realising that not only does he genuinely mean a lot of what he's saying, that's actively worse.)

At the same time, when it comes to Mika specifically, you get the impression part of this is a yearning for someone who'll agree with him.

McGillis doesn't have any real peers. He doesn't want his friends, who get in the way of his hyper-individualistic aspirations, to the point of actively eliminating them. He has subordinates, but that's exactly what they are. Isurugi's insistence on a non-sentimental attachment to his General runs both ways, at least insofar as McGillis' conscious desires go (that McGillis is nevertheless caught off-guard by and has a clear emotional reaction to Isurugi dying to protect him is basically his whole problem in a nutshell). And while we can argue 'til the cows come home about the exact contours of his feelings towards Almiria, his characterisation of her as 'troublesome' and the admission he wanted to make her happy primarily out of a promise to Gaelio make it clear he does not see her as a confidant without caveat. While he might be more honest with her than he is with most people, she doesn't fulfil any need he might have to talk to an actual equal.

Mikazuki has the potential to be this. Because Mika is 'like something out of a tale of Agnika Kaieru', that is, exactly what McGillis himself wishes to be. A symbol of human might, bestriding the world and stirring up storms. In his mind, Mikazuki does incredible things for the sake of greater power. In his mind, the ability to use Barbatos is a mark of destiny. In his mind –

Well. Perhaps in his mind, a connection to somebody like that wouldn't be a weakness but a mark of having made himself into what he longs to be.

Sadly for McGillis, to Mikazuki he is only ever 'the chocolate man'. That guy from Gjallarhorn who Tekkadan have dealings with, who is a good mobile suit pilot and promises Orga the world. Furthermore, Mikazuki's habitual self-deprecation, his abandonment of his own wants, and his ability to make peace with not existing in the future his friends wish to create mean he is fundamentally the inverse of McGillis' entire identity. These qualities – the true source of what makes Mika so formidable – provide no vindication for the man who spent years plotting to become the new Agnika.

Their penultimate exchange reveals the gulf between them. Opining that the situation has become wonderfully simple – wiping out the Arianrhod Fleet here, on Tekkadan's turf, will mean total victory – all McGillis receives in return is the assertion that Mika will do whatever Orga wants him to. A hollow answer, to the older man's ear, that remains unchanged despite repeated attempts to draw out a more satisfying one. For Mika, there is nothing more to discuss, no glory or pride in taking on the impossible task of winning this 'simple' fight. Those decisions are for others to make and the question of what he, personally, wants, is irrelevant.

During their final parting, McGillis explains that he thought, since Tekkadan 'didn't know how to use their power properly', he could guide them toward a bright future. He presents this as a pre-existing fact and it certainly fits his previous high-handed attitude, now firmly rejected by Orga. Yet he precedes this admission with an overt request that Mikazuki join him for the final attack on Rustal Elion and his visible disappointment at Mika's predictably negative response is telling.

He wanted Mika to be different. He wanted the boy who fights 'beautifully' to have the vision to follow McGillis' ideals. Another Calamity War echo to chime for his side.

All he gets instead is “you talk too much.”

The thing that goes unsaid in the descriptions of Tekkadan as having no ideals, nothing to fight for, no righteous cause, etc., is that of course they do. They have each other. Community plays a vital role in Iron-Blooded Orphans: it is what Tekkadan embodies, at its best, along with the Turbines. These are structures built by oppressed people, providing an accepting home for those on the fringe of society. Though they are ripped apart by over-ambition, foolishness and the external forces they were formed to resist, the core importance of acting as a group – as family, irrespective of origin – lingers on in the ties between the survivors.

Community is not a silver-bullet, mind you. The Dort union shows the struggles of large-scale cooperative action and the dangers of it being subverted by bad-actors, and everyone is constantly at the mercy of bigger, deadlier systems. The pressure of group desires causes trouble too, anger and machismo snowballing to irresistible, unmanageable levels. At the same time, to be without community is a source of doom. Almiria's social isolation renders her extremely vulnerable. The severing of the Earth-branch's connections to the main body of Tekkadan leads to major losses. Most significantly, many of Orga's mistakes and their dreadful consequences stem from an impulse to make decisions by himself. Had he listened more readily to Biscuit or brought the other senior members into his confidence sooner, things could have been very different. As the final episodes spell out, they wanted to help; he just couldn't see past the Mikazuki-induced feeling that everything was on his shoulders alone.

It is similarly significant that Rustal Elion has a very robust support network, a pseudo-family of Iok, Julieta and Galan Mossa providing him vital advantages in his efforts. This is as much a hollow reflection of Tekkadan as a parallel to them. There's far less comradeship to be had on this side of the divide. But still, he couldn't have won on his own. And of course Vidar is a composite entity, Gaelio bonding with what's left of Ein to achieve the victory he could not manage by himself.

McGillis overt rejection of 'moving in a pack' marks the final stop on his road to ruin. Having lost Tekkadan, he dismisses his last few wavering supporters and charges at Rustal's forces solo. Per his monologue, he intends to prove the strength of the individual, to inspire others to cease their cowering and tear into the rotten order that rules their lives. Per the uncompromising material circumstance, he fails. He never gets close to killing Rustal and, mortally wounded, he reneges on his ideological commitments, insofar as he can no longer deny being subject to feelings for others. The last of his strength is spent holding his tongue against the true depth of his friendship for Gaelio, lest he give the other man reason to regret succeeding in a murderous vendetta.

Mikazuki's death, by contrast, is framed by his relationship to the rest of Tekkadan. Not only does he give his life to ensure their survival, their presence in his life fills his final thoughts. They are the place Orga promised him, all those years ago. His devotion to his friends is the kind that leads to deadly violence, sure, but it still defines him as a person and the community he helped build is what gives meaning to his sacrifice.

The text proposes no great mystery behind this divergence in fate and legacy, McGillis was always alone; Mikazuki always had Orga. Though they share an origin as homeless orphans, they were socialised in radically different fashions and their mutual respect for one another's piloting ability cannot hope to bridge the gap between the resulting world-views. While we can read McGillis as yearning for what he ostensibly denies – riffing on a recent post by @local-redhead-bookworm, I compared him to a wolf raised in captivity, contra Mikazuki's more uninhibited, naturally affectionate state – the fact remains he choses to strive for a world of individual power. Others' collective effort is to be marshalled for his personal advantage, not something he wishes to be integrated into.

Returning to his inner monologues, he constructs an identify around his desire for power. In Mikazuki, he sees at least part of what he wishes to achieve. From the first, he is delighted by this young Martian's piloting skill and this burgeons into full-blown awe when Mika goes all-out to defeat Hashmal. He is inspired, seeing another channel the strength he imagines Agnika possessed.

But he doesn't understand it.

He doesn't understand why Mikazuki is able to do these things and cannot grasp the motivation behind them. His entire life has been shaped around acquiring power for himself, to ensure he will no longer be at the mercy of the world that abused him. Doing all that for somebody else is simply not a concept he can wrap his head around.

Or, perhaps, we should say it is not a concept he wants to wrap his head around. I wonder, if he had presented to Mikazuki the side of his personality that stopped Almiria stabbing herself, that eulogised Carta and Gaelio, and that acceded to Gaelio's pleas he die as the villain, then their interactions might have been very different. McGillis knows enough about people's devotion to one another to manipulate it in others. This is how he kills Carta and uses Ein to get to Gaelio. What he wants is for it not to apply to him too.

Sadly, if he hoped Mikazuki would prove it was possible to live free of such pesky attachments, he was howling at the wrong moon.

[Index of other writing]