#I also don't really know if I believe that it's privilege/oppression rather than like. ignorance and lateral aggression

[nothorses]

I keep seeing stuff in online queer groups about gender abolition, but in the sense of people wanting to abolish gender identity itself instead of just gender roles, and honestly as a trans masc it's really scary to see stuff like that being pushed around because even if there wasn't any words to describe being trans, it's still a feeling that people would feel

Anyways sorry to vent its just really scary because it seems like radfem rhetoric is inching its way into the queer community

Yeah, that's one of those things that I honestly tend to see a lot in real-life progressive spaces mostly dominated by young queer folks. I have met a lot of very young nonbinary people who are genuinely accepting of all trans people- at least in theory and goal- but who also haven't thought super critically about gender theory, and end up projecting their own feelings about gender (and what they've seen/heard in punchy little soundbites on twitter and tiktok) onto the rest of the world.

I think it arises when those personal feelings meet subtle radfem rhetoric and folks just do not know enough to catch that, or don't think to examine it more critically. And it sucks. And I also think they're often well-intentioned people who do not want to do harm to other trans people, and who's ideas tend to evolve pretty quickly once they have some better ones to move towards (though I have certainly met people who aren't and don't. people are people).

I also don't want to imply that this phenomenon is exclusive to nonbinary people. Aside from the fact that plenty of cis queer people also believe this, and that it originates in radfem and TERF rhetoric to begin with, there are plenty of other examples of trans people projecting their experiences onto everyone else: transmedicalism is a great example.

[intersexcat-tboy]

hello! this question may come off as ignorant and i apologise, but what's wrong with the terms tme and tma? i know what it means but i dont really understand the (for lack of a better word) issue with these terms.

i looked it up and it didn't really help me all that much :<

I could've sworn I had several posts tagged w it explaining a few reasons why but now there's only 2? 🤔

Here's a starter (link)

There are a few reasons, on their own it's whatever ig, but it relies on the assumption oppression is based solely on identity and not ever considering how your oppressors see you. There isn't a "ableism immune" or "homophobia immune" bc we understand hate crimes are based on PERCEIVED or actual status, not just actual. What's happening to Imane Khelif is being called transmisogyny everywhere, so clearly it's not limited to just transfems, but many will then turn around and say those who were AFAB can't experience it. Some have discussed using "targeted" to convey how it's disproportionately faced rather than arguing how people are incapable of facing it, and I understand that argument better but....

One of the big things is the issue of how people use them. I wouldn't have an issue at all if they were solely personal descriptors, similar to AGAB, to describe your own experience. Instead, people use them to deny violence and oppression. People thinking they get to determine others experiences.

On another side, it's basically used as the Top Misery Award and The Mild Expierence. If you're TMA, it's treated as facing the most or worst oppression, if you're TME, are you really oppressed? Actually, you're privileged (not HAVE a privilege, ARE privileged). This aligns with white feminism believing misogyny is the root or worst oppression.

Most of the people who use it tend to think trans men don't have their own type of oppression faced disproportionately, oftentimes erasing that violence as well. A lot outright deny intersexism and refuse to engage with any points made by intersex individuals about how it affects us as well.

Then there's the whole aspect of how it's "supposed" to mean everyone but transfems (which is kinda a weird thing to want a word for when calling similar ones co-opting), but they only ever use it to mean trans people who were AFAB. You can tell this by how things are said (tme being used for intercommunity), or something like "TRANS TMEs since I guess I have to say that to make it clear 🙄"

There's also the fact everyone defines it differently. Some way you need to have been born w a penis, others say you need to have been AMAB, which contradict each other as someone who was AFAB could have been born w a penis, and some people have multiple AGABs (such as at birth and then a few weeks later)

If you only use it to describe yourself, idrc

[djuvlipen]

Can't believe I'm being cancelled for disliking gypsies, one of the most misogynistic groups out there who sell girls as young as 10 for gold and money, don't let them get education, etc. Unless you've lived close to them and experienced the whole extent of that culture, stfu

This is a tweet said by a ‘radical feminist’ known on radtwt and this is exactly why I only follow Black, Asian, Indigenous and Roma feminists now. White radfems will excuse their racism under the guise of feminism yet when it comes to actually being feminist and helping Roma women? They’re silent. I can’t believe someone would say this and not think to themselves ‘this is even more reason why I must ally with Roma women against oppressive aspects of their culture’ but instead she goes full nazi and later on says how Roma are ‘forever condemned to be lower caste’ and lives a ‘cringe’ existence without ever thinking about the racism they experience that makes their existence so ‘lower caste’ and ‘cringe’. I’m sorry to bring this to you, I know it could be triggering, but you are the most active Roma radfem I follow right now (the few I follow on twitter have been on hiatus or either suspended :/) and I needed to get this off my chest. I’ve been so annoyed at radfem spaces lately because of bs like this, where white radfems will go on about how they can’t be oppressive because they’re women and all women are oppressed only to turn around and be oppressive racist assholes.

I know the user you are talking about, I'm going to include screenshots for context:

She was first called out in early June by a Romani feminist and another feminist on Twitter. Unfortunately many of the reactions are like this,

I think some of those users are actual fascists, because some feminists would rather ally with the far right than support Romani women.

Then you've got the usual jokes about Europeans being just like Hitler because it would kill Gadje to actually take anti-Roma racism seriously for once instead of turning it into an Internet meme,

Tbh I have seen this sentiment echoed in many radfem spaces, not just on Twitter. A few months ago I received an ask that said "why should I care about Romani women when their culture is so sexist in the first place". A woman commented on one of my posts about racialized misogyny against Romnia with "stop playing the victim, if people don't like you it's because your culture sucks". (I'm paraphrasing because I'm too lazy to find those posts rn)

I totally understand why you'd only follow radfems of colour, I think I follow only a few white radfems as well. White feminists always try and undermine their white privilege because they think being a woman means they can't be oppressors. It's a very one dimensional way to understand how oppression works. I could go on and on about this but I think you summed it up pretty well. They're not only ignoring their race and class privilege, they are also being actively bigoted against woc.

I have heard that misandristlana was Afghan (but living in the UK), I can't find a proof for it because she has been suspended though. In any case it's a huge no hope for women moment but I am really not surprised by this, non-Romani women typically never show support to Romani women so I stopped expecting anything from them. We can only count on ourselves to liberate ourselves. That's why I prioritize fellow Romani women before other women

[filthforfriends]

A random rant after waking up from a nightmare and trying to distract myself from having a panic attack.

I wanna reference what you said about it being privilege to say that Må wants to be politically neutral. I do see how that can be perceived as Damiano/Må being a sellout, but personally I don't like when famous people constantly (not a good word but I run with it) take and talk about a situation that my people deal with on a daily basis, but don't know about the real story and stage (??) of things. In my country, I am a victim and a subject of constant nationalism and xenophobia by politicians and others like potential bosses, university peers... It is my daily life to be denied some basic (political) human rights such as running for president just because I identify with a nationality that isn't one of three constituent. For me personally, I don't like to be reminded of it by some band I like too much. I appreciate it when they mention it, but they can't really do anything to help the situation. But most of this mentioning it is hypothetical because (in this case) "the open conversation is constant" but it is very much, for lack of better word, boring and unproductive. Also, the reason why it is ignored more often than not is because it is to hard to understand fully, like took me three uni courses to fully understand what I am going through. Like more often than not, I feel like the appendix of Europe. For example, an Italian band is ignoring our region when announcing a big European tour, while that region is including their neighbouring county. This is just a random rant from a political science student, but sometimes I feel that in all the pain marginalized groups deal in the daily, some things are taken way too seriously, but others not serious enough. I am aware that all of this comes from a position of privilege of being white, but Slavs (as our people's name implies) went through a lot of bad shit in Europe, especially those who live in Balkans. And I wanna say again that this is personal preference and not saying that everyone should think and feel like this!!!! Debating to go anon or not (I mean I said something here that can point to my blog), but... yeah

I have family from the Balkans that were displaced and lost a child in the process so I know a little bit about this. Im sorry to hear that somethings haven't changed.

I think discourse becomes "boring and unproductive" as you said, when people who have the power to do something don't. I believe that people in positions of influence should be politically active and to do so their activism has to take a form that makes change. Just saying "it sucks that this marginalized group is oppressed" isn't meaningful. It only serves to make that celebrity look good and that is the opposite of activism. Right now, political activism for people like Maneskin should look like doing rather than acknowledging. I think the current state of celebrity activism feels boring and unproductive because it is! It's self serving and lacking and not making any meaningful change. Effectively its not even activism.

[anadrenalineslut]

I wish people understood the difference between ignorant and stupid because it'd really solve a lot of issues in communication. I wish I could say things like "I believe you have to be at least a little bit ignorant to believe in religion, but especially mormonism" and people would understand what I'm getting at without having religious people feel like I'm attacking them OR insulting them. This can be applied to a lot of things- white privilege, racism, sexism, etc- but I wish we'd start calling out the ignorance in statements, not the stupidity or whatever morally loaded word we usually throw at people.

I'm not saying not to ever insult bigots, especially if they respond with strawmans, but in general I wish people understood what ignorant meant.

Ignorance: lack of knowledge or information.

In fact, I'd rather be called ignorant than stupid when I'm being uninformed by things. Idk, it just feels like calling something ignorant is way better because all you're saying is they lack information or knowledge. That's such an easy fix!!!

It's such an easy fix to not be ignorant. You just... learn.

But stupidity, that implies a fixed quality about a person. It implies they can't learn a concept and sometimes it can be very effective when a person is too far gone and you're trying to mitigate harm. Pointing a person and calling them a moron signals to other people "this behavior is not okay." It allows stigmatization of bigotry to flourish because everyone else, normal people who are ignorant, they will be swayed by your arguments if they're logically sound.

For ex: recently, I had a terf reply to a post where I said terfs are stupid for defining womanhood as oppression because it doesn't work historically and he responded with some long rant about how women are in fact and universally have been oppressed for being female. This is a fruitless debate to get into because I am starting a position where my fact based opinion just inherently requires you to start at the position I want you to start at.

It is in fact reality to say that women have never been universally oppressed. By responding to that with a "actually they HAVE" is just wrong and racist. Everyone who is more knowledgeable than the replier knows that, I don't have to say African women pre colonization were not oppressed in general. Anti-racists just know that.

At that point, when someone responds with factually inaccurate opinions, they're not willing to learn so a debate with them just causes more trouble than it's worth. What is effective to other people however is seeing a strong reaction to that ideology. The goal at that point is to renounce their lies with an insult and block.

By insulting the lie, you make it known to your audience that you won't tolerate that lie being told. It also normalizes strong reactions to bigotry without moral judgment because sometimes you have to be mean in order to protect your loved ones.

Anyways, I say all this to say: ignorance is not stupidity. It is ignorance and it is your job to handle be called ignorant from time to time. You do that by listening to information being presented and realizing you're not going to be the smartest person in the room everytime.

And when people say "racism is born out of ignorance" learn what that means. Obviously u can sub racism with any word here but my point stands. When The sentence says is not "racist people are stupid" it's "racism comes from a lack of knowledge."

I just wish more people understood that without having to constantly tell people to look up definitions of words.

[sometimes-men-need-help-too]

What does modern feminism do that you don't agree with? This is genuine btw

A couple things before I start: 

- This is not meant to bash all the feminists out there unless they fit into what I’m saying. I know there are good feminists out there 

- When I say ‘you’ I’m not meaning you, I’m saying it in a general way 

-I hope I get my point across and it’s clear. I sometimes struggle with that 

Also I’m sorry this is so long and it’s in no particular order and I hope none of this comes across as being aggressive or anything

~~ 

A lot of my issues with the movement boils down to attitudes. To me, that is very telling of its true colors. And I do try not to necessarily judge an entire movement from just the bad people because I know that isn’t fair, although I do feel like the bad feminists have taken over the movement and end up drowning out the good voices and that’s why we hear more negativity than positivity. 

One thing that I have issue with the lack of respect towards those that disagree whether it’s with the movement itself or it’s a particular thing. For a movement that preaches about a woman’s choice, I don’t feel that really happens like it should. I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong here but depending on what the topic is I get a general impression like you’re not really supposed to disagree with what’s being side. You do and you might have someone lash out at you (that’s another point I have). Or if you say you’re anti feminist, you have people coming up with these reasons why they think you are; one being internalized misogyny  and you get called a pick-me which I find a bit insulting.  I should be able to have an opinion without someone assuming I’m trying to get a man’s attention or I can’t think for myself or I hate other girls. That isn’t it! Wouldn’t you think that is misogynistic? 

And if it’s not  internalized misogyny, then there are other factors; her being white (which usually then goes on to sound racist)  or it’s because she has money or  internalized racism or whatever they come up with. And it sounds condescending and that just bugs me. Hey, maybe instead of some underlying reason, we just don’t agree. 

or you have people try to stick the label on anyway. 

‘If you believe in equality you’re a feminist’

The label means nothing. I don’t understand why some will focus on this so much. I don’t want to be called a feminist. I don’t need to. In the same way, it’s not necessary for me to refer to myself as an MRA (men’s rights activist). And yeah, I know this says it’s an “MRA blog” that’s what I had when I started. But ultimately, the label isn’t important. I’m all for equality. It’s cool, it’s great. But I see this sort of thing (online that is) being forced on people and the thing is, with that wording it makes it sound like the movement is all inclusive when it’s not. You have to have certain politics and for the most part (unless you’re a religious feminist) you have to be pro choice otherwise you’re not a ‘real’ feminist. 

My next issue is all the aggression. You can just tell sometimes with how people respond online or if you catch a video that someone posted. And not only that, but how quickly people fall into name-calling or just all around acting like a child. And for the most it seems pretty acceptable to some because it keeps happening. It’s not hard to find on this site or otherwise. If you can’t communicate your opinions about something without having a fit or blocking someone (excluding if they just keep harassing you) then you’re not mature enough. That shows me you don’t really care about having a real discussion. And some can say that it happening on here is probably done by teenagers and to an extent they’re probably right. But it happens on other sites and in real life as well and it’s more than just teens. It’s people my age and older and that’s not cool. 

And then we have  how some like to ignore the differences between men and women. Sure, yes, there are many things a woman can do just like a man but we also have to acknowledge our differences.  I don’t see a lot of that with some forms of feminism. STEM, for example, is something I would attribute the differences more to just how men and women tend to be rather than sexism. Could there be certain circumstances where it is sexism? Sure, I suppose you can’t rule it out entirely. Otherwise I would say it’s just what they’re happy doing. I know girls who are doing science stuff or business things but I also know girls who are going to be teachers or psychologists or nurses. It’s not that they're actively being told by everyone that they can’t do it(I suppose unless they live in some other country like that). That’s just what they want to do, you know, their choice. Just like how some men go towards a job like with computers or farming or they’re pre-school teachers or gynecologists.

 I found an interesting fact (source will be posted below) that said women are actually preferred over men two-to-one for faculty positions. The study was done by psychologists from Cornell University with professors from 371 colleges/universities in the US. It also noted that: “recent national census-type studies showing that female Ph.D.s are disproportionately less likely to apply for tenure-track positions, yet when they do they are more likely to be hired, in some science fields approaching the two-to-one ratio revealed by Williams and Ceci.” 

Yet, we need to ask ourselves honestly, how often do facts like these get passed around vs the idea that women are suffering from misogyny and therefore are unable to fully represent in STEM jobs? 

The next thing I want to address is misandry. Now there are a good portion of people who don't think it exists or if it does, it's really not much of an issue because of the "power" and the "privilege" men have within society. And to me, I have a problem with that. If feminism is supposed to be for men as well, I would think they would want to combat misandry as well as misogyny. If someone really doesn't think it exists, I would suggest that the person really take a look at what goes on in real life and online that's directed towards men.

There's the whole "male tears" thing which is on coffee mugs and t-shirts. There's the kill all men/yes all men thing. All of which are supposed to be jokes and if a man says something about it he gets mocked for his "fragile masculinity"

That's just not okay. They're being immature and a bully which they usually try to justify (men have done this and that throughout history to women) but you just can't.

I found this article, this really really atrocious article. It's one of those open letter things and found on this feminist website (feminisminindia) and I almost believed it to be satire with how.... stereotypically Tumblr it was. I did research and looked at the info regarding the site and nope, it's a serious site. I'll post the article below but I'll also summarize it:

Basically this woman is telling the men in her life that she will not stop saying "men are trash or other radical feminist opinions." She's saying it because women and others have suffered so much at the hands of the patriarchy because they're not straight white men. She goes on to say:

So let’s establish: misandry isn’t real. Just like unicorns and heterophobia, misandry is a myth because it isn’t systematic or systemic. Unlike misogyny, cis men don’t face oppression purely based on their gender. While they may encounter instances of racism, homophobia and ableism, they are not dehumanised as a function of their gender identity (read: cis privilege).

That is wrong. Absolutely wrong. Misandry is real. "Cis" people do face oppression purely based on their gender. Anyone can. To deny that lacks understanding.

And the rest is just saying that: It is time to start hating on men-as-a-whole and starting celebrating the men that you are.

And: Because at the end of the day, feminists need men. Whether it’s because you wield structural power or because we genuinely value your existence, we need to band together to destroy ‘men’ because men are trash, but you, if you made it to the end of this, are probably not. Prove me right.

I would imagine this is a common viewpoint. And it's not a good one. If you genuinely think a whole group as a whole is bad you need to reexamine your thoughts. It's not "men" that are bad, it's the sexist people.

To wrap this up (I'm sure you might be tired of reading this lol); like I said, the attitudes play a huge part of it. Modern feminism, in my opinion, is just not good enough for me to say I agree with it and want to identify as one. I just can't

Here is the link to the feminist article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/feminisminindia.com/2020/09/23/men-are-trash-and-other-radical-feminist-opinions/%3famp

And here is the link for the STEM thing: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/04/women-preferred-21-over-men-stem-faculty-positions

[rantingcrocodile]

"Straight people as a class are oppressors, even if the men are the ones doing the actual oppressing, the women are just as bad as the men just for being straight" is essentially what you're saying. That by belonging to the class of straightness, straight women take responsibility for the oppressive actions of straight men. What systemic oppressive actions are straight women taking to actively put down lesbians and bisexuals? The rape, the abuse? That is men. The laws? Men control the government.

You're arguing that semantic labels take precedence over actions that happen in material reality. You are not arguing that straight women themselves actually wield power to put down and oppress systemically. Where are the masses of straight women oppressing lesbians and bis?

Straight women don't rape gay men the way straight men rape lesbians and bis. The worst oppression straight women in mass groups do is annoying fujoshi fetishism culture (which any normie gay guy who doesn't use the internet has never even heard of) and the miniscule amount of trans men who wanna guilt trip gay guys, who realistically have no damn power and mostly just whine on twitter (also easily avoided by staying in real life).

But what straight women do systemically against bis and lesbians is... what, exactly? Just be privileged and having straight boyfriends? Highschool bullying?

You sound like a MOC arguing that he can't possibly be part of the male, oppressive class towards women because it's actually white men that hold all the power. I hope you realise that.

In any case, it's not feminist to absolve certain groups of women from positions of privilege just because they happen to be women. It's just sheer ignorance and exactly why there are problems with homophobia, biphobia, racism, ableism and classism in the community.

Talking about privilege isn't a case of, "You were born evil for being straight, fuck you!" or anything so juvenile. It's about recognising that, as a straight woman, you're part of the privileged class of straight people. That has nothing to do with your oppression for being a woman. It just means that I, as a bisexual woman, have an intersection of the systemic oppression that comes from both men and straight people, just as lesbians have an intersection of the systemic oppression that comes from both men and straight people.

Dismissing what straight women will do to scoff that, basically, "at least it's not rape" is just downright ignorant.

Are you going to tell the LGB people who were beaten and disowned by their mothers that they can't be harmed by that because it's really men who are worse? Are you going to ignore the straight women who support straight men into sending their children to conversion therapy? The ones who prefer them to be trans rather than gay? The ones who murder their gay sons? Who murder their bisexual sons? The straight women who help murder lesbians? Who attack gay men?

You're dismissing "high school bullying" like that doesn't result in suicides.

By being straight, you started as an innocent child who grew up in a world that catered to you and taught you homophobia and biphobia. You need to work through that, just like everyone from every privileged group needs to work through the internalised bigotry created simply by living in a world that caters to you on that specific point of privilege.

Does that make you an inherently bad person? No, it doesn't, and no one with any sense would believe that, not if they understand what oppression and privilege actually means.

Tying yourself in knots to pretend that straight women don't help perpetuate systemic homophobia and biphobia just because you're not generally rapists as a group and scoffing that we can possibly have any issues coming from straight women just because you happen to also be women is ignorant and shows just how homophobic and biphobic you, personally, are.

There are plenty of straight women who know that they're part of the privileged straight group without feeling angry about acknowledging it. They understand that and support their sisters who are lesbians and bisexuals and condemn homophobia and biphobia.

If you felt like that was a personal attack instead, then that's on you to figure out why.

[flying-elliska]

sorry if this is like. the weirdest question ever but i thought you would be an ok person to ask. i've recently gotten into writing again and discovered that the hardest part of writing characters different from me isn't when they have a marginalized experience i don't know (ex. writing poc as a white person), bc there's research and guides available for that, but rather when i have an experience they don't (like writing straight or neurotypical ppl as a mentally ill queer person) 1/2

so i was wondering if you ever had the same problems or any advice on how to write characters with more “mainstream” lives when you can’t remember how to connect to that pov? it’s fine if you don’t, i just have a lot of respect for you as a writer and a person and i value your thoughts! sorry i wrote so much :/ 2/2

oh don't apologize, i love love love questions about writing, especially the weird ones ^^ and this is truly a fascinating question. it did puzzle me a bit at first because the thing about the mainstream perspective is that it's, well, everywhere. and it's absolutely an experience in itself too ! like as queer people we've grown up surrounded by straight love stories, and so on. so it made me wonder why exactly you have that difficulty, and whether i also sometimes encounter it (maybe a little at times).

- is it a problem of legitimacy ? as a person that has been 'otherized' in certain ways, do you maybe feel like your perspective on 'the norm' is less valid/adequate ? I especially have this when it comes to mental illness, I have these weird moments of anxiety about whether all the characters i write end up being mentally dysfunctional without me realizing it, etc - i don't think it's true, but the anxiety is there. and honestly i think the concept of 'mentally sane' in the society we live in remains somewhat nebulous and to be defined still. if you share these anxieties, it's good to remember that it's a proven phenomenon that marginalized people are forced, for reasons of survival and because they are socialized to the norm anyway, to quickly acquire insights into the experiences/minds/habits of privileged people ; and have been taught to see privileged people as human and complex in ways where the reverse is not necessarily true. This is why, for instance, women's writing perspective on men can have a depth and humanity that the reverse often lacks. in general i think as baseline that people can write really valuable things about experiences they don't share, the 'stranger's perspective' can be really interesting in itself because it forces you to ask more questions ; unless it has been blighted by privilege (which functions on a basis of seeing the other as inherently lesser and the atrophy of empathy). i really don't believe in the idea you should only write about experiences you know or have ; after all empathy + research + curiosity + imagination + questioning why things are the way they are, are a fundamental part of the writer's craft ; it's just crucial to be aware of how power can skew that. so i hope this reassures you a little if you struggle with this.

- is it a problem of interest ? ever since i realized i was queer, i have had this desire, more or less strong at times, to only consume and produce stories containing a majority of queer people. i was accused once of making too many characters queer in my fic (lmao i was so proud). and you know what ? i think that is abso-fucking-lutely fine. if people have an issue with that they can go back to the 99% of literature that caters to them. if you don't feel like writing about straight people but think like you 'have to' for some reason, please don't force yourself lol. and don't be ashamed to want to write about people who do share your experiences in that way, especially since we have been starved for representation for a long time. sometimes it's also just a detox phase you need to go through. i have had more m/f ships as of late and it almost feels fresh again to me lmao and focusing on queer pairings for a long time has given me a new way of looking at love and relationships and general which is great.

- is it a problem of connection ? ok so maybe you do want to write about those mainstream experiences but you just find it hard to be inspired for some reason. if you have checked that it isn't one of the problems above, i think the next step is to just look for the core reason of why you're writing these things in the first place. where's the issue, the spark, the zing, the problem, the crack, the fatal flaw, etc. Mental illness and queerness are interesting to write about, of course. but when you don't have that, you should still have other interesting things to write about. and you can go back to the universals. what is love ?how does sexuality impact people's experiences ? what does it mean to be mentally healthy ? what's the mind anyway ? how does our society affect those things ? how is the 'typical neurotype' qualified and why ? i have always believed anyway that true universals are made of an infinity of diversity, and not some sort of generic mold. so you can find a connection to an experience you don't have via an experience you do have. (again, as long as you're aware of power dynamics etc). will it always be perfect ? no, but it's still interesting to try. 'being straight' as an identity is not equivalent to 'being queer' because 'being straight' ties into heteronormativity as a tool of social control/oppression and therefore, heteronormativity deserves to be destabilized and written about in weird/new/original ways by queer people who don't entirely understand what it is to be straight ; this will always be more interesting and liberating than straight people writing about gays who 'are just like everyone else!!!!' uwu'. as a neuroatypical person i actually believe i have very interesting things to say about the nature of the mind and selfhood because i am constantly thinking about it in way neurotypicals don't ; i have experienced first hand how much of our selves are influenced by chemistry and how willpower is not everything in life and how the self can be a fluid thing. I choose to believe that i am not some sort of alien freak that cannot understand 'normal' people, but rather that i am a specific mode of the human species that just has a lower statistical recurrence, and therefore society is not adapted to me and i have to think about things that other people can ignore and that is thinking and writing material !!!!! the 'norm' is not more central, more human, more valid, more basic, more by-default, etc. and barriers between identities are often more porous than we think. even if you 'fuck it up' it's actually interesting !

anyway i think my point is, in general, this is not an area that you have to be super careful about ! experiment, go nuts ! write about straight couples as if they were gay ! imagine what it means for you to be mentally healthy/stable/thriving ! don't feel bad if you don't understand something, invent shit and it will still be interesting ! and like, you can still very much do research here. like there is a shit ton of love advice columns that mostly cater to straight people, stories full of straight people, books on love in general...you can study that just like queerness has been studied lmao. for the neurotypical thing in particular I have just started a book called "Explaining Humans" by Camilla Pang, a brilliant scientist who has autism/adhd/generalized anxiety disorder, and who basically created a manual of 'how do people work' through science and it's so interesting, there are a lot of things that are implicit and that they never really explain to you and you can kind of miss if you're neuroatypical and it's really fascinating.

good luck ! and please feel free to tell me more if this has made you think haha <3 thanks again for the question !

[spacemomalex]

So... Sera being unpopular is sexist, but you admitted you don't like her either... so are you calling yourself a sexist then?

Alrighty I hope you’re sitting down because boy howdy do I have a rant for you!

Why I dislike Sera as a person, not a character

As a writer (like many on here) I have an interesting relationship when it comes to my feelings for a story, it’s characters, and my own morality. That means, I am perfectly capable of being incredibly approving of, fascinated by, or even adore a character who’s morality is very different from my own.

This is very true for Sera. As a character, Sera is a complex thought provoking creature. 

As an elf, one would expect her to have an understanding of why racism against elves is such a terrible thing, but she doesn’t. Instead of caring about elves and the struggles they face, she ignores and dismisses them as simply being “too elfy”. Which is a throw back to the people in our world today who are the ones effected by racism, but deny that it exists for “points” with their oppressors/to avoid being oppressed/don’t want to admit how oppression affects them.

She of course brings to our attention racial stereotypes, (her conversation about how most elves can’t actually shoot a bow), but again doesn’t seem to realize that those stereotypes can be harmful to other elves. (Say, an elf who can’t shoot worth a damn is brought along and given a bow and told to fight. Despite their protests that they can’t shoot one, they are dismissed and as a result people get hurt and killed and the elf is blamed for not helping. Even though they made it clear that they could not shoot, the fact that the stereotype was so reinforced in everyone else’s mind, they ignored that fact and it would be their fault people were hurt. Not the fault of the elf who couldn’t shoot in the first place and tried to prevent this from happening.) 

This applies to when talking about the Dalish. Sera constantly refuses to understand them or their ways, or why city elves try to follow the old customs. Writing them off as simply ‘old’ and therefore not worth her time to learn or apply to her own life. She simply refuses to see how human oppression of elves truly affects elves and firmly believes that the only problem is the nobility and pride.

Even when supplied with firm proof that the elves have every reason to be “elfy”- as shown with the scroll about Red Crossing and the temple of mythal- she is steadfast in her denial of elven culture.

This makes her fascinating. It makes her a commentary that we should look into and ponder over our own actions and thought processes regarding race and oppression. I love her as a character because we get to see this young girl, hurt by a parental figure be allowed to grow into a young woman who still feels the affects of that. We get to see this young woman who is not shamed for her past and allowed to make mistakes because of it.

As a person though? Sera is a willfully ignorant prideful little shit who doesn’t want to admit that things are more complex than what she wants to believe. Why? Because she doesn’t want to admit she was ever wrong. I can understand why she feels this way, having been raised by an abusive human, but I was also raised by abusive racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic assholes and I will always fight for the rights of the oppressed groups these things hurt. Because I know better about how my privileges and the parts of me people are trying to oppress. Sera never learns how to be a better person and understand her own race better.

This mindset is one in the world today that we are all watching destroy our freedoms. I dislike Sera as a person because she is the exact kind of close-minded person that allows racism and other oppression to roam free, and at times even contribute to it, that I try to fight against. 

Why Sera is Horrible LGBTA+ Representation

As I said on the confessions, Sera should not be considered good representation of a lesbian relationship. Why? Because she’s childish and manipulative and close minded.

That really should be enough, but let me go into explicit detail.

On the childishness of Sera, let’s talk about her prank pulling. I will say this, her prank pulling and hatred of the extreme magical bullshit going on was refreshing. It was so nice to see a character who was just an every day person getting caught up in things far beyond the natural world. Even more nice to see a gut busting girl who didn’t care what others thought of her and was solely herself and enjoyed bringing stuffy folk down to a more human level. The problem with this however? It plays into her utter denial of the elven gods and culture and to things outside of the “norm”- such as Cole. It plays into her prank pulling actually being cruel at times because of her lack of awareness for the suffering of others.

When she spoke to Cole, she referred to him as a ‘thing’. She never considered the possibility that someone so different from herself deserves recognition as a person- and that’s a shitty fucking thing to do. Cole may not have started out human, but he tried so hard to be kind and to help others, she, as somebody who was not normal herself and had faced dehumanizing treatment, should have known better. After Cole had proven time and time again that he did not deserve the awful treatment, she never changed from that hateful dismissing stance about him. (not that I saw anyway) 

(Note; I also realize that Vivienne and Blackwall were not the nicest to Cole either, but I could write a ten page book on why Vivienne is a boss anyway because, at least, she avoided Cole and had some fucking class. Blackwall I just despise in general and I will always hate that creep)

When she pulled her pranks, she never considered the potential harm they could do. For example, making Cullen’s desk wobble? Amusing, definitely, had Cullen been a normal man. But Cullen is a recovering drug addict and a survivor of some rather extreme trauma, it’s obvious he suffers from severe PTSD. I’m positive that any “controlling” behavior he had towards his own personal desk space did stem from a need to control his surroundings after the terrible events he suffered. Her making the desk wobble could potentially cause a minor break for Cullen if it was a bad day for him. But she doesn’t take that into consideration, she only blows off Cullen as “too uptight” without seeming to understand. Like, there’s plenty of pranks you can pull on somebody that won’t have a negative effect on them. And what about the water bucket on Josie? Granted meeting with nobles is boring and annoying, but the Inquisition NEEDED their support. The Inquisition needed important allies so that they wouldn’t be attacked or turned against. She could have turned away potential allies just because she wanted to humiliate Josie. And Josie didn’t even deserve that! Josie (and Cullen!) worked so hard to keep the Inquisition from going under so that they could save the world. I didn’t see Sera consider these consequences and that bothers me to no end. Pranks are fun, but there is a time and place for the, and a way to do them. Sera didn’t do any of that. (She also put lizards in Solas bedroll- what if one bit him and it was poisonous? Would she have cared?)

And! She doesn’t take her relationship with the Inquisitor seriously at all at first! She writes off the Inquisitor’s interest and says she only wants fun. Somebody who’s only looking for a fling and basically says they do not want to have a relationship with you is not somebody who is ready for a relationship. Especially since later she basically tells the Inquisitor that they do have a relationship and that the Inquisitor can either choose to keep Sera by saying her entire culture is a lie, or lose Sera. What a terrible thing to ask somebody to do. 

If someone who was barely a christian demanded that I give up my gods just because they didn’t believe in them, I would tell them to take a fucking hike off a cliff. A god you don’t even really believe is not more important than the gods I have devoted myself to. What you want and you believe should not matter more than what I want and believe. If you cannot respect my beliefs, then I have no respect for you and you clearly do not love me enough if you cannot respect my love for them. And, if you ask me to give up my gods for you, then what else will you ask of me? What else will I have to lose to satisfy you? This is the logic I apply to any and all relationships.

Again, while this makes for an interesting story and dynamic between the inquisitor and Sera- what does love mean between the two of them. In my rather hefty experience in the dating world, it sets up a platform for abuse and manipulation.

So let’s review; Sera doesn’t consider the consequences of her actions in relation to the thoughts, feelings, and needs of those she says she loves. Is that somebody we really want representing lesbians? As a (genderfluid/demi) girl who wants a relationship with a woman, Sera is not someone I want people to look at and think ‘oh, so that’s what women who like women are like’.

Especially when compared to literally ANY of the other women available for a lesbian romance. Or are they simple not up for considering because they’re bi in many cases? Are bi women who love women somehow less important to you? Think on that before you consider Sera as a good representation of a gay relationship please and thank you.

Character Critique VS Sexism

And now onto the main point you are so backwardly trying to be clever about.

When it comes right down to it, you can dislike a female character without it being sexist. For example, I dislike Sera, as a person, because, again, I find her childish, arrogant, and borderline abusive.

The reason such characters like Sera are generally unpopular does have a lot to do with sexism I will not deny that. And it has to do with having so few genuinely interesting female characters, that many will take whatever they can get. But not enough of them will. Many are still stuck in how wonderful and amazing the male characters are, that many females characters fall to the wayside. Sera is no exception. Because she is not an attractive male that they can ship with another attractive male, Sera is simply not going to have as many supporters as say, Dorian (whom I have an entire rant on why he’s good gay representation, but also cliched). That means they are going to be more critical of her flaws and failings, without taking into account why she is such a good character because sexism in the offline reality is so critical of women in the first place.

Sweeping statements of Sera being annoying “like all women” or writing her off as only childish without understanding her own problems with accepting herself because of her foster mother’s abuse, is sexist. I am capable of feeling sorry for Sera and wanting the best for her, while also understanding that she is not the only representation of all lesbians. Not everyone is capable of doing that yet. People, especially men, brain washed women, and younger folk, simply do not have the tools at their disposal (nor want them) to understand that Sera is simply one kind of woman and should be thought about more deeply.

And that doesn’t take into account how Sera is not a dynamic character. She just barely changes throughout the story line. She (along with others, and I have some major words to share with Bioware about the lack of character growth in their stories) remains the same childish, mildly manipulative, arrogant, brain washed racist and does learn any lessons from her time with the Inquisition. Her character, and her story line, I chalk up to male writers just, being honestly not very good writing female characters in general. She could have been an amazing character, a really amazing person, but all in all I feel she just falls flat on the things that truly matter to me as a person.

I could go on, but I would be repeating myself on this particular section.

So, TLDR; Your reach is not clever. If you had bothered to actually read my post you would have seen that I brought up legitimate points of criticism of Sera’s character- such as her deep set racism born of self loathing and brain washing, her manipulative and childish behavior and her lack of change through the story line. I’m not impressed by your salty attempt to make me look bad because you don’t like what I had to say about Sera.