#Or that the target groups for both are inherently different

[buckttommy]

Queerbaiting: using the promise of Queer fan-pairings or Queer characters to lure in a Queer audience without any intention to follow through for the sake of financial gain.

(Relation)ship-baiting: teasing a fan-favorite pairing, Queer or not, to an invested audience without any intention to develop that relationship into romance.

A show/movie/studio can Queerbait without Ship-baiting.

A show/movie/studio can Ship-bait without Queerbaiting.

Learning the distinction between the two is important because—similar to people who use the word "problematic" to describe both Pedophilia and not tipping waiters—no one will take you serious if you don't. You cannot reasonably accuse a show of Queerbaiting when they already have multiple Queer main characters because they are not "teasing" you with Queer representation. They have already followed through on delivering Queer representation because to do so was their intention all along. But you can accuse a show/movie/studio of Ship-baiting when they dangle the promise of a canon relationship in front of you like a carrot on a stick, and subsequently do not deliver.

Both are bad, but different "levels" of bad correlate with different responses, hence why some people get a ticket for jaywalking and some people go to jail for murder.

It's the same principle.

Queerbaiting is cruel and manipulative, designed to target a vulnerable, marginalized audience, and has real-world implications surrounding the refusal to make Queerness visible at the very least, and accepted at the very most. Queerbaiting should be responded to with targeted, intentional fury—not through death threats, but by making it abundantly clear to The Powers That Be (and all those watching)—that toying with Queer audiences is not acceptable.

Ship-baiting is also cruel, but in a different way. Ship-baiting targets a specific group of people (both Queer and Heterosexual, as fandom has always been filled with Straight people too) and does not have any real-world implications beyond ruining your day/week/year. Anger is an acceptable reaction here, but expressing dismay—again, not through death threats—is not the same as accusing an entity/showrunner/etc of an ethical crime.

Please learn the difference.

Fandom (as a collective) has a lot of inherent problems—including but not limited to Racism, Queerphobia, Xenophobia, and more—but I genuinely believe some of the most intelligent, creative, talented, and revolutionary minds that could change the entire face of the Entertainment industry exist here. We deserve to demand respect, and we deserve to be taken seriously, because the more we sound like "unhinged fangirls" when things don't go our way, for whatever reason, the more The Powers That Be are going to treat us like we don't matter. The commodification of fandom was a huge mistake. We were brought into a spotlight that we were never intended to be in, and I don't think we've ever recovered from that. I'm not even sure most people realize this is something we need to recover from. But we can shift the tide in our favor, and that starts by learning the definitions of words and actually using them so that no one—especially not old, white men with power—has an excuse to brush off valid, Ethical concerns as "fandom drama."

[boreal-sea]

I reject any dichotomy or terminology that is used to define how trans you are based on what kind of oppression you allegedly do or do not face. I reject any argument that structures transmisogyny as the only "real" transphobia, or as the worst kind of transphobia possible. I reject theory that claims anyone is "exempt" from certain types of transphobia and only the select few are "affected" by it. I reject this, because if you create that dichotomy, it will be used to end arguments by saying "I don't think you're affected by the REAL kind of transphobia - transmisogyny - therefore you're not really trans, and you don't get to have an opinion on trans issues". This is not a theoretical fear - this is an argument being used here and now to silence trans people.

This dichotomy posits femme-presenting amab trans people as the only "real" trans people, and simultaneously the most oppressed trans people, since they are the only ones who can be "affected" by transmisogyny. It both places them on a pedestal as the only trans people with a voice and the only trans people who get to have a say about what is and is not transphobia, and simultaneously plunges them into a valley of oppression and victimhood so deep that no one else can possibly be as oppressed as they are.

This creates a hierarchy of oppression that places all other trans people above transfemmes. It serves to categorize all those people as "not really trans", because they allegedly don't experience transmisogyny. It also by structure claims that the people above transfemmes in this pyramid are capable of oppressing the transfemmes below them, turning fellow trans people into oppressors and enemies. It is inherently oppositional and creates in-groups and enemies. It also erases people who are genderfluid, intersex, nonbinary, multigender, and others who do not fit into the dichotomy of "femme or masc" or "afab or amab" . It forces one to choose which identity you identify "more" with, especially in the case of transfemmes, in order to be able to be considered a "true trans".

Trans people are not arranged in a pyramid with afab transmascs at the top and amab transfemmes at the bottom. That structure just does not exist. We are all equal with one another. We can all be affected by the same kinds of anti-trans oppression. Some of us are targeted by certain kinds of anti-trans oppression more, certainly. But that does not mean others are "exempt" from it. There is also no such thing as "afab privilege" because afab people are not privileged in the first place. There is cis privilege, but that applies equally to afab and amab people.

If transmisogyny is an intersection of transness and misogyny, then trans afab people are inherently affected by it, because they are undeniably affected by misogyny and transphobia and by a unique intersection of those two things. How transmisogyny manifests against transfemmes is certainly different than how it manifests against transmascs, and there are different factors involved, which is why some transmascs have tried to coin a different word to clarify the differences between how transmisogyny affects transfemmes and how it affects transmacs. It is an attempt at clarification, not obfuscation. It is not an attempt at placing transmascs below transfemmes on any kind of hierarchy, because that hierarchy does not exist. The only reason one would believe it is an attempt to say "transfemmes oppress trans men" is if one was already thinking in terms of there being some kind of trans identity hierarchy in the first place.

Transmisogyny is not the "worst" kind of transphobia. No kind of transphobia is worse than any other kind: these labels describe an intersection of identities and how they combine to create unique forms of oppression. Not worse - unique. That's what intersectionality is. It's not complicated math where if you add up enough marginalized identities your opinion can't be questioned and you become the "ultimate victim". You can't win at oppression by being the "most oppressed".

Trans people don't oppress each other on the basis of gender or sex. We simply don't. And we need to stop creating imaginary hierarchies. We need to stop creating imaginary in-groups and enemies. We need solidarity.

[genderkoolaid]

the transandrophic talking point of like. "trans men/mascs were socialised male so are just as misogynistic as cis men" is so confusing to me, because they say the exact same thing about trans women/femmes? that they were also socialised male? which is so weird how they seem to think just any trans person has male socialisation, i cannot figure it out at all

The key thing here is that the people who say transmascs were socialized male aren't the same people saying transfems were socialized male, although both tend to be radical feminists or have beliefs that align with/are influenced by radical feminism.

Trans-exclusive radical feminists divide people into a binary by sex, and say that socialization occurs only along the lines of sex. If you are of the male sex (which includes any intersex people they decide are "really male," with little to no nuance), then you were socialized male. If you are of the female sex (see above), then you were socialized female.

Trans-inclusive radical feminists divide people into a binary by gender. They view socialization is more of an internal process- if you are a man, then you were always a man, and you internalized the socialization people raised male received regardless of whether you realized it or not. Similarly, if you are a woman, you were always a woman, and you received the socialization of people raised female.

What both have in common is the idea that socialization is a simple binary, and that the effects of socialization stay with you forever, unchanged. If you were socialized male, then you are forever tainted with misogyny and male chauvinism. The most emphasis is put on "male socialization" in discourse because the idea is, if you were socialized male (and therefore eternally and essentially Male), then you are a privileged oppressor. This is why it's a good way of targeting other people within a radical feminist framework- to be oppressed (woman) makes you part of the in-group, deserving of having your issues addressed (which is why there is an obsession over "protecting womanhood from invaders"), while being an oppressor (male) makes you part of the hostile out-group who can neither be trusted nor in genuine need of help. Trans people, being socially placed in-between and outside the cisbinary, will be placed into whatever group is most useful for the patriarchy at any given time while also being denied actual acceptance into either (check out transunity theory for more on that).

With TIRFs, the root of the ideology is that, by saying that trans women experienced female socialization, they are defended from transmisogynist TERFs who insist they are male oppressors. The idea is: if trans women are essentially female, and experienced female socialization, then they have equal claim to female oppression & trauma. This is a noble goal, because trans women are oppressed by misogyny and should have their oppression as women recognized.

The problem is, this radical feminist framework is inherently cissexist. It is a static binary which bases itself entirely off of cis gender relations. It asserts that all trans people must have an experience which fits in with either experiences of cis women or cis men; there is no room for discussing the ways that trans people have more in common with each other, or how hatred of people who are clearly outside of the cisbinary affects gender relations. So even though TIRFs are "trans-inclusive," their only concern is reproducing transphobic radical feminism but in a way that supports trans women. It insists its pro-trans men because it doesn't misgender them as women. But where TERFs erase the "man" part of trans men, TIRFs erase the "trans" part.

Gender socialization does exist, in that people are perceived in a certain way and are treated uniquely based on that perception, and that shapes how you think about yourself and others and your place in the world. But it is far from binary and static. So many different things can affect how your gender is perceived & how you are treated as a result, and that can change from person to person as well as over the course of your life. The idea that anything relating to gender/sex is static and binary is cissexist, and any movement that claims to seek trans liberation must deconstruct that cissexism and interpret gender relations from a trans-centric lens.

[disappointmentthemusical]

"Mainstream gender" as a system of oppression.

Imagine mainstream gender as a line. On one end of the line is "man," and on the other end is "woman" – this is the gender binary. The connecting line itself is representative, loosely, of "non-binary" gender. (I think this image is suitable, and if others disagree, I think that's more representative of how arbitrarily the binary is defined, rather than this image of it.)

This gender spectrum, dubbed "mainstream gender" because it's what the institutions of society use, only applies to certain groups – the group that controls it, really. White people.

Black people cannot access mainstream gender because they are barred from it via hyper-masculinization that borders on animalization. Black men are viewed as hyper-aggressive and predatory. To the white masses, the concept of "soft" Black masculinity is as real as the transatlantic slave trade (i.e., vague notions of it existing, but no personal experience with the implications, so it floats in the periphery until it's brought up again by a Black person). Black women, regardless of how much they lean into "traditional" femininity, will never be viewed as feminine. Black women will always be viewed as loud, aggressive and "man-ish," the latter contributing to transphobia that impacts both black trans women and black cis women.

By contrast, East Asians are hyper-feminized. East Asian men are stereotyped as soft and small and are portrayed as having little sexual appeal (and those who are viewed as sexually desirable are seen as exceptions to the mainstream; sexy despite their femininity). East Asian women are equally unable to escape femininity and are hyper-feminized to the point of infantilisation, both of which contribute to hyper-sexualization and fetishization. The hyper-femininization of East Asian people also lends itself to transphobia targeted at East Asian trans men (recall: the 2016/17 obsession with smol bois).

But not only is mainstream gender a tool of white supremacy, it also (obviously) is inherent to patriarchy (or, patriarchy is inherent to mainstream gender).

The binary is defined and propagated by men. So while all gender rules are arbitrary and constantly changing, "man" is always strictly defined, and the relief of "man" becomes "woman." This is evident both in masculinity being viewed as "gender neutral," as well as the sense of authority men feel over women's gender, commenting on makeup, how women dress, etc. As a result, the gender "woman" is inherently centered around "man."

In de-centering men, lesbians lack the rules to adhere to mainstream gender. That is why lesbianism is often described as a gender experience because lesbians operate on a new gender spectrum, specific to lesbians.

However, different from race, sexuality is not a visible barrier, and it can take work to exit from mainstream gender. Terf "lesbians" are not lesbians because they cling to the relief of "man" to define their gender; they're gay women. Similarly, white lesbians who prioritize their whiteness will continue to exist within mainstream gender. This also explains why white non-binary people are "like that." While they do not adhere to the binary of "man" and "woman," in participating in the system of whiteness, they remain within the confines of mainstream gender.

[communistkenobi]

sorry for being insane but im going to be serious for a moment and say something and I will cite my sources. I do actually think the weird Dedra and Syril relationship thing developing is legitimately really smart and I hope they lean into the fucked up psycho-sexual dynamic they have going on. in The Authoritarian Personality one of the many emerging findings in that research is that there is likely more than one personality structure for fascists - one that desires to dominate others and one that desires to be dominated. this can be (and is) expressed sexually but it is primarily the base of their political beliefs. They are both equally fascistic in their outlook but serve different roles. There is the exalted leader, the figure who “proves” fascistic beliefs by virtue of being “worthy” of overseeing the domination of humanity. But the existence of this leader requires people to worship them, people who willingly submit to their domination. In the short term these people are the boots on the ground fascists, the ones who believe in the cause and usher in fascistic rule, but in the long term, once “undesirable” groups are sufficiently destroyed, they become the next target of destruction. Because to be so subservient is vile, because you’re supposed to be the best of humanity and the perfect race or group or whatever should not be grovelling at the feet of another. So they are vile and viewed with disgust by fascist aristocracy, even though they are the necessary “popular” base of fascist movements.

And so to bring this back to a star wars show. I think the Dedra/Syril shit is a very good shorthand for this dichotomy - the one who desires the means to dominate and the one who desires a worthy leader to be dominated by. This is not a genuine human connection but a fundamental rejection of human connection, because their interactions are being filtered through this lens of total domination. Disgust and lack of consent and intimacy are inherent to this kind of relationship, and so to see it acted out interpersonally on screen is genuinely really compelling and I hope they continue down that road in s2

[ventbloglite]

The thing is...I've read a lot of posts and listened to a lot of videos by binary trans men & women and non-binary people of any AGAB and intersex people to whom masculinity is assumed or desired.

Each group has unique experiences with unique bigotry targetted at them for being who they are. But each group also experiences misplaced bigotry, aimed at a different group but used to hurt them anyway.

There's also a distinct and very real overlap between transmisogyny and transandrophobia. The thread that connects these concepts for binary and nonbinary trans masc people, AMAB's of any identity (intersex and not), and yeah even some butch cis lesbians is what we've been harking on about so long - the inherent villianising of masculinity in particularly when deemed to be in the 'incorrect' place!

A butch woman is not expected to be 'too masculine'. If she's seen as failing womanhood in this way, she will face discrimination from others for doing this even amongst other lesbians.

Attending groups or events for 'women and nonbinary' only to find out they mean 'women and women-lite' and don't want anyone with any proximity to masculinity to be there. Being told or being able to quickly understand that your masculinity is making others uncomfortable despite the fact that you are amongst other queer people/trans people. Being expected to preform femininity to a certain stereotyped degree to prove you are 'safe'.

These are all specific things which could be considered both transandrophobia OR transmisogyny, depending on who they happen to but...now here me out, doesn't that just mean we need to sit and realise that the distinction between them isn't always rigid? That there is an antimasculine issue within the trans and queer community but it doesn't target any one particular group over another. The acceptance of queer masculinity is a must. It won't solve all issues not by far, but would go a long way into making sure trans women (especially but not just those who 'don't pass' and maybe never want to be feminine anyway) feel more accepted and less like they'll always be seen as predators for being born male/assigned male at birth. It'll go a long way into accepting the 'men' part of trans men and the 'masc' part of any trans masc. It'll go a long way to accepting butch lesbians are still women despite their outward proximity to 'maleness'.

And if you're seriously reading this and are about to go on a tirade about how masculinity is praised and desired in society - stop. Cis masculinity is praised and desired and even then it has rules.

The world is a lot more complex than men and masculinity good anything else bad but unfortunately if you keep seeing it this way even if you disagree you are going to be responsible for both transandrophobia and transmisogyny persisting.

[bloggedanon]

People are out here arguing that gatekeeping cpunk from people is actually perfectly fine because able-bodied ND people have mad- and neuropunk and that's "perfectly fine" with them and it's actually annoying as fuck imo, large explanation under the cut I forgot to add originally

• First of all, try to tell me that physically disabled people are mentally perfectly fine and have never had their mental health compromised as a result of their physical disability. Just try, I'll wait. Just like how I'm waiting to hear about "able-bodied" ND people not having any physical issues purely as a result of being ND.

• Secondly, that doesn't make gatekeeping with the mad- and neuropunk communities okay EITHER, even IF the first bullet SOMEHOW happens to be true. The separatist mind-body dichotomy is predicated in entirely false pretenses. The experiences between the physically and mentally disabled communities have SO much overlap. One "form" of disability is not inherently more or less disabling than another, that's down to the individual(s) and their conditions. A lot of either "form" can restrict people's abilities to perform a lot of the same tasks regardless of what the tasks may be or what "form" of disability is responsible for it. A lot of medical conditions (and systemic ableism) can produce a whole lot of symptoms that present like mental disorders.

• In the same vein, we DO have to acknowledge that some people have their disabilities affect them in ways that not everyone experiences. The experience of having a psychotic break isn't comparable to the experience of being wheelchair-bound. But neither is the experience of being a low support needs autistic that can function independently and being a high support needs autistic who can't bathe or dress independently and will need lifelong supervision, and this is just two examples of the same disorder! A person who's chronically bedbound isn't going to have a comparable experience to a Deaf-Blind individual, even if they both wind up with lifelong caretaking requirements. If we can acknowledge that experiences in the mentally disabled and physically disabled communities aren't going to be universal even WITHIN our own communities and we don't turn to separatists about it, what makes the physical and mentally disables communities as wholes any different?

• This one's the big one, and I see it a lot, you guys really need to learn what punk actually means. PUNK isn't about the "by X group and for X group" mindset at all. It's not about "X group of people vs X group of people." It's a community of people who are standing together against a SYSTEM. It's about highlighting society's wrongs and shouting about it, and trying to enact change in whatever way we can. Its praxis is just activism. You don't have to be black to stand with the Black community and fight for their rights, and fight systemic racism. You don't have to be a woman to be a feminist, and fight the patriarchy. You don't have to be queer to get down in the trenches with them and fight queerphobia (allies still get bottles 'n shit thrown at them regardless). You don't have to be disabled to stand against systemic ableism. You don't have to be the direct target of systemic oppression, or specific, targeted systemic microaggressions to fight it.

What punk is is getting down in the thick of oppression right alongside those who have to deal with it as a concrete force in their daily lives and being right next to them when shit hits the fan, fighting the same fight they are, and taking the blows as if you were one of them, because to those who want to perpetuate it, you might as well be. Anyone can be an ally, and allyship IS what punk is, just as much as being a member of a targeted group fighting for their rights. Systemic oppression doesn't care about the nuances when it lines us all up against the wall, and our infighting is doing its job for it. The second we start singling out groups of people for their identities is when we've already lost. Anyone standing up against these sytems is punk.

Anyone GATEKEEPING a punk movement isn't a punk, they're a fucking poser. A cop. A fed, even, because there are no cops at punk.

Can you have specific communities OF [x people with x identity and experiences], by and for that group by definition, to discuss their specific experiences unique to their situation(s)? Sure! Just don't do any fakeclaiming in the gatekeeping, mmk?

And don't you DARE call it fucking punk.

[nothorses]

https://at.tumblr.com/handweavers/705681979526594560/tjmzqbr52y2g

I just saw this post and... is this really how many people think? That the transandrophobia movement is associated with terf recruitment?? I'm genuinely asking because i try to stay out of drama and the logic is near incomprehensible to me

damn can this person tell the TERFs in my inbox & notes that they're supposed to love me and never harass me or want me dead??

There's so much wrong with that post, and honestly the claim that TERFs never hate trans men/mascs is, itself, dangerously false.

Like. If that's the case, what the fuck is this then?

The common argument here is that TERFs must believe trans women are the ones doing the "seducing", but that's patently not true, either: ROGD ("Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria) is the idea that trans men "infect" "young girls" with our icky tranny disease, manipulating them into believing they must be trans as well. Abigail Shrier outright states this in Irreversible Damage, and namedrops multiple big-name transmasc YouTubers and public figures as the people responsible for "tricking" "young girls" into believing they're trans.

TERFs don't just want to manipulate us into detransitioning- which is already, by the way, a form of incredible violence- they want us to stop existing. When manipulation fails, they turn to violence: corrective rape is not uncommon, and neither is physical violence. Those of us who can't be "saved" must die, lest we infect anyone else.

Transfems are exactly as capable of being TERFs. Transfems who join that movement are being abused and subject to violence and manipulation; it isn't a good deal for them. It's also not a good deal for transmascs. But yes, both groups are capable of calling themselves TERFs, and finding nominal "acceptance" in the form of TERFs weaponizing them against other trans people- all while pressuring them to detransition.

The reason it happens more often with transmascs is because the way TERFs target us is different, which is itself a manifestation of the difference between transmisogyny and transandrophobia. Transfems are not generally actively sought out the way transmascs who can be "saved" are, but they can, and have, fallen into TERFism regardless.

Anyway. The reason they claim our movement is "associated with ex-TERFs" is because I made a post, like, two years ago talking about how, when I was 16, I found out I was following a TERF on Facebook, immediately blocked her, and self-reflected out of guilt and fear for years afterward.

She hadn't spoken about trans women before; it was only when I brought them up to her that I found out that the "men" she was talking about included trans women.

I brought this up in my post to talk about how TERF ideas often fly under the radar, and to encourage people to reflect on "man bad" ideas; because radical feminism itself is inherently tied to TERFism, and leads into TERF ideology, even if you never think of it as being About Trans Women.

TERFs often recruit through exclusionary and reactionary movements that seem unrelated to trans people, or to trans women specifically. We've seen it with the "ace discourse" most notably, but it's happened before, and it continues to happen now. The pervasive myth that TERFs only hate trans women, and that TERFism is only when feminists hate trans women, is directly beneficial to TERF recruitment.

Recognizing TERF ideology outside of "trans women bad" helps us cut off TERF recruitment before it can actually start. And people like this- who demand we ignore TERF ideas unless they explicitly name trans women- are directly aiding TERF recruitment.

[elephant-in-the-pride-parade]

That Troll Accusing P/T fics and Trek Fic Writers Blogs (Including me) of Racism could be a Right-Wing Bot.

Edit (4/16): I would like to emphasize that i really hope this theory is not true. It stemmed from having had multiple friends and acquaintances in the voyager fandom (white and not) be suicide baited and otherwise harassed with vague accusations of racism over the past year, (for P/T primarily, but other ships and characters on occasion too) yah we did cycle through a lot of explanations. Ultimately our anon(s) being someone with either a malicious motive or an extremely ill thought out and unproductive approach, were the explanations that wound up making the most sense. the content of the anon asks and comments i am refering too has been both vague and painful, and further, never came from a real ao3 or tumblr account. these also came with no evidence based points for the fic writers to work on.

I do not believe this theory below to be anywhere near the most plausible. but it is the only conclusion we could make sense of for a slew of similar anon messages that, at the end of the day, did a lot of hurt without making any concrete points that writers could take action on. By making this analysis, my hope is not to convince you all that a right wing troll is out to get voyager fic writers. Instead, i hope it comforts writers who have gotten similar attacks and helps them to dismiss messages that come with harassment and suicide baiting, rather than evidence based points. And i hope if there are real people behind those anons that seeing this analysis helps them to reconsider the effect their approach is having.

Original Post from 3/2

At first I thought I was paranoid post-2016 and 2020, but now I've been hit a couple times and seen comments on more of the affected fics. And I'm seeing concerning themes.

I make a couple of assumptions here: 1. My anon (whom I will refer to throughout as "The Anon") is the same each time. 2. The Anon is the same actor or belongs to the same group as The Anon troll commenting on P/T and some J/C fics.

The Anon as a Bot Evidence:

1. The Anon accusations are sweeping, but generic. They do not use in-fic textual evidence to justify their comments. You write P/T: You're a Tom apologist. You think Belanna is his exotic wife. You justify your blatant anti-latina racism by casting her anger as an inherent a Klingon trait. You write J/C: You think Chakotay is a noble savage and fetishize him. You write Harry Kim: You're infantilizing him.

These tropes and stereotypes are legitimate concerns that fic writers should care about and should be mindful of. These accusations on the other hand are not legitimate. They are left as guest comments or anonymous asks on fics heedless of the fic content or writer's background or track record. The AO3 comments do not reference fic content. They are repeated across all impacted writers. They target new and veteran writers alike. They target fics regardless of rating.

2. Comments that appear to reference fic specifics go no farther fic tags.

This was harder to catch. But a P/T fic tipped me off last month. It was tagged "Tom & Belanna & Miral". The Anon's first comment on that fic dove in accusing the fic of incest. This showed both that the anon had not read the fic content - they also didn't understand the difference between a / tag and an & tag. (Which also means the programmer of the tag-reading bot or human actor creating tag-based comments is not literate in how fandom ship tags are structured - they may not be a fan at all!)

3. The Anon never replies. Not on AO3 or on Tumblr. (All AO3 comments from "The Anon" seem to stick to the automatically assigned Anon name or use a generic, short first name like "Sam").

Exceptions to this - the rare ocasions where someone sympathetic to the anon replies break from the distinctive patterns of The Anon. Replies come from either burner accounts or guests with more unique names. And these replies are both A - fewer and far between - suggesting they are a different actor - and B - by and large quite serious and thoughtful. I take them to be real people, legitimate fans concerned about racism, caught up in the crossfire.

4. The Anon uses language intended to engender right-wing sympathies and white-moderate anger.

The Anon sent this in their message to me the other day. I will bold the relevant passages.

"You’re the perfect example of the kind of white person who ruins fandom for everyone else, a nasty racist bitch who cares more about their shitty fanfiction than the feelings of actual people of color. Keep using your precious freedom of speech to fetishize brown men I guess

"The kind of white person": This anon has no proof of my race and proof doesn't matter to them. (They have targeted writers of color and white writers alike) They are indiscriminant because they are hoping some of their targets are white women. They are also attempting to out-group white women from the rest of fandom - trying to engender in me feelings of being alienated from my community.

"Nasty racist bitch" "Nasty woman" incidentally is what Trump famously called Hilary Clinton during a 2016 debate. Calling me a racist is there to put me on the defensive (and to alienate me from my coalition) Im meant to feel shocked and disheartened by this accusation. And in a way, keeping this generic serves a purpose. A lack of specificity makes it harder for me to defend myself. "Bitch" is there to trigger my fear/anger response. It is also assuming my gender - again. The anon doesnt care if they accidentally sent this hate to a man or nonbinary person or a person of color. they are betting that at least a plurality of targets will be their key white woman demographic.

"people of color" - while it is correct terminology - is also terminology of the US left/democratic wing. By using this term the Anon is in-grouping themselves with the left - trying again to make me feel like an outsider.

Finally, the kicker is the Freedom of Speech part of this ask.

The Anon is using the concept of free speech here in the same way that the MAGA crowd does, to mean that I ought to be able to say whatever I want regardless of how it hurts others, rather than the legal term's actual definition - the right to critique one's government without being jailed or killed.

By accusing me of caring about Freedom of Speech this way they're not trying to make me feel guilt - theyre trying to hurt me, make me angry, and guide me to sympathize with Republicans. They are using the term this way to push me to think of my fanfic in terms of free speech and thus to agree with Republican freedom of speech talking points. Or if I reject the accusation - to feel torn between Left and Right.

The Anon is trying to sow discord. Theyre employing the same tactics that broke the Womens March movement in 2021, and that pervaded so many Facebook groups and twitter in the last two US election cycles. They are using tactics honed to cleave apart progressives and moderates.

My only question after all those realizations was: why the fuck are they doing this to such a niche group as star trek fanfiction writers.

And then it hit me.

The Anon's Motive: Trek Fic Writers are a Target Election Demographic.

By and large, US fan writers of ships from 90s star trek are women, often millenial and gen x women, many likely to be suburban. And yes - more likely to be white. In short we are part of the same demographic Trump lost in 2020 and needs to either win back this year, or try keep from going to the polls.

You can tell me I sound ridiculous - I think this whole stinking situation is ridiculous. I'm not unaware of how fringe a theory this is. I've been taught to always assume incompetence before malice. And for a while I considered that maybe The Anon was genuine. Maybe they had good intentions and poor execution. I'm sure I could write characters of color better (I am not afraid to admit that I'm still learning. Being wrong isnt something to be afraid of). I wanted this to be the case actually, but I have too much evidence and motive in favor of malicious bot tactics to ignore.

I have tried so hard to think of a reason I'm wrong. Except that all the pieces make sense. No fic / writer specific grievances have been aired by The Anon. They hit the same points every time, again, without textual evidence. They never reply. They chose words that wound and inflame but that never say anything specific about the fic or writer.

And wouldn't it be damn convenient for the Trump camp if a bunch of progressive and moderate US star trek fans decided not to vote because they were disheartened by being accused of racism and felt alienated from the democratic coalition.

This is a niche community. But we likely arent the only targets. And as a friend reminded me tonight, it doesnt take much to move the needle.

[magioffire]

rpc i think we need to have a little talk about misconceptions surrounding polyamory after the shit show last night

not all polyamorous relationships are open relationships. polyamorous is not a fancy word for 'free for all'. poly people can and do have closed relationships.

polyamory is not synonymous with religious polygamy. no one is mandating you into a polygamy unless youre in some kind of cult sect or a religious group that actively practices such things. consentual relationships between adults is a lot different from mandated polygamy brought on by religious or political authoritarianism. monogamy and polygamy both have been utilized to oppress and control people throughout history. non-consensual arranged monogamous marriages anyone? that shit still happens to this day.

polyamory is not a fancy word for 'lack of commitment'. if anything, it takes more commitment to support a romantic relationship with multiple people

polyamory is not inherently more abusive than monogamy. this is just straight up just not true from a statistics standpoint, polyamorous relationships are not any more abusive than monogamous relationships. and since there are just more monogamous relationships out there, the chances for abuse to occur in monogamous relationships is just simply higher. as the stigma against polyamory fades, more people are going to attempt it. just like how when theres more dogs, more people get bit by dogs -- doesnt suddenly make dogs evil (tho some people would argue that for some breeds). your relationship status or mode does not indicate how good or bad of a person you are.

polyamory is not cheating. as with any relationship, in order for it to be healthy, there must be boundaries and respect for your partner/s. people in both monogamous and polyamorous relationships cheat. cheating has nothing to do with your sexuality or your relationship preferences. no sexuality or relationship state inherently makes a person more likely to cheat. its like implying bisexual people are more likely to cheat because of their sexuality.

humans are not 'wired' for monogamy. this is bioessentialism. no one is arguing that monogamous relationships arent common among humans, but saying we are 'wired' to be monogamous implies that polyamory is somehow an unnatural state. which stinks of the same sort of bigotry of 'homosexuality isnt natural/humans are wired for heterosexuality'.

'i have nothing against polyamory, but i dont want it forced on me' is a dogwhistle for 'i dont want polyamorous people to exist in my general direction' and if you said that about any other group of people, it would obviously be a bigoted stance. 'i have nothing against gay people, but i dont want their gayness forced on me'. you see how fucked up that sounds? no one is holding a gun to your head saying you have to be in a polyamorous relationship.

the internet has made people forget how to mind their own business. it has also made people forget that just because something makes you personally uncomfortable doesnt mean you have to create some sort of moral justification for your hatred and fear. its a common tactic among troll and extremist political groups to prey upon people's discomfort and fear and turn it into hatred (kink at pride discourse anyone?). outrage culture is very real and 'alternative' or non-mainstream lifestyles and people have always been a target for this. it is nothing new, it is just the same old bigotry given a new fresh coat of paint. learn to sit with your discomfort, because its ultimately a you problem, not an everyone else's problem. people are not obligated to change or make themselves smaller to uphold your comfort. a boundary is not an ultimatum you place upon other people, its something you place upon yourself. people existing and living their lives is not forcing anything upon you.

[cyberatioum]

It's a mistake to view trans men and cis men's misogyny as having the same implications for both groups. Trans men supporting misogyny is inherently against their interests because, unlike cis men, they are part of the targets of misogyny, so by supporting it they also support their own subjugation and the degradation of the quality of their social life.

Cis men as a group tend to benefit from mantaining misogyny, but trans men don't because they occupy a different gender class under patriarchy, one that is the target of misogyny.

Misogyny will always backfire against trans men.

[buckttommy]

I think the fundamental problem a lot of people in this fandom are facing is that both biphobia and homophobia are so deeply ingrained in social spaces (of which fandom is one) that identifying them becomes so, so dicey and complicated for some people to grasp. Ordinarily, I am not someone who gravitates toward labels, but in the case of identifying prejudices, it's important to use as specific a label as is available. One of the reasons white leftists, for example, think they cannot be racist is because many of them treat black people as equals. But when those same white leftists lobby racist jokes at Asians, for example, and are subsequently called out on it, they will swear that they most assuredly are not, and cannot, be racist. This is because AAPI racism is different from BIPOC racism, and thus manifests itself differently.

Similarly, homophobia (directed towards gay men) is different from lesbophobia (directed towards gay women), in the same way that aphobia (directed towards asexual people) is different from biphobia (directed towards bisexual people), and so on, even though there are places where all these phobias intersect, i.e. corrective rape, use of slurs, domestic abuse, etc. When people talk about homo/bi/a/lesbophobia in fandom, very rarely are they talking about blanket instances of homophobia that we can all relate to (things like being ostracized, abused, treated differently, etc). In most instances, people are talking about specific and targeted treatment and responses that people who do not fall under those categories might not pick up on.

So when I say that the response to Buck possibly being queer is both homophobic and biphobic, what I mean is that regarding his love for Eddie as something innocent and pure, while simultaneously regarding his sex / sex drive / any future gay fling he might have as something sleazy, uncomfortable, embarrassing, or gross, is wrong. When I say that making snide remarks about Tommy's age is both homophobic and biphobic (with a little bit of bodyshaming and ageism thrown in there too), what I mean is that that idea that he's "too old" or "weird" or "creepy" for potentially having a thing for Buck calls back to the age-old stereotype that gay men / sex between men is inherently predatory, dirty, shameful, and illegal. When I say that going to bisexual fans and shaming them for their sex / sex drives or implying that bisexual sex or sexual/romantic relationships are somehow inherently shameful, dirty, or promiscuous—well, this should hopefully speak for itself, but this too, is also biphoic and also very, very harmful and wrong.

Aside from the last point (which can only be interpreted one way), I'm almost certain that no one in this fandom intends for their words or actions to come across as harmful because, as I mentioned last night, at the end of the day, we are all still here because of the love between two men. But similar to the aforementioned hypothetical white leftist at the top of this post, being "okay" with one group of people, or, in this instance, one iteration of a group of people (i.e. happy, monogamous queer/gay men) does not automatically mean you are okay with all of them (i.e. salacious, promiscuous, non-monogamous gay men), nor does it mean you are immune to internalizing and subsequently regurgitating harmful ideals.

We are all living in an era now where queer stories are both more accessible, and more under fire than ever. So it's important, as queer people in a largely queer fandom, to be conscious about checking our biases at the door and being open to learning when someone rings you up about something. It's not comfortable. It's deeply unpleasant, and the instinctive response is to be defensive because none of us want to be faced with the fact that we still have work to do. None of us want to be "that guy," nor do we want to be "problematic." But we are problematic, we wouldn't be human if we weren't, and we all have work that needs to be done on ourselves so that we can be the best versions of ourselves, for our sakes and for the sakes of others.

Only once that's been taken care of can we discourse about ships and different character readings all day long. But we must first do the work and look within ourselves to make sure we are engaging with each other, and each other's sexualities, through a core of mutual understanding and respect for each other as human beings and how we identify. Otherwise we are, unironically and quite literally, doing society's work for them and letting prejudice invade a space it does not belong.

So. Yeah. That's all I have to say. Shutting up now.

[demonic-shadowlucifer]

Let's talk about Exclusionists and how they harm the community they claim to protect: A collection of hate.

Welp! Pride Month is just around the corner, and with it, exclusionist and TERF rhetoric. A few disclaimers before we get into this: -While this is about the harmful things Exclusionists have done, I would like to add that the Inclusionist Community can be *just* as guilty of doing the things I'm about to mention. -Furthermore, I believe that both the "Inclusionist" and "Exclusionist" labels are kind of pointless tbh, since being inclusive is just the bare minimum, y'know? -TERFs and their variants will also be mentioned since TERF Rhetoric is a frequent thing in Exclusionist communities, especially in Longsword Lesbian communities. -This is not intended to be a discourse post at all, this is mostly for educational purposes and awareness. Furthermore, I don't think being queer should be controversial at all.

-And of course, HEAVY trigger warning for the following: Exclusionism, TERF Rhetoric, Ableism, Suicide Bait, Encouragement of Violence and more. For this post, I have collected screenshots of many hurtful things exclusionists have said, and evidence to prove links to rhetoric from non-queer homophobes. These are screenshots from Tumblr, Twitter and Instagram as well. I give credit to @/animefacialreconitionsoftware01 on Tumblr, Exclusionist Struggle Tweets on Twitter, exclusmoment on Instagram and many others for these screenshots.

So, hang on, what even is an exclusionist?

An exclusionist is a group of mostly queer individuals who attempt to gatekeep the LGBTQ+ Community by claiming certain groups aren't truly queer or "not queer enough".

Exclusionist can be used on it's own, but also as an umbrella term for other groups, such as: Mspec Exclusionists (Battleaxe Bis) - A group of exclusionists that believe that other Multisexual labels outside of "Bi" are harmful, or that they're the same as bisexual. Their primary targets tend to be pansexuals and panromantics. Transmedicalists - A group of mostly exclusionists (Mostly trans people, but occasionally cis people), who believe that you must meet a certain number of requirements in order to be Transgender. While every transmedicalist has different views, the most common opinion is that dysphoria is required to be trans. One well known Transmedicalist is Kalvin Garrah. Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERF) - One of the most recognizable Exclusionist groups. While TERFs aren't inherently queer, their rhetoric can overlap with many other groups (Especially Longsword Lesbians and Transmedicalists on some occasions), so they get a mention here. There's not really much to say about them, outside of the fact that they're simply transmisic feminists. Their primary targets include trans women, but they may also target trans men, nonbinary folks, bisexuals and other mspec groups, intersex folks and sometimes ace/aro folks. The group also has *several* links to white supremacy. Longsword Lesbians - Speaking of Longsword Lesbians, this is a group that intends to fight lesbian erasure. This one might have had good intentions at first, but then started excluding other lesbians, becoming an exclusionist group, though I can't get much information on it's origins. Their primary targets include Nonbinary Lesbians, Mspec Lesbians and PNC Lesbians. They may also exclude GNC lesbians and trans lesbians, though not all of them do. Gravity Knife Gays - Exclusionists that target other gay men, primary nonbinary gays, Mspec Gays and PNC Gays. They may also target GNC gay men and trans gay men, though not all of them do. Aspec Exclusionists - I don't think I need to explain this one. So, why are they bad?

Well, there's evidence on how it's bad. Outside of erasure and gatekeeping harmless identities, a lot of exclusionists have a straight up habit of harassing other queer folks or calling for harassment. And there's plenty of evidence to prove it as well. I'm going to warn you, some of these contain suicide bait and slurs. Please proceed with caution if that sort of thing stresses you out. Some words are censored to avoid getting banned (and for my own comfort as well). Obviously, you have the ones that are simple gatekeeping, which is almost always bad.

(Image ID: A Tumblr post from user "alpinestag". The text reads "REAL lesbians don't date or sleep with men in their past lives! Let's be real, if your soul married a man 1000 years ago, you're bisexual"). I *was* originally going to give this person the benefit of the doubt and assume they were joking, but when I looked they had a *lot* of TERFy shit on their blog, so they were definitely serious.

(Image ID: A Tumblr post from user "didcourze". The text reads "on asexuals having sex, why would u want to have sex with someone if not attracted to them? i get it u still have a sex drive even if ure not attracted to people sexually but how could you justify using someone that u clearly have no interest in solely for sex, ur own pleasure, like that's so fucked??") And then, there's folks that will take it to more extreme levels, like these fellas. This one might not be calling for harassment, but it is *heavily* implied.

(Image ID: A screenshot from a Twitter post in dark mode that shows another screenshot of a Twitter user's bio, also in dark mode. Some information is blacked out in red. The primary tweet has the text "Fucking trenders. Excluse do your thing 💖" The screenshot of the twitter bio below the text contains many plant emojis and heart emojis, and shows the text "I genuinely want to be nice to you all", "hy/him/hers", "transmasch butch boi. OMNIGAY", "'TRENDER" on T" and other information about their location, age, followers and following and the join date. End ID). This one on the other hand... this is blatant harassment.

(Image ID: A screenshot of a Tumblr ask from an anonymous user. The message reads "transwomen are men and if they were really women you wouldnt have to be screaming it 100 times. also k yourself.". A word that starts with k is also blocked out in red. End ID). "Asexuals don't experience oppression" ....Are you sure about that?

(Image ID: A screenshot of a Tumblr dm by a user named "aphobickaito". Some words are blacked out in red. The messages read "D bitch.". Did your daddy r you so hard that your brain got fucked too and you think this dragon cake shit is funny? Because that's some shit". End ID) For those wondering, the last censored word is the r-slur. Some posts will also advocate for straight up violence, like these ones below.

(Image ID: A screenshot of a Tumblr post from a user named "aletheius". The text reads "I love being aphobic. if you don't want to bed the love of your life you should be beaten up and stuffed in a locker".)

(Image ID: A screenshot of a twitter message/post from user "gowonstiara". The text reads "asexuals deserve to d*3". End ID).

(Image ID: A screenshot of a twitter user's bio in dark mode. Some information and words are blocked out in either red or blue. A scribble of blue has the words "Irrelevant stuff here". The rest of the bio reads "k all bi/pan lesbians". End ID).

(Image ID: A screenshot of a twitter post from user "brontydownunder" in dark mode. The text reads "'They're putting asexuals in concentration camps in China' good. Put more". End ID).

(Image ID: An screenshot of a post containing an image of a cropped Asexual flag. The text on the flag is slightly edited, and reads "START KILLING US". End ID) A lot of exclusionist posts also have a *lot* of suicide bait in them as well, such as these ones shown below. Again, scroll with caution if you are sensitive to these sorts of things. There is also an f-slur being used with malicious intent in one of these.

(Image ID: A twitter post from user "beebies" in dark mode, with the two e's replaced by 3. Part of the text has been blocked out with red. The text reads "if u go by they/them go k ll urself no offense lol 😍". End ID). I was going to censor the slur in this one, but decided not to just to show how malicious exclusionists really can be.

(Image ID: A screenshot of a tumblr notification. Part of the text is blacked out in red. The text reads "net-angel reblogged your post: asexual faggots sh t yourself challenge". End ID) And then there's some that will just straight up admit to hating certain groups and even harassing them. Others will admit to being fucking proud of their bigotry.

(Image ID: A screenshot of a twitter post from "sinboundhaibane" in dark mode. The text reads "i hate trans men, yes. if you understood the material realities of the situation, you would hate them too".)

(Image ID: A screenshot of a twitter post from an unknown Twitter user. The text reads "does anyone have edits they want views on i'm about to bully a bi/pan lesbian supporter 🏃‍♀️". End ID)

(Image ID: Two tweets from Twitter users "pipcrgrace" and "ssapphrodite". The text on the first tweet reads "just say you hate he him lesbians and move on...", the text on the second tweet has four variations of "i hate he/him lesbians" and "i ha" at the end. End ID).

(Image ID: A Tumblr post from user "jwjdhdjsksks". The text reads "The panphobes are out in full force today and I'm so proud". End ID). It should be obvious on why this is bad. Advocating for harassment or straight up violence, or telling someone to hurt themselves over their identity is NEVER a good thing no matter how you look at it. No buts, whats or ifs. And that's not even the end of this either. There's also some exclusionists who will restate the *same exact* rhetoric that Anti-LGBTQ+ people spew around. Here's a look.

TERF rhetoric (And invalidation of nonbinary identities)

(Image ID: Three tweets from three users with their names blocked by red, yellow and teal respectively. The screenshot is taken in light mode. The first tweet reads "I've spoken to many girls on here who did transition due to bullying/pressure. Lesbians are also attracted to girls." The second reads The two aren't mutually exclusive, either. Some trans men and trans women identify as lesbians, too.". The third tweet reads "Lesbians are female only.". End ID). Hmmm, I wonder where I've heard THIS before.

(Image ID: A Tumblr post from an individual who's username is pixeled out. The text reads "I really hate the Blue's Clues pride video. They are literally forcing their mogai shit on to little kids. Why do they have to feed kids bs like "nonbinary gender identities" and "pansexuality" on to children!? Why? (Just to clarify: I am not against teaching children about LGBT stuff, I am against teaching children bs)." End ID). Some will admit to straight up misgendering people as well. Again, seems familiar?

(Image ID: A Tumblr post from user "feminismnightmare". The text reads "Hi if you claim to be trans and tell me you're not dysphoric I'm going to use your biological pronouns". End ID). *More* TERF rhetoric (I would also like to point out that the saying "men are trash" is almost always a red flag, no matter the intent, due to it's high usage with TERFs).

(Image ID: A screenshot from an unknown Twitter user. The text reads "Lesbianism is understandable because men are trash. Gayness is fair because trash like trash. Bisexual = greedy. Trans = mental illness. All the others.. nonsense". End ID)

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, a *LOT* of Exclusionists I've seen are also incredibly ableist and racist as well.

Many Exclusionists claim that some queer groups harm neurodivergent folks and POC, but... are we *really* sure about that?

(Image ID: A Twitter post from user "annadoescare". The screenshot is taken in dark mode. The text reads "i don't care about your mental illness. it's not my problem. stop making up these genders that embarrass the lgbt". End ID)

(Image ID: Two tweets from two users with usernames blocked out in red and yellow respectively. The screenshot is taken in dark mode. The first tweet reads "There are lesbians who like men. There are lesbians who are men. There are lesbians who are straight. There are lesbians who are bisexual. There are all this and more". The second tweet reads "This is why I hate autistics". End ID). ...Excuse me but what the actual FUCK. /neg

(Image ID: A Tumblr comment from user "trans-wojak". The text reads "being racist towards whites won't change slavery" with an analog winking emoji at the end. End ID). Straight up eugenics, TERFism or both? You decide! (I'm also slightly convinced this person has internalized ableism as well, but that's not really my say).

(Image ID: A Tumblr post from user "posttraumaticspacelesbian-blog". Part of text has been blocked out with red. The text reads "as a disabled womon i would like to point out that all disabled men should b k ed" End ID.)

Some will also compare some queer groups to arguably worse shit. Exhibit A:

(Image ID: A post from Twitter user "sinboundhaibane" in dark mode. The text reads "new poem: bi lesbianism is a fascist dogwhistle eat my shit". End ID). Exhibit B:

(Image ID: A post from Tumblr user "postmodern-baseball". The text reads "cops aren't class traitors, nonbinary lesbians are." End ID) And there's a SHITTON more too. But I could never do it justice in this post, especially with TERFs. Now, before you exclusionists come at me with "But NOT ALL OF US ARE LIKE THAT!" or "Inclusionists do this too!" First off, I am fully aware that inclusionists are guilty of some of these as well, which is why I don't use the inclusionist label. But that's besides the point, I don't care if you're not like the folks in this post. I don't care if not every exclusionist is like this. THIS is what Exclusionism promotes. THIS is what Exclusionism encourages. Exclusionism is always going to encourage harassment and infighting. No matter how civil you are, no matter how "chill" you are, no matter how "nice you are, it doesn't matter in the end. By excluding other queer folks from queer spaces, you are actively condoning harassment. No, I don't want to hear any excuses. Exclusionism has and always will be harmful to other queer communities. Still don't believe me? Here's some videos that show and explain the exact same thing, as well as some other educational videos thrown into the mix. Transmedicalism: An Investigation. Breaking my Silence on Kalvin Garrah: Part One, Part Two , Part Three. Inside a Cult: A Series about Gender Criticals. Why is Queer Discourse so Toxic?

Addressing my "Lesbophobia" - A Rant about Mspec Lesbian Exclusionism.

What are TERFs?

The problem with Radical Feminism.

And of course, here's my Mspec Lesbian Exclusionism analysis post.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Sociopaths across the globe finding posters of these kidnapped children. Babies, Holocaust survivors and tearing them down. I saw, they were all over the upper east side, the same posters of the 8-year-old girl, the 9-month-old baby, and someone had literally gone to the trouble of printing it out with the word "occupier" under it, if you would believe that.

And let me explain to you exactly why this is happening. These people have woke mind-virus.

In the woke mindset, there's no difference between right versus wrong. They see the world only through the lens of powerful versus powerless, and then they superimpose race onto that.

So, anybody who is a "person of color" has less power and thus is inherently virtuous, no matter what they do, and anybody who they perceive as a "white" person is inherently morally compromised and an oppressor and has no virtue and is evil.

And they code Jews and Israel as "white." And just like all white people, there's no such thing as an innocent white person or an innocent Jew to these woke people.

And so what they do is, when there's evidence of a Jewish victim, what could be more pure and innocent than a 9-month-old baby, they literally have to destroy the evidence because it destroys their mindset, their worldview.

And let me just tell you one more thing. You know, there's a lot of people walking around saying the Jewish people are shaking, the Jewish people are scared. We're not scared. We are livid. And if these sociopaths think we're going to cede this great nation to them, they're in for a big surprise.

--

"Another aspect of the construction of whiteness is the way certain groups have moved into or out of that race. For example, early in our history Irish, Jews, and Italians were considered nonwhite—that is, on a par with African Americans. Over time, they earned the prerogatives and social standing of whites by a process that included joining labor unions, swearing fealty to the Democratic Party, and acquiring wealth, sometimes by illegal or underground means. Whiteness, it turns out, is not only valuable; it is shifting and malleable." -- "Critical Race Theory, An Introduction" (Third Edition), by Delgado and Stefancic

-

The Role of the Moslem Woman: Article Seventeen: The Moslem woman has a role no less important than that of the Moslem man in the battle of liberation. She is the maker of men. Her role in guiding and educating the new generations is great. The enemies have realised the importance of her role. They consider that if they are able to direct and bring her up the way they wish, far from Islam, they would have won the battle. That is why you find them giving these attempts constant attention through information campaigns, films, and the school curriculum, using for that purpose their lackeys who are infiltrated through Zionist organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups and others, which are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs. These organizations have ample resources that enable them to play their role in societies for the purpose of achieving the Zionist targets and to deepen the concepts that would serve the enemy. These organizations operate in the absence of Islam and its estrangement among its people. The Islamic peoples should perform their role in confronting the conspiracies of these saboteurs. The day Islam is in control of guiding the affairs of life, these organizations, hostile to humanity and Islam, will be obliterated. -- Hamas Covenant 1988

Critical Race Theory and Hamas both echo the same "Jews control the world" conspiracy theories as the far-right.

[beautifulpersonpeach]

BPP youve become my one safe space on the fandom internet and i need a place to rant

https://x.com/134340_tanjiro/status/1790298549919347025?s=46

Does this framing not seem strange to you? To anybody? Why are (international) Armys acting like it’s BTS being personally questioned not Hybe and Bang Si Hyuk. Why are Armys blaming New Jeans for it? The other day Armys gave 10k likes to someone saying they want to run over New Jeans members in trucks to kill them. How did the fandom become like this? I cant even say anything on Twitter calling out this manner without getting jumped. I dont even like Mhj but the attacks from Armys is very unhinged. Has Army always been like this?

*

Ask 2:

Grown middle-aged armys wishing ill on teenagers and bootlicking a conglomerate and a man, who bodyshamed their own faves and made them pull their shirts up when they were barely legal (with few of them being minors). Do they even like BTS at this point? I get why they see HYBE and to some point BSH as an extension of BTS seeing how they literally built the company from ground up and people disrespecting HYBE is like them disrespecting BTS' "work", but holy hell, did they turn cultish.

***

Sigh.

Yeah for the last 4 years (give or take a couple months), ARMY has been exactly like this.

It’s why I laughed a bit when the very first leak from HYBE included claims that MHJ said BTS copied her, a claim that given it would expose HYBE to a defamation suit, HYBE later revised to “we suspect MHJ said BTS copied her.” It didn’t matter that MHJ denied it, explicitly said it was fabrication and mediaplay on HYBE’s part, and HYBE has never provided evidence to support it. That first leak had already done its job by priming the fandom to target her and then when the Shaman comments were released later, ARMY practically bought a coffin with her name on it.

ARMYs are just doing what they do, and the reality is that yes, most of the fandom sees Bang PD and HYBE as an extension of BTS. They’ll tell you all sorts of things, wring their hands and tap dance around that fact, but yeah, it’s true. It’s also true that other k-pop fans see HYBE as an extension of BTS and antagonize HYBE groups on that basis as well.

So really, it’s a k-pop thing. The way I see it, this behaviour is a consequence of the tribalism inherent in k-pop. Which really just makes all of this especially pathetic lol. That’s the kind of mindrot k-pop creates in adults and children alike.

Somewhat relatedly, I understand it’s disappointing to see comments like this, but there’s nothing to be done for it. And I don’t want to be dismissive, some of you have sent in very emotional asks and I get it, but I also don’t want to keep talking about this HYBE-MHJ case and how ARMYs are acting a fool over it. The conclusion of this fiasco has already been decided, with allowances for a couple other options maybe. These arguments and rants are just a waste of time. Anyone who loves either NewJeans or BTS or both, would have their time better spent by showing love directly to those groups than anything else, in my opinion.

NewJeans has become a casualty of the k-pop system, which is unfortunate. A lot of ARMYs are acting no differently than any other toxic k-pop fandom, unfortunately. BTS is not unscathed, unfortunately, but they are in the best possible position and will be more than fine.

[starburstfloat]

Loved how characters had shadows of each other this season.

David is Nick's shadow, the boy he could have become if he'd let his father's abscence turn him into a high strung egotist.

Ben is both Charlie and Nick's shadow. Charlie could have turned into Ben if he'd let insecurity, bullying, and a generally unsupportive familial environment dictate his attitude and actions. Nick could have become like Ben too if he had repressed his sexuality and allowed doubt and humility to shape him.

Even Elle's new art friend group is Tao's shadow of the fun, secure person he could be "if only he were more likable".

And one of the main reasons these characters didn't cave in to become like their shadow selves is because they found salvation through friendship. Time and time again, we witness that it's friendship, not romance, that saves our characters.

Do they still have moments where they struggle to be who they are? Yes.

But it shows us that self-love and self-acceptance is a choice. A choice that gets easier - but isn't inherently solved - by having the proper support around us.

Heartstopper season 2 really took the "you're not so different, you and I" antagonist stereotype but twisted it into a nuanced, more equivocal perspective that honestly delivered more maturity and insight than most shows that target an adult audience.