ok I'm still kinda waking up and I'm a little groggy so I hope I get this concept across but sometimes I feel like some tme lesbians can be kinda...disingenuous about transmisogyny among lesbians and in lesbian culture? a lot of the time people have a very kneejerk reaction to any associations of lesbians with terfs WHICH IS FAIR I have seen some people say some really lesbophobic things where they just blatantly say all lesbians as terfs or associated with terfs etc which I think is unfair and ironically ignores the presence of trans lesbians BUT!!!!! I also think like its pretty obvious that there's a lot of stuff that people need to unpack if they want to actually be safe for trans women. I don't think I need to tell anyone that there's a really big and politicized focus on lesbians' genital preferences specifically excluding penises and a huge focus on how much lesbians are supposed to be crazy for pwussyy and like yeah obviously gay guys get a similar thing with people saying how much they have to love dick exclusively but with lesbians preferences are waaaaaay more politicized and a lesbian's lack of intimacy with someone who has a penis is supposed to be this hugely political defining part of our sexualities that symbolize how we are like. I don't fuckin know free from the shackles of patriarchy or some bs like that. its hard for me to put into words really but there are so many little things in lesbian culture that are casually trans exclusionary or transmisogynistic and it just all adds up and ends up hurting girls who are already really vulnerable. I don't like how much lesbians are told that we have to have this innate violent disgusted reaction to a part of someone's anatomy or that our lack of interest in men is supposed to mean something grander than just a preference in who we want intimacy from. and I think a lot of the time tme lesbians will still hold and repeat these beliefs to varying extends and then just quickly tack on a comment about how trans women are women without unpacking their deeper biases. a lot of second wave lesbian feminism really focused on this association of lesbianism with grander political idea of "women who are free from the shackles of males" and if we are going to reminisce on that part of queer history we need to recognize its biases and grow from them rather than pretend that these concepts existed in a vacuum that never inherently excluded and hurt trans girls. how lesbianism connects to patriarchy and the unique misogyny and violence we will face because of that is something that needs to be discussed but that discussion must always include the experiences of trans lesbians too not just as a disclaimer at the end of an essay that is blatantly only talking about the cisgender/tme lesbian experience but as something fully integrated and understood as an unquestioned part of our history and community. there have always been trans girls who have been lesbians and there have always been tme lesbians who date and love and fuck trans girls and people need to stop acting like thats a development from the last ten years and that lesbianism and its culture has only ever been defined and pioneered by people who were afab
26 notes
·
View notes
not to keep vagueposting about animal welfare discourse, but i happened to run into one of the blogs that was shitting on scout for their cow husbandry and the shit they were saying was so fucking stupid...it was something along the lines of 'rabbits aren't social animals because their wild ancestors have a social group set entirely by mating/the HRS tries to force you to bond rabbits unnecessarily and is a peta-affiliated organization/its unnecessary to spay female rabbits because the 85% association between uterine cancer and not spaying is only supported by two studies', all of which may make sense for breeding rabbits is complete and utter bullshit when dealing with pet rabbits.
Rabbits are indeed social animals that grow anxious when alone and should have SOME form of companionship most hours of the day. This does not have to be another rabbit, and the urging to establish a bonded pair is typically done for people who are OUT OF THE HOUSE most of the day. HRS and shelters don't 'force' pairings, they encourage them because having someone around 24/7 isnt always viable in American households. When I tried to get Celeste bonded because I was worried about her welfare (this was when I was 14 and new to rabbits), both the HRS and shelters talked us out of it because she very clearly did not care about other buns, and didn't need to be bonded because there was always someone around them. But if you're a singular person who's away from home most of the time, then yes you need some sort of partner animal because it reduces stress in your rabbit.
Those social structures are ofc going to be different if you have unfixed breeding animals, but the core aspect of it is still the same. Rabbits are social animals. They are comforted by the presence of others around them, form bonds with other rabbits, and feel more secure in groups. Just because they are more territorial when unfixed (as they should!) doesn't reduce the fact that they are social prey animals, it just means that you need to keep them in different conditions than you would a fixed creature with less hormonal urges
The HRS is not aligned with PETA. They denounce affiliations with meat breeders because they're entirely based on improving the welfare of rabbits that are kept as pets. I can see why some might feel offended on their stance against meat rabbits, but rabbits are still primarily viewed as livestock, and after hearing enough comments about people wanting to eat my rabbit, I can understand why they'd be so clear on it. People are assholes about pets that are commonly viewed as feeder animals.
There is indeed a high risk associated between UNBRED unspayed female rabbits and uterine cancer. This is supported by several studies on animals with similar breeding lifestyles by multiple veterinary institutions. You won't notice it in your breeding females because the risk is SPECIFICALLY for unbred animals, aka most pets. So yes, spaying is necessary for your doe's health if you do not intend to regularly breed or have stopped regularly breeding
Even if there wasn't a very real danger to their health, you'd still need to get them fixed to reduce behavioral problems. Unfixed rabbits are much more territorial, destructive, and aggressive, making them more difficult to keep in a home environment. They will growl, they will lunge and bite (and rabbit bites are not something you want to fuck with- I have scars from Celeste's nips), they will piss and shit to mark their territory and it WILL be pungent and unsanitary even if they are litterbox trained. They can still be cuddly with you, sure, that won't reduce their value as pets, but a perpetually sexually frustrated and territorial animal is not fun to deal with and is arguably unethical for the rabbit. If you want a pet rabbit, you need to get them spayed. And I say this from personal experience- Celeste wasn't spayed when we got her, but after she did get spayed, she became much more manageable and less likely to bite. She was still manageable beforehand, but afterwards she was a hell of a lot more relaxed and not stressed
There's nothing wrong with having significantly different husbandry because you are a meat/fur breeder; unfixed animals have different temperaments, different needs, and are typically kept in different conditions that are more economically and behaviorally suited to turning a profit. But those care requirements change drastically when you have only one to two fixed animals in a home environment, which means that you cannot pass judgement on pet care requirements when you're a meat breeder, and visa versa.
28 notes
·
View notes
As of late I've been obsessed with two fandoms: Les mis and Merlin (yes I'm ten years late on everything) so rightfully I decided to mash the two and this is the result
A Les Mis Merlin!AU,
starring Enjolras as Arthur and Les amis as the knights, bar grantaire that is gonna be Merlin.
Enjolras is a prat in a different way from Arthur, he tends to fail to see from others' prospective and is quite oblivious to feelings and emotional nuance. As a noble he would lack the ability to understand _why_ poor people/sorcerers _don't_ fight for better treatment. He expects them to. He doesn't understand having too much on your plate to do that, nor fearing for your life
Grantaire as Merlin would be a much more reclutant Emrys. He is a cynic, but it'd stem from being constantly scared of death. He'd bring Enj down a notch and make him see the reality of being a commoner, or of having magic. He is so strong he is afraid of his own power, and he doesn't want the weight of the responsability; every magic person is counting of him and he is convinced that he would fail them if he tried.
In this AU magic would be banned in Camelot by the king (role that would fit Javert to a T, ignoring the familiar relations) but Arthur!Enjolras would be pro magic from the start, AND somewhat open about that position. He is the head the knights and has a inner circle made of Les amis that are also pro magic.
I think it would make the most sense for grantaire to keep the magic to himself, even after knowing their stance on it. Maybe it could be revealed that he is a magic user early on, but he would keep being Emrys under wraps. Destiny is shit anyway.
He would gladly lay his life down for Enj and do anything for him tho, as we well know. He would bicker and fight and piss him off but his magic IS for Enj. He believes in the future of Albion just because he believes in Enjolras; destiny is shit and he won't be its bitch but one thing it got right, grantaire would not stop at anything to keep his king safe.
The other characters are more muddy:
I think Cosette could be a (good!)Morgana. Enj's half sibling, with powerful magic. BUT she could also be a good Gwen, with Marius as Lancelot and Jean Valjean as the town forger.
With Cosette as Morgana, Eponine could be her Gwen (and Cosette x Eponine x Marius would work so well here). Gwen!Eponine makes sense because it would keep her lower class status AND would put her in the position to be Grantaire first and best friend in Camelot.
I think that what would make the most sense about the line of succession would be for Enj and Cosette to be half siblings, children of a Duke who had an affair with Fantine (not that Fantine would...you can make this tragic); Fantine then married Jean Valjean (posing as a noble) to keep her honor and give Cosette a father (Valjean is perfectly aware of all of this. They made a patch). Tragedy struck and Enj parents die, so he is taken in by Javert (the king, enj's father brother) because he doesn't have any other descendant and Enj is now the second in line.
Fantine dies and Valjean is discovered to be an impostor posing as noble, and is forced to flee. Javert takes Cosette from him because he know the truth of her birth, so she is rightfully in line for the throne too.
I think most other roles could be shuffled around getting more distant from canon Merlin; we should have Joly as the court physician (or at least apprentice, as opposed to grantaire). Musichetta has her hands full running The Rising Sun, or another tavern/inn. Jehan is a druid in my heart, he could be Enj's contact with the old religion and its people.
Also Jean Valjean could be good not-related-to-Grantaire Balinor. It would give him a reason to be in hiding, and to be hated by Javert
Anyway this is all I have for now, but I'll probably add more later
6 notes
·
View notes
Tbh dre made tweets before the long one like the very passive aggressive "great minds think alike or something" and saying he was going to fight q (inb4 "IT WAS A JOKE" if q not saying shit was enabling drama I think that also counts as enabling drama lmao)
The thing is, those tweets were so clearly Dream trying his best to dismiss the hate and trying to make both his fans and Quackity fans calm down, specially since the norm with dtkq at the time were light hearted jabs like that
(Actually, honestly considering all that happen I think Dream was taking it very well? I mean, yeah it would of course have been better if they had talked it out and figured out how to do these two servers that were similar without stepping on each other toes, but if there were people showing up at mine and my friends house and a person who I thought was my friend suddenly started ignoring me I would react much much worse then just making some light hearted jabs at them on twt)
Edit: wait actually what does "inb4" mean
3 notes
·
View notes