#and the lack of pronouns isn’t an issue by itself and the ‘female’ thing wouldn’t necessarily be an issue by itself

[danielnelsen]

ok so if someone is decently knowledgeable about gender stuff and used to consider themselves nonbinary and use they/them and suddenly gets rid of public pronouns and says that their gender is ‘female’ (and they’re afab)…… that’s a little concerning, right? am i overthinking this, or does that sound concerning?

[theremharths]

This is just more thoughts on The Left Hand of Darkness, but it’s under a cut bc it’s a huge incomprehensible ramble. Sorry if you’re on mobile

I was worried that Genly finally understanding and accepting that Estraven is just as much a woman as a man, which comes at the moment that he also acknowledges the sexual tension between them, would essentially frame their relationship as “well it’s okay that I’m attracted to this person who is a man, because they are also a woman so I can ignore the man aspect” but it didn’t do that at all--that this scene is the first time where Genly doesn’t switch to she/her pronouns for someone in the “female” kemmer state (like he does with Faxe during the ritual or the orgota in the prison truck with him) seems partially designed to specifically defy that interpretation as much as it’s meant to show how Genly’s developed

The question of Genly’s sexual orientation isn’t really brought up at all, really. I expected a bit of homophobic (internalized or otherwise) waffling on his part (while there are of course plenty of gay men who are misogynists, Genly’s particular brand of casual, unquestioning misogyny tends to go hand in hand w/ a certain similar kind of casual, unquestioning homophobia) along the lines of, say, categorizing any gethenian who he finds attractive as “female” or something similar, but that never occurs. The part where Genly notes that he can’t help but pay attention to Gaum bc of his attractiveness has him describe Gaum as being attractive “as either sex” without placing any more emphasis on femaleness being connected to that attractiveness than maleness

Similarly, his attraction to Estraven, while unrealized or ignored by Genly for most of the book, is fairly plain to the reader as early on as the first chapter. Every other person Genly encounters is described only by their most prominent feature. Even Faxe and Gaum’s attractiveness is largely undescribed--we don’t know what it is about them that makes them beautiful, just that they are

Estraven is described every time Genly looks at him, in great detail, to the point where he’s the only character the reader is really given a full picture of. Even Genly’s appearance is vague; we know that he’s a dark skinned Black man, that he has a wide nose, that he’s probably around six feet tall, that he’s fairly physically strong, and that’s about it. Estraven is a head shorter than Genly, his hair is long and black, his eyes are also black, his skin is dark brown but lighter than Genly’s, he has small hands, he has wide hips, he has single eyelids and heavy eyebrows, he is fairly solidly built and has a “sleek” layer of fat to him, etc etc etc. We always know what he’s wearing, we know how he looks in the light of whatever room he and Genly are in, we know how he looks when he sleeps. All of this makes the revelation of the attraction between them more meaningful to the reader than describing him in the same terms as, say, Faxe was, would have, and almost all of it is from before Genly’s Moment Of Understanding, from when he was still trying to frame Estraven as entirely a man in his mind

While Genly assigns various and frequently contradicting and almost always (to him) negative traits to femaleness--Estraven’s directness is “feminine” but so, according to Genly, is his perceived mysteriousness and manipulative nature--he distinctly never associates sexual attractiveness with women. Even in the scene where he tries (and fails) to explain what a woman is to Estraven and why, to Genly, they are so different from men, he never attempts to use language related to beauty or any sort of physical attractiveness at all

Obviously the main reason why the gethenians are all referred to using he/him pronouns is “it was 1969 and they/them wasn’t widely recognized as a non-plural pronoun and ‘he’ is considered ‘more neutral’ than ‘she’ is” but it also forces the reader to acknowledge that while you can’t describe Genly and Estraven’s relationship as a gay one, you also certainly can’t describe it as a heterosexual one. There is, undeniably, a homoerotic nature to it and to the whole of the novel and to deny that, based on the fact that Estraven isn’t just a man, is to deny that Estraven also isn’t just a woman or just neither one. To use only she/her pronouns for Estraven would be to allow the homophobic reader to do what I was relieved that Genly (and Le Guin) didn’t do--to go “well, sure, it’s telling me that this person is a man and a woman and both and neither, but I don’t want this story to be about a man falling in love with a man-woman-both-neither, so I will pretend this person is solely a woman”

(And, frankly, the need to read between the lines to grasp the attraction between two characters--the subtlety of the whole thing, pre-(and even post-)Moment Of Understanding--is homoerotic in itself. Straightness and cisness don’t generally concern themselves with with subtlety or nuance)

I’m not saying that the choice to use only he/him pronouns for the gethenians was the correct one. I’m following the example set by canon because at the end of the day, using the “wrong” pronouns for even a fictional character makes me uncomfortable--it feels like misgendering, even if it really isn’t, if I use pronouns that the character isn’t shown to use themself. I’m saying that with the options that Le Guin knew of in the 1960s--she/her or he/him--it was probably better to use he/him, at least for specifically Estraven. I genuinely don’t know how one would modernize the way pronouns are used here for a movie or series adaptation. I suppose the best thing I can think of would be to use he/him and she/her and they/them for every gethenian, which is both 1. how plenty of people use pronouns in real life and 2. a lot less confusing/chaotic in a visual medium than it would be in a written one. The issue with switching to solely they/them pronouns in an adaptation is that it could still allow for a separation from that homoeroticism, and, more importantly, that it perpetuates the novel’s fixation on "physical sex” as ruling gender identity, and that being non-binary is something for aliens and not for regular humans. Yes, they/them pronouns would be the neatest option but it wouldn’t work as a solution to the novel’s cissexism

Kosh, the babylon 5 character, is a being without “biological sex”. He is also a male character. To reboot babylon 5 and have all vorlons use they/them pronouns would be to reinforce the notion of gender being decided by sex organs and chromosomes and, in this case, whether or not you’re a sentient ball of light. It would still be adhering to the character’s assigned gender, it’s just that the assigned gender would be “none”. Kosh, as a male character who is not “””biologically male”””, is already trans. If you want to have non-binary characters in babylon 5, you would do better to look at G’Kar or Delenn or literally anyone other than a vorlon

(Of course, satisfyingly and accurately modernizing and adapting The Left Hand of Darkness in other ways would also be difficult. Keeping the themes and messages and plot while removing the implication that there are no trans and/or non-binary and/or intersex people on earth or in the whole of the Ekumen. The simple fact that I just don’t have faith in most prominent producers/directors/casting agents/etc to adhere to the novel’s complete lack of white characters, and especially to actually cast an indigenous actor as Estraven. The other simple fact that Estraven’s death at the end is something I can accept in a book from 1969, but absolutely not in a modern work)

[silver-and-ivory]

explain pls

Okay!

For context: I posted pictures and quotes from a Washington Times article about transgender people and (hyperbolically) claimed that it was all wrong. I suggested that anyone who wanted me to explains should send me an anon, and someone has taken me up on that offer! (hi!)

This is a long post, containing information a lot of my mutuals probably already know. It’s more like an Introduction to Transgender Issues than a more in-depth exploration of anything — which is good! I like doing Introduction to Transgender Issues —but it might not be very valuable if you already know this kind of thing. I also elide over some things.

So: let’s take it from the top. First of all, the lead-in sucks:

Is Caitlyn Jenner a woman? A growing body of research from scientists, philosophers and feminists says no.

I understand that they want a catchy hook but this an asshole move. They shouldn’t specifically call someone out as Not Really a Woman, nor should they use an unflattering picture of her to head their article. If they’re really so concerned about transgender children and the harm done by transgender activists, why are they misgendering Caitlyn Jenner? What did she ever do to harm transgender children? Is harming transgender children an offense that means people get to misgender you?

Would they treat a cisgender pro-trans activist the same way?

Anyway, let’s continue.

The latest contribution to the debate is “When Harry Became Sally,” a just-released book by Heritage Foundation senior research fellow Ryan T. Anderson, who critiques the transgender movement on the grounds of metaphysics, medicine and public policy.

Contrary to the transgender movement’s central claim — that “gender identity” determines whether someone is a man, a woman or something else — Mr. Anderson said the only rationale for determining an organism’s sex is “by that organism’s organization with respect to sexual reproduction.”

“Apart from that, all you have are sex stereotypes,” Mr. Anderson said Wednesday at a Heritage Foundation gathering. “There’s no other objective standard for identifying the sex of an individual.”

Human beings are a “sexually dimorphic species,” with complementary reproductive systems that are either male or female, Mr. Anderson said. One’s sex is evident in DNA, can be tracked in the womb and manifests itself “in many of our bodily systems and organs all the way down to the molecular level.”

Apart from the fact that I’m not entirely sure what “metaphysics” is supposed to mean (the transgender movement has metaphysics?!), this is really disingenuous.

The characterization of the central claim of the trans movement leaves off a lot of important information and serves as something of a strawman. It’s given less than one sentence of explanation in an article that devotes paragraphs and paragraphs to explaining the anti-trans-movement perspective.

I would characterize the “central claim of the trans movement” as the idea that gender and sex are separate. It believes that sex is composed of the physical attributes commonly linked to gender, such as the x and y chromosomes and the sex organs; and that gender is the social construct that has grown up around these sexually dimorphic traits.

Even as stated, his opposition to the central claim of the trans movement is poor. “Humans are sexually dimorphic” is a bad counter to the claim “people sometimes identify as a gender that doesn’t correspond to the sex of their bodies”. It’s just not very applicable. It elides the entire point and instead assumes that of course sex determines gender.

The statement that humans have “complementary reproductive systems that are either female or male” is not entirely true. Things that our society thinks of as “a male sex”, such as having a penis, xy chromosomes, facial hair growth, a testosterone-dominant hormone system, and so on, don’t all come in one package. Some people who were born with vulvas and vaginas have xy chromosomes; other people who were born with vulvas and vaginas also have penises.

It makes sense and is useful to have a concept of “male sex” and “female sex”, because a lot of people fit fairly well into these categories. But as you increase the amount of female sex traits a male person has, or the amount of male traits a female person has, you end up being very arbitrary about how you define sex. Is a person with a vulva and a vagina but with xy chromosomes a female? What if they’re infertile? What if they weren’t born with a vulva and vagina but these were surgically constructed? (These questions are rhetorical. Instead of trying to answer them, the astute reader should ponder what they imply about the arbitrariness and subjectiveness of constructions of sex.)

In my understanding, sex is best understand as aggregates of traits, rather than a simple “everyone is either female or male; better pick one!”. And even this understanding isn’t objective; it’s made up by people for particular purposes, not Determined By True Categories of Sex.

As a counter to the trans movement, I think the statement that sex determines gender is also lacking. It misses that many trans people change their sex, including their genitals. The article somehow misses that, according to this definition of sex and gender, lots of trans people are in fact their identified gender/sex, because these trans people have changed their sexed attributes.

(Attempts to redefine what qualifies one as a particular sex are goalpost-moving, and the astute reader should again notice the arbitrariness and subjectiveness of sex.)

However, even if the article believed that trans people who had changed their sexes were truly their identified sexes, this wouldn’t be fully trans-positive or in line with what much of the trans movement believes. A lot of trans people don’t change their sexes, and they’re not less legitimate than the trans people who do. But this error is... striking.

We now come to Anderson’s claim that, after we ignore sex characteristics, all we have is gender stereotypes. This is a shocking claim! I’m sure that everyone at the Heritage Foundation will be happy to know that there are exactly zero differences between men and women’s brains and behavior and- oh, no? You’re telling me that it would be kind of weird if, given all the sex dimorphism, there were exactly zero differences between men’s brains and women’s brains? That, even if there are no biological differences between men and women, given all of the socialization our society does around gender, it would be weird if this resulted in no differences between men and women’s brains, other than stereotypes?

I’m not entirely sure what gender is. There’s a lot of room for good and valuable debate, though so far I think the consensus among trans-positive people is “?? who the fuck knows”. But Anderson isn’t doing the work to make a persuasive argument, and the author of this article isn’t thinking carefully enough about the implications of his argument.

He took pains to direct his critiques not at transgender people themselves, but at the activists who promote the ideology.

Too bad the author of this article didn’t appear to get the memo.

People with gender dysphoria are suffering, Mr. Anderson said, and as many as 41 percent of those who identify as transgender will try to commit suicide at some point in their lives.

“It’s important that our response to them be one of compassion and respect for their struggle,” he said. “But we also need to beware of the harm that activists are doing by promoting their ideology.”

Yeah, you know, those nasty activists! The high functioning Vocal Minority Bad Trans Activists who don’t have the best interests of Our low functioning Children in mind. We shouldn’t bother wasting any of our compassion on these bomb-throwing diehard radicals. Diehard radicals, you know, like Caitlyn Jenner?

The greatest harm perpetrated by the transgender movement is on children, Mr. Anderson said.

He identified a four-part standard of care that transgender activists recommend to bring both body and society into alignment with a child’s identity after gender dysphoria is diagnosed.

First, children should be encouraged to transition socially if they express a “consistent, insistent and persistent” identification with the opposite sex. Among other things, the social transition consists of a new name, a new gender pronoun, a new wardrobe and access to the bathrooms and locker rooms of the opposite sex.

Second, as the children approach puberty, they should be placed on drugs that prevent them from “going through puberty in the wrong body.”

Third, as the children enter adolescence, they should be given the “opposite sex’s sex hormones — estrogen for the boy and testosterone for the girl — to mimic puberty in the right body.”

The final stage of transition comes at or around age 18, when they become eligible for surgical procedures that replace external genitalia and secondary sex characteristics with those mimicking the opposite sex.

wow what an expose, look at this Sinister Plan made up by transgender activists to force children into transitioning—

But actually the trans activists I’ve met are in favor of carefully considering one’s options, making one’s own decisions, and not doing things that you don’t want to do. I can’t speak for all trans activists, and I definitely can’t speak for the medical establishment, but the things listed here are options, not requirements. I would be really sad if a trans kid who didn’t want a new wardrobe ended up having to get a new wardrobe! I don’t think people should have to get surgery done on them! No one should be forced to get HRT, just as no one should be forced to go through the puberty of their birth sex!

I think the way this list of possible options is presented is highly disingenuous. It implies that trans activists in general want every trans child to do every one of these, without consulting people they trust, without thinking about what they themselves want, without taking a break and at a breakneck speed. That’s a severe mischaracterization of what trans activists want, and it’s disappointing to see it presented in this way.

Another way this is inaccurate is that it characterizes these options as things trans activists have come up with, on their own, in their capacity as cultish manipulators. This is not true. These options are recognized as part of mainstream standards of care for transgender children.

It is true that transgender children and trans people in general are often pushed into doing surgeries they don’t want, or dressing in ways they didn’t want, due to gender stereotypes or standards for what a true woman/man/nb is. But the causes of this aren’t, generally, transgender activists as a whole. Rather, it’s more often the medical establishment and society in general which cause trans people to feel pressured to have particular surgeries or to dress in a certain way. While I don’t have immediate evidence concerning pressure from doctors to get particular surgeries, the general atmosphere of the way doctors treat trans people makes it highly likely.

I do have more immediate information about pressure from doctors and society in general on trans people, trans women in particular, to fit gender stereotypes. For example, Lisa Millbank writes-

Another notorious component of gatekeeping is the RLE, or Real Life Experience. In the UK, transsexual women are often expected to complete two years of RLE before they will be considered for treatment. This sometimes refers to surgical treatment, but the RLE requirement can be enforced before even hormones are offered. RLE consists of living ‘full time as a woman’ for typically two years. This means using a ‘female’ name, female pronouns and wearing ‘female’ clothes.

There are some women who immediately are ‘read’ as women by mainstream society the moment they adopt feminine gender markers in their dress and behaviour. They are in the relative minority. For most transsexual women, going straight into RLE is not an experience of womanhood but an experience of public freakhood, composed of constant stares, transphobic harassment and potentially violence, without access to much of the (intensely double-edged) training given to cissexual women on how to survive this.

(I don’t agree with Millbank about many things and she is wrong about a lot of things. The rest of her blog is not endorsed by me and read it at your own risk.)

Furthermore, gender nonconforming (that is, butch or not-very-femme) trans women are punished for not meeting stereotypes of women/trans women:

Media depictions of trans women, whether they take the form of fictional characters or actual people, usually fall under one of two main archetypes: the “deceptive” transsexual or the “pathetic” transsexual. While characters of both models have an interest in achieving an ultrafeminine appearance, they differ in their abilities to pull it off. Because the “deceivers” successfully pass as women, they generally act as unexpected plot twists, or play the role of sexual predators who fool innocent straight guys into falling for “men.”…

In contrast to the “deceivers”, who wield their feminine wiles with success, the “pathetic” transsexual characters aren’t deluding anyone. Despite her masculine mannerisms and five o’clock shadow, the “pathetic” transsexual will inevitably insist that she is a woman trapped inside a man’s body. The intense contradiction between the “pathetic” character’s gender identity and her physical appearance is often played for laughs—as in the transition of musician Mark Shubb (played as a bearded baritone by Harry Shearer) at the conclusion of 2003’s A Mighty Wind.Unlike the “deceivers”, whose ability to pass is a serious threat to our ideas about gender and sexuality, “pathetic” transsexuals—who barely resemble women at all—are generally considered harmless…

While a character like Henrietta, who exhibits a combination of extreme masculinity and femininity, has the potential to confront our assumptions about gender, it is fairly obvious that the filmmakers were not trying to do so. On the contrary, Henrietta’s masculine voice and mannerisms are meant to demonstrate that, despite her desire to be female, she cannot change the fact that she is really and truly a man. 

While we are supposed to admire their courage—which presumably comes from the difficulty of living as women who do not appear very female—we are not meant to identify with them or to be sexually attracted to them, as we are to “deceivers” like Dil.Interestingly, while the obvious outward masculinity of “pathetic” transsexual characters is always played up, so too is their lack of male genitalia (or their desire to part with them). In fact, some of the most memorable lines in these movies occur when the “pathetic” transsexual character makes light of her own castration. 

Ultimately, both “deceptive” and “pathetic” transsexual characters are designed to validate the popular assumption that trans women are “truly” men. “Pathetic” transsexuals may want to be female, but their masculine appearance and mannerisms always gives them away. And while the “deceiver” is initially perceived to be a “real” female, she is eventually revealed to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing—an illusion that is the product of lies and modern medical technology—and she is usually is punished accordingly.

There is a lot more information on this sort of thing than I am going to go into. If you want to read more about the way gender/sex stereotypes have harmed transgender people through the gatekeeping of medical care, I highly recommend reading Julia Serano’s discussion of theories concerning transness here and Andrea James’s here.

(Important note of nuance: there are trans people who advocate for these harmful conceptions of womanhood and trans-womanhood, such as the HBS separatists. However, I don’t think they represent the state of trans activism as a whole. (Also, don’t ask me about the truscum. I don’t want to get into truscum discourse.))

Concerned parents are convinced that this is “the only way to prevent their child from committing suicide,” Mr. Anderson said, although “somewhere between 80 to 95 percent of children who express a discordant gender identity will naturally grow out of it and come to identify with their bodily sex if development is allowed to proceed.”

This is kind of true and kind of not.

If your child says they feel suicidal about not transitioning, you should definitely be worried that letting them transition is the only way to prevent their suicide.

If your child doesn’t say they feel suicidal about not transitioning, then you should not worry about that (unless you have reason to suspect that your children is not telling you important things like this).

The statistic about 80 to 90% of trans children who grow out of it is, if I remember correctly, about children before puberty, not after. I can’t find where I got this information, so this shouldn’t be taken as a strong argument against it.

Most importantly, this information doesn’t tell us what we should do about gender dysphoric children. The article assumes that if this is the case, then you should not allow your child to transition. That’s not necessarily the best decision, and the article should have addressed this in a more nuanced manner. Ozy discusses this issue in more detail here.

Mr. Anderson said the transgender movement’s emphasis on surgical and cosmetic procedures is inconsistent with the notion that “gender exists primarily between our ears.” If gender is a mental phenomenon, “why do we then have to radically transform people’s bodies?”

Surgical and cosmetic procedures should be conducted if someone wants them to be conducted. “Sometimes people’s minds don’t match up with their bodies” is a common, if simplified, explanation of this, and I’m surprised that Anderson, masterful sleuth that he is, hasn’t encountered it.

He also said the concept of social transition, “in which girls play with dolls and boys play with trucks,” relies on “rigid sex stereotypes” that progressives would normally reject as relics of a misogynistic era.

This is not an accurate characterization of social transition according to trans activists. It is an accurate characterization of how trans people were and are pressured by doctors into conforming to gender stereotypes in order to access medical transition, as explained above.

(I’m also surprised that the Times suddenly objects to rigid sex stereotypes. It’s terribly progressive of them.)

Oh look, it’s the section about terfs.

Miss McGowan had said being a transgender woman is not “growing [up] as a woman, that’s not living as a woman, and a lot of the stuff I hear trans [women] complaining about — yeah, welcome to the world.” She also said Caitlyn Jenner has “male privilege” and “doesn’t understand” what it’s like to be a woman.

(The Times has started taking its cues from feminists, I see. I’m sure McGowan would be pleased to know she was addressed as “Miss”.)

McGowan doesn’t get to arbitrarily define what a woman is.

Also, many transgender women live as women and are treated as women. (The trans women who don’t live as women or who are not treated as women are, however, still real women. This is because gender is a complicated thing that, for a lot of people, doesn’t solely derive from how other people treat you.)

Most fatally for McGowan’s theory, there is no universal woman experience that all cis woman have and that no trans women have. (Not all cis women can have children. Not all cis women have periods. Not all cis women have encountered sexism. And so on.)

One of the authorities frequently cited in Mr. Anderson’s book is Dr. Paul R. McHugh, university distinguished professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

In his capacity as psychiatrist in chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, a position he held for 26 years, Dr. McHugh pioneered sex change surgery as a way to treat gender dysphoria. After studying the results, however, he concluded that the procedures brought no benefit to his patients and stopped offering the treatment in the 1970s.

Paul McHugh- not him again? Surely they can dig up at least one other psychiatrist like him.

Well, if they’re reusing old material, so will I:

“It is important to remember that the opinions of Dr McHugh fly in the face of currently accepted medical practice and the positions of many major medical associations. The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the American Psychiatric Society, the American Public Health Association, and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health have all adopted positions supporting the medical necessity of transition-related care, including hormonal and surgical interventions, as well as expressing support for insurance coverage of these interventions. Despite his authoritative sounding title at a respected medical institution, Dr McHugh’s opinions do not represent the views of the mainstream medical establishment, rather they are the erroneous, bigoted beliefs of a scientist who appears far too invested in his own antiquated, disproven theories and his anti-LGBT political position than the current state of medical affairs”.

Psychiatrist and WPATH Board Member, Dr. Dan Karasic, responded quickly to the WSJ, and his letter was one of a few selected for publication. We are including the full text of Dr. Karasic’s response below, though it is important to note that the WSJ editors chose to omit his clarification of Dr. Dhejne’s research. WPATH members should be aware of the facts concerning these debates.

Dr. Paul McHugh (“Transgender surgery isn’t the solution”) writes about the study at Johns Hopkins in the 1970’s showing poor outcomes from transgender surgeries, leading to McHugh shutting down Johns Hopkins’ transgender program in 1979, and the US Department of Health and Human Services declaring transgender surgery experimental, and therefore not covered. Two weeks ago, HHS reversed its 1981 decision, and removed transgender health exclusions from Medicare. McHugh seems unaware of the work in transgender health in these last 30 years that led to this reversal by HHS.

McHugh does cite one study from 2011, by Cecilia Dhejne, MD and colleagues at Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. However, he misunderstands Dr. Dhejne’s work. In the paper, Dr. Dhejne states that the study was not designed to draw conclusions on the efficacy of transgender surgeries, yet McHugh does exactly that. A closer reading of the paper shows that the increased mortality is in those who had surgery before 1989, and that mortality in trans people after 1989 is not statistically different from the general population. A recently published paper by Dr. Dhejne and colleagues shows that the regret rate for those having surgery from 2001-2010 is only 0.3%. Dr. Dhejne’s work shows that outcomes for transgender surgery have improved tremendously in the past 30 years, which supports the HHS decision to remove trans exclusions.

McHugh also mischaracterizes the treatment of gender nonconforming children. As McHugh states, most gender nonconforming children do not identify as transgender in adulthood. However, those who receive puberty blocking drugs do not do so until puberty, when trans identity is likely to persist. These drugs allow adolescents and their parents to work with doctors to achieve the best outcome. This approach was demonstrated to be successful in research in the Netherlands before being adopted widely in the U.S.

The American Psychiatric Association and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health no longer view transgender identity as inherently pathological. Dr. McHugh’s views are stuck in the past.

Back to the article:

Despite its modest political gains, the transgender movement has rapidly institutionalized its ideology at major medical institutions and research universities, Mr. Anderson said. He pointed to Boston Children’s Hospital, which became, according to its website, the “first major program in the United States to focus on transgender children and adolescents” in 2007.

“Today, a decade later, more than 45 pediatric gender clinics have opened their doors to our nation’s children,” Mr. Anderson said.

Even the Johns Hopkins Hospital resumed gender reassignment surgeries last year.

Wow, the transgenders have “rapidly” “institutionalized” their “ideology” at major medical institutions. It’s almost like Paul McHugh and Anderson are a bunch of hacks who are out of step with mainstream medical opinion! Imagine that.

“At this critical time,” Ms. Kao said, “the freedom to debate the best treatments for gender dysphoria must be protected.”

I support the freedom to debate, on your own time, the best treatments for gender dysphoria. I also support the freedom to debate whether or not the Earth is flat.

[crimsonrevolt]

Congratulations Taylor you’ve been accepted to Crimson Revolt as Daisy Hookum!

↳ please refer to our character checklist

Taylor lovely, your applications are always so full of beautiful characterizations and complexities (as is your writing in general) that it is a joy to get them and read through everything you provide! I adored Daisy from when you first played her in the rp and it’s so wonderful to think about having her back on the dash and to see you explore her character further! We can’t wait to see what you do with her and how she’s going to change as the war progresses! 

application beneath the cut (tw: Death)

OUT OF CHARACTER

INTRODUCTION

It’s Taylor! Currently 18 and residing in the midwest, in good ol’ CST and using female pronouns.

ACTIVITY

Er – well, currently around a six or seven out of ten, weekly? I have real life responsibilities of course, and dearest Marlene, but I try to generate about four replies weekly. Of course this depends on circumstance but for the most part I can stay caught up with little issue.

TRIGGERS

*removed for privacy

HOW DID YOU FIND US?

Originally, I think it was somewhere in an Andromeda Black tag way back in December. But I’ve been here nearly a year now!

WHAT HARRY POTTER CHARACTER DO YOU IDENTIFY WITH MOST?

Okay, don’t judge, and I’m sure this isn’t a great surprise but - Draco. I’ve been immensely attached to him for years now, for a variety of reasons, and I just have a lot of feelings. But also, Harry and Ron as well - for a very recurring theme we don’t need to get into, just know I love them all very much.

ANYTHING ELSE?

Nothing that wouldn’t absolutely just be my singing praise, which really I do enough as it is.

IN CHARACTER

DESIRED CHARACTER

Daisy Grace Hookum.

Her mother, Jocelyn, was a Muggle with a deep fondness for The Great Gatsby, and chose to name her only child accordingly. However, Daisy’s middle name was a hopeful sort of gesture from her parents, a suggestion and prayer that she would grow up to be eloquent and beautiful in all forms throughout her life.

FACE CLAIM

Katherine McNamara will always be my first choice for Miss Daisy.

REASON FOR CHOSEN CHARACTER

I tried.  I really, really tried to bid her ado, to tuck her away and move on but it’s proven impossible. Daisy is, and will always be, my first love, a part of me that is unshakable  - it’s that easy.

And oh man, oh man. How do I even begin to describe the deep rooted love and affection I hold for Daisy Hookum? She was my first character in CRT, and the first character in a Marauders rp that I truly fell in love with. I had dabbled with others before of course, but none enough that truly struck the way that Daisy did. She was the first character I understood without fault, that I could question and push and she would push back – I grew so much as a writer during my time with her and I know she has so much more to teach me.

She’s such a gentle, kind soul. Raised to have courage and be kind in all strokes of life, Daisy strives to do exactly that; she’s incapable of hate, because there has never been any reason for it. Even after the traumatic, devastating murder of her parents in the new year, Daisy cannot bring herself to hate the Death Eaters. Then again – she doesn’t know what truly caused such a horrendous crime to take place. If she did, it is completely possible that the tables would be turned, but well, she doesn’t. That in itself is an incredibly important facet to her personality, to her humanity; at nineteen to be faced with such a brutal loss is a hardship that I, thank the heavens, have never had to personally experience. To be so young and in the midst of way, to feel so wholly alone must be terrifying. It takes a toll on even the brightest rays of sunshine, which Daisy truly is.

But trauma is not all there is to a person, and there is a love and passion for the written word that was instilled into Daisy by her mother by such an incredibly young age that it is not just a passion, it is a very important facet of who she is. While she doesn’t believe her writing to be any good, it is her safe space, therapy from the world.

Her place in Aversio is one that is to be questioned. She doesn’t get her hands dirty, nor does she truly condone the things that they do – but she’s frightened of the Order. That is what it comes down to, the true reason she never joined. Members of the Order are brave, willing to take risks, be hurt. And while Aversio is very similar, they’re a bit more reckless, and therefore she is more capable of being hidden in the shadows. It has nothing to do with cowardice, it’s fear. Fear that she isn’t a good enough witch, not strong enough to hold her own, not magically, not emotionally. The self doubt is crippling.

But she’s strong, oh lord, is she strong. She has the temper of a red-head, even if it is very seldom seen to the naked eye. Very often Daisy hides her emotions, buries them in fear of becoming too much for someone to handle. But there is nothing she does not feel so strongly that it sometimes pains her in the most powerful of ways. Sometimes it feels as if she may combust with the pressure of it all. Especially now, with the loss of her parents. Moreso than anything else, Daisy is predominately lost now. Protecting her mother was her sole intent behind every motive, in the war, in life. And without her here, Daisy isn’t entirely sure where she stands; a typical teenage emotion, in a much more mature version of life.

There are so many layers to this character, things I still discover now, even after having parted with her. I love her with all of my heart and would be so grateful to write her beautiful mind again.

PREFERRED SHIPS // CHARACTER SEXUALITY // GENDER & PRONOUNS

Sexuality is not something Daisy thinks of, per se, for no reason other than it truly just makes her uncomfortable. Wildly unfamiliar with her own body and personal preferences, the concept of sex isn’t something that bodes well. Never having explored sexual experiences in the past, Daisy often considers the idea as something her body has now become incapable of such acts. However that aside, Daisy is truly demisexual. It takes true emotional connection to become sexually attracted to anyone, but Daisy isn’t convinced she’s ever experienced as much. But this does not specify female/male preference; when it comes down to it, Daisy sees people. That’s all.

Okay. Let me preface this by saying that Daisy views gender primarily on a spectrum more than anything else. There are those who identify as men, as women, and then a very broad area gray shades in the middle. She, predominately, is genderfluid but generally uses female pronouns. This is in part due to the time; they/them pronouns were not widely used in the 70s, and Daisy is not all that aware of her true gender identity. This meaning, Daisy goes between feeling predominantly feminine to out of place in her female body, almost uncomfortably so, almost as if she would feel better to be detached from the sex she was born with. It is something that confuses her greatly, that she does not very often think of - well, that she admits to - but it is always present in some way or form. Whether she knows it or not.

CREATE ONE (OR MORE!) OF THE FOLLOWING FOR YOUR CHARACTER:

Oh boy, oh boy.

Aesthetic1

Aesthetic2

Mock Blog

Pinterest Board

Caring (adjective) - displaying kindness and concern for others; there is not a bone in Daisy’s body that is not built on love. It is almost impossible for her first reaction to anyone to not care more about them and how they are doing, no matter what is going on in her own life. Daisy just wants others to be happy, and okay. Her heart is truly too big for her body, so much that it sometimes feels as if she might die from the weight of it all. Especially, and almost exclusively, when she is suffering - or if someone she cares for is.

Imaginative (adjective) - having or showing creativity and inventiveness; from the earliest days of the capabilities, Daisy has been writing. Creating ideas that simply won’t stay within her head, things that must be released onto paper. They strike at any moment and very rarely do they ever leave her be until the moment comes that she can release and truly do something with them. Otherwise they tend to circle through her mind like a carousel or broken record, repeating and growing, until something is done with them.

Timid (adjective) - showing a lack of courage or confidence; hoo boy, if there ever was a hamartia. A very prominent problem with Daisy is the fact that she doesn’t understand how strong she truly is. If she would only tap into her grief and pain, and true abilities more than just being ordinary Daisy could truly be extraordinary. She already is of course, but too afraid of rejection and criticism to realize it’s so close to her fingertips, so easy to reach out and grip. Daisy has a particularly hard time understanding that in the midst of war, especially, softness is strength. There is too much fear, too much self doubt that it is crippling at times, but so deeply embedded into the very core of being.

Reserved (adjective) - slow to reveal emotion or opinions; really, it all goes back to Daisy’s strong, innate desire to please others. It takes a very specific person for Daisy to feel safe enough to express opinion without fear of being shut down - so few of these exist they can be counted on one hand, and even fewer than truly see her angry.  It comes down to fear, and feeling safe. She had it once, at home. But with the loss of her mother and father it has become even more scarce than before, if possible. She puts others first, always, no matter how many times she is told not to.

Unsteady - X Ambassador Hold onto me ‘Cause I’m a little unsteady

Moondust - Jaymes Young I long to hear your voice But still  I make the choice To burn my love In the moondust

Jack and Jill - Katie Herzig She wore that dress Like it was a Saturday Pretty as a summer rose Picked in the morning Time ticked away, the way That it will

Turn it Off - Paramore I scraped my knees while I was praying And found a demon in my safest haven, seems like The tragedy, it seems unending I’m watching everyone I looked up to break and bending We’re taking shortcuts and false solutions Just to come out the hero

Beauty Queen - Ben’s Brother And her eyes shouldn’t have Blurred my vision I know that she, oh she Was a beauty queen And if you’re gonna cry Don’t cry for me

If You Could See Me Now - The Script (for her parents, rip) I’m trying to make you proud Do everything you did I hope you’re up there with God Saying ‘that’s my kid!’ Would you stand in disgrace or take a bow Oh, if you could see me now

IN CHARACTER QUESTIONNAIRE

♔ If you were able to invent one spell, potion, or charm, what would it do, what would you use it for or how would you use it? Feel free to name it: “Something to…help see what the most likely outcome of a situation would be.” Daisy said, a small nod of certainty following the words after a moment of quiet consideration. A moment to really think about it. “I have absolutely no idea what I could possibly name that, but it would be quite helpful.”

♔ You have to venture deep into the Forbidden Forest one night. Pick one other character and one object (muggle or magical), besides your wand, that you’d want with you: “Oh, that’s easy. Andromeda, and a flashlight. A bit of bravery, something to provide a vast amount of light. And then I would just have to hope Andy would know a spell to help keep us shielded.”

♔ What kinds of decisions are the most difficult for you to make? “The kind where someone could get hurt. Which I guess are…a lot of decisions these days.”

♔ What is one thing you would never want said about you? “That I…that I’m a failure,” it caught in her throat, the words. Thick and painful, almost like swallowing a cauldron cake whole. “Especially to Dora. I don’t think I could take it.”

WRITING SAMPLE

Warning: this is an old para I wrote for Daisy and for this case, I must prepare for the angst monster that exists in terms of Taylor.

Things had felt wrong all day. New Year’s Eve had come to pass, and Daisy couldn’t help the dread that swarmed in the pit of her stomach. It should have been expected, really – what with the events of the previous evening. The witch had yet to hear from any of her friends, to find that they were okay. But still…something felt off.

It had been the first holiday season Daisy had spent with no contact to her family. As horrible and painful as it was, the decision had felt like a necessity. She had spent months fighting her father. Begging him to help her master Fidelius, to protect her mother, only to be told no, again and again. If only she thought she could do it on her own, she would have…but she couldn’t.

Christmas and New Year’s had been increasingly lonely. Most of it had been spent in her tiny apartment with her cat, or at Aversio meetings, trying to remind herself why she had entered a place in the war in the first place.

Perhaps the loneliness was what left her waking up on the first of the new year with such a hollow ache in her chest. Or maybe it was the fact that now marked two months since she had returned home, had any contact with her parents at all. The truth of it was, Merlin, did she miss her mother. Her gentle eyes, and warm heart and the way she seemed to just calm the realities of what was happening.

Hours seemed to pass, simply sitting in her bed, frowning to herself, tiny grey kitten mewing quietly in her lap. Snow drifted down outside the window, cheerful chattering echoing up from the streets as London emerged into a new year. Once the afternoon sun shifted in the sky, only then did Daisy realized she had wasted so much of the day…realized that she still had yet to hear from her friends.

Impulse took over, blinding her, accompanied only by the desperate need she had to be in Jocelyn Hookum’s embrace again. To be promised that everything would be okay, if only for a moment – to be with her mother.  Preparing best she could, Daisy soon Apparated to her family’s home.

The house was still - just enough that Daisy hesitated on the doorstep, unsure of if either her mother or father were truly home. Regardless, she allowed herself in, stepping carefully through the house, unease spreading over her. Even in the January afternoon, the house was dark. It was still.

As she reached the sitting room, the dread, the unease she’d felt for months and even through the morning had nothing on the agony that replaced it all. There, lying on the floor, paled and cold, was her mother. A devastated scream burst from Daisy’s lungs, ringing out so badly that all else seemed to have faded away. There was nothing to give her the indication that she was still moving.

Her small frame dropped down next to her mother’s corpse, tears flooding out of her green eyes at such a speed that it was nearly impossible to see. Breathing had all but ceased. Several pained moments of sobbing later, she finally noticed her father, crumpled dead only feet away.

“No,” she cried, incapable of thought, of anything but just pain as she remained on the ground, desperately wishing for it all to be a cruel nightmare, knowing that there was no waking up.

[snarktheater]

Wait... if gender's a social construct, then does that mean being trans is a choice? It sounds like you're saying that being trans is a performance. I can't see how one can be born trans without there being anything innate about the two genders.

“If gender is a social construct, being trans is a choice” makes about as much logical sense as saying “if money is a social construct, being poor is a choice”. Which, you know, money is a social construct. There is no inherent “value” to anything, regardless of when it was based on something tangible like gold or how it is today, based on…I don’t know, the trust of banks or something. I’m not an economist. Point is: monetary value is decided by us, so it’s a social construct, but just because it’s a social construct doesn’t mean it’s not real or doesn’t have real effects. It’s similar with gender: just because we define what it means as a society doesn’t mean it’s not real.

Also, being trans is not a performance. You’re confusing gender and gender presentation. The difference between the two is best exemplified in drag: people who are usually men (and usually even cis men) are presenting as women for the sake of a performance. Their gender remains male, only their gender presentation changes. I’m only saying this here because I’m probably going to use presentation later so I’d rather we be on the same page about what it is.

As for gender in particular, I have two three things to say. And just to be clear: I am a cis person, so I may make mistakes, although I think I have done enough research and listened to enough people to have a solid enough understanding to explain this, which is basically gender 101.

Also, have a cut because it’s a long post.

One: There are no “two genders”

The gender binary is also a social construct. There’s been plenty of explanations of that, and I don’t want to spend too long about this, because it’s not really the purpose of this blog (besides, biology is not my field of science). But the gist of the reasoning is this:

People who argue that there are only two genders tend to equate gender to sex.

Sex isn’t a binary itself, however. Sex is an ill-defined notion at best, too, but putting it on a binary is a bad idea whichever definition you go for, which tends to include:

Chromosomes. The good ol’ XX/XY is incomplete. Intersex people exist.

Gonads (sexual organs). Testicles and ovaries…but again, intersex people exist and some present organs that don’t fit neatly into one or the other, because both are grown from the same fetal tissue, so that tissue can go somewhere in-between.

Hormone levels, especially with testosterone, estrogen, and I think progesterone? Could be wrong about the latter. Regardless, this one doesn’t even work on anybody. There are cis perisex men with low testosterone/high estrogen, cis perisex women with the opposite, et cetera. Because hormones are complicated like that.

Ternary sexual characteristics (like pilosity, breasts, et cetera). That is actually the one we use to assume people’s sex and gender most often than not, since we can’t run a DNA sequencing, we can’t measure their hormone levels, and we can’t (usually) just ask to see their genitals. It’s also the most flawed of them. I mean, they’re controlled by hormones, so that’s a bad place to start for the reason I discussed above. Plus we can just work around them by altering gender presentation that I mentioned above. See also: binders, padding, make-up.

The sex binary was made by old scientists with incomplete data and a lot of confirmation bias. Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that if you have data that does not fit the current model, that model should be scrapped and replaced. I mean, without this (which is the very foundation of the scientific method), we wouldn’t have the theory of electromagnetism (which only all of the Internet relies on), or quantum mechanics, or relativistic physics. All of these replaced older models. Note that these old models, just like the sex binary, are still useful in specific situations! As long as you’re on Earth, Newtonian physics are fine and you can combine speeds additively instead of using the dreadful method of relativistic physics. As long as you’re talking about cis perisex people, the sex binary is useful to talk about a lot of their biological processes. But neither is useful outside of their hypotheses.

Back to gender. Gender is even more ill-defined than sex. I mean, without resorting to gender roles, it’s hard to even talk about what makes a man or a woman. So if it’s based on sex, and the sex binary, is outdated, why bother with a gender binary?

So…yeah. Gender today is understood to be on a multi-dimensional spectrum. As in, it’s not just “male, female, and stuff in between”. There are people who fall outside of the binary altogether, people with no gender, people wth multiple genders. Scientific observation tells us that, if this is their experience, our model that tells us there are only two genders is probably just plain wrong and we need a new one.

But back to that “it’s hard to define gender at all”. Put a pin on it. I’ll get back to it.

Two: The “born this way” narrative

That narrative. I understand how it came to be, and I understand its usefulness, but in the end, I loathe it.

See, the idea that you’re born this way (whether “this way” is referring to gender or sexuality) is mostly something to make the idea more palatable. And to make it less okay to, you know, oppress people based on it.

A lot of people relate to it. But ultimately, it is not a universal constant of the queer community, and if anything, it’s a little bit restrictive.

I mean, take sexuality. As a child, you may experience romantic attraction, but sexual attraction usually only occurs around or after puberty. So already it’s inaccurate to say that one is born gay/straight/bi/pan/poly/etc, because it’s something you only find out about yourself once you grow up and realize what those feelings are. And there may be external factors that delay that realization even further.

For instance, a lot of lesbians and queer women have reported that they only figured out their sexuality as adults, because before that, heteronormativity and misogyny made them assume that their lack of interest in boys was “normal”, that no girl really wanted sex or at the very least that they couldn’t like boys, because gender roles.

People who aren’t monosexual (whether because they’re attracted to multiple genders or somewhere on the asexual spectrum) similarly have a harder time realizing their sexuality because, usually, they’re not even taught that that exists. I was one of the lucky ones, knowing about bisexuality before I even had my own sexual awakening so I could place a name on it.

It’s the same thing with trans people. Some identify with their gender from as early as they’re able to, some take much longer, due to many reasons.

Plus, it speaks to a very weird societal mindset, to focus on being born a certain way as your “true” identity, as if people didn’t change and their identity was set in stone from the start. I think a much better narrative is that we’re born a genderless blob with no true identity of our own, and a combination of who we are and how our experiences influence us determines our identity, ergo our gender (as part of that identity). Then again, that’s just my philosophy of personal choice being at play here.

But really, the biggest issue I have with this idea is that it prevents people from questioning their gender and/or sexuality, when I think everyone, including cis and/or straight people, should do that. It is after all much more fulfilling to identify with anything because you’ve spent some time critically looking at the options and picking the one you like best rather than accepting what has been forced upon you.

Which leads us to…

Three: How do I know?

A.k.a. time to go back to that pin I told you to put on the idea that it’s hard to define gender.

While this isn’t a universally agreed-upon sentiment, I am of the school of thought that what defines one’s gender is what is referred to as gender euphoria. Now, I realize that “euphoria” might bring up the picture of some ecstatic feeling, but the term here is just used in opposition to dysphoria (the two being etymological opposites).

Gender dysphoria is one that people are usually more familiar with. It’s the idea that a person experiences discomfort with their assigned gender, and usually, with their body as per the expectations that gender places on your body. And “discomfort” is usually a euphemism, because it usually leads to disorders like depression or even to self-harm. It’s also what leads some trans people to need surgery or hormonal therapy, or just psychotherapy, as coping/healing mechanisms.

To some people, dysphoria is what defines transness, but as I said, I’m not of that school of thought, which goes back to my philosophy of choice. But also because it just seems odd to me to base a part of one’s identity around pain.

The theory around gender euphoria is that what defines one’s gender isn’t feeling bad about identifying with another gender, but feeling good about identifying with the “right” gender for you. Basically, if using the signifiers of one gender (such as, but not necessarily including all of, or limited to: pronouns, name, gender presentation and roles) feels better for you than whatever you’re using now, this is probably a better gender for you and you’re probably trans. 

This theory doesn’t remove the possibility for dysphoria for the wrong gender, but it explains it as a side-effect of not experience gender euphoria rather than the defining experience of transness. And, well, seeing as “you’re only trans if you have dysphoria” is usually used by people to exclude other people from trans communities, and I’ve already stated my views on exclusionism in general…you can probably guess why I take this stance.

Now you’ll note that I only helped explain how you can tell what a specific person’s gender is here, not how to define gender in the first place. This is where we get back to the basic idea that gender is a social construct. All we can effectively observe is the signifiers of gender, and how people interact with those (dysphoria, euphoria, or just nothing at all). So how do we define a gender? 

Well, that’s the social construct part—in other words, we can’t, not in a scientific way. Society (in other words, people) is what defines which pronouns or names are associated to what gender, or what we expect a person of a certain gender to be like.

Which is great! Because it means society is also open to more gender, or to redefine what those signifiers are. You’ve probably heard that the “pink is for girls, blue is for boys” idea is a fairly recent one and was in fact reversed less than a century ago, for instance. Or the fact that women couldn’t wear pants until fairly recently (in the scale of our society, anyway). That means we can introduce new signifiers for genders that are less represented (say, by making up new sets of pronouns), and we can also reject the signifiers that we feel are antiquated/oppressive (like…all of misogyny and toxic masculinity, basically). So we can have trans people while also not needing to cling to gender roles and sexism. It can be done!

I hope this admittedly long-winded explanation helps answer your question, anon.

[leiflikesdisney-blog]

How Disney’s Cartoons Are Changing the Game

The cartoon game, to be specific.

Disney is widely known for their animated feature films, and particularly for their princess movies. These movies are seen by thousands of children and adults alike. Disney’s films can greatly influence children, including how they think, dress, talk, and interact with one another, but it is common for children to see a movie in the theater once or twice, and move on to another popular media. While children may see a specific Disney film less than a handful of times, they are far more exposed to and influenced by the cartoons that they watch everyday. While I was growing up, this meant watching Kim Possible, Lilo & Stitch, and American Dragon: Jake Long. While these shows promoted racial and neurological diversity (to an extent), I never saw my LGBT identity represented in animation. Recently, though, Disney has been working toward stepping out of its comfort zone–both in its style of animation and storytelling, and in representation. Disney’s modern cartoons, including Star vs. the Forces of Evil, Gravity Falls, and Wander Over Yonder, are breaking the mold that years of Disney animation have set before them. For this essay, though, I will be focusing on Star vs. the Forces of Evil and its representation of women and LGBT characters.

“Star vs. the Forces of Evil”

“Star vs. the Forces of Evil” is a currently-running Disney Channel cartoon, which is my personal favorite of the recent generation of Disney cartoons. The show follows Star Butterly, a princess from another dimension who has been banished to Earth to practice her magical abilities, and her friends.

The show covers topics, including friendship, rebellion, living up to your family name, jealousy, and many other heavy topics that are not often covered in other cartoons.

Star vs. the Forces of LGBT Representation

In one scene, when the main cast is at a concert for the fictional band Love Sentence, the camera pans along the audience, and it is possible to see many same-sex relationships, as seen in the pictures below.

While the show does not have any canonically LGBT characters, it has mentioned that Star’s best friend, Marco, struggles with body dysphoria, and in multiple episodes, he is shown to have a princess persona that he acts as occasionally. Surprisingly, the show manages to handle this topic very maturely, as you can see in the clip below.

In this clip, the audience can tell that Marco is entirely comfortable presenting as a girl, and he refers to himself with feminine titles and pronouns very naturally. Also, while it is quiet, at 1:58, it is possible to hear Marco say, “Can I stay in this dress?” This furthers the point that Marco is comfortable presenting as a girl, and possibly prefers to present that way. As you can see, Marco also uses the popularity of his princess persona to encourage rebellion against oppressors, and following one’s individuality. 

For these reasons, Marco has stood out significantly to LGBTQ+ viewers of “Star vs. the Forces of Evil.” In fact, many people have interpreted Marco’s body dysphoria, desire to wear a dress, and comfort using feminine pronouns as being a nod to the fact that, later in the show, Marco may come out and become Disney’s first open trans character. This theory has become increasingly popular, with fans even creating a collection of clips (below) that they believe hint at transgender identities, and, more specifically, Marco being trans.

There is also a very concise post explaining the theory behind Marco possibly being trans.

While Marco being trans is entirely theory, he still shines through as positive representation for people who do not often fit society’s rigid gender roles. It is not often that a heroic male character is allowed to wear a dress or ballet shoes without being belittled by friends or being the butt of an uncomfortable joke. Many of the show’s fans have expressed their gratitude, both for the theory and for the blatant representation discussed above.

Unfortunately, much of LGBT representation can only be found in adult media, which focuses heavily on sex and/or death, and children are left to grow up without seeing that aspect of their identity on television. In fact, a personal account by a transgender woman shows just how important representation can be.

This article expresses that representation has been a great influence on Davies’ identity and transition. 

“’I was 60 when it all came pouring out to my wife, she was very sympathetic and helped me all the way, but we agreed to keep it quiet,’ said Davies, who first learned about transgender identity from a TV show sometime in the 1970s.”

And later, the article goes on to say...

“Patricia was inspired to make the big change from male to female after seeing the romantic comedy film Boy Meets Girl, which features transgender characters.”

This is a sentiment shared by many trans people, who grow up knowing that they are different, but not having the words to describe it, and without being able to see a similar experience represented in their peers or on television, spend a great amount of time confused and wrestling with their identity. I recall Glee being the first piece of media I watched with a blatantly open gay character, but, because it is targeted towards toward specifically older teenagers, even that would be inappropriate to show your average child.

A Princess Song: Star vs. the Forces of Evil’s Use of Music in Storytelling and Female Representation

Disney’s princess films often use music as an aspect of story telling, and while Star vs. the Forces of Evil follows this tradition, it also diverts from the stereotypical Disney soundtrack. Many of the show’s songs sound like they either came off the radio or out of a rock opera, and it takes advantage of the moods these songs set in order to further their story and express the experiences and emotions of the characters. Many of these songs often come at the height of action and/or conflict, as another way to express intense emotions that might be more difficult to express naturally through speech. However, one of the most iconic example of use of song in Star vs. the Forces of Evil is during the episode “Face the Music,” when Star is forced to help write a Princess Song for herself for her Song Day Celebration.

Star vs. the Forces of Evil briefly mocks how women are often represented in media through Queen Moon’s “Princess Song.” The song expresses that women are often written without conflict or development, and many female characters (particularly princess) are idealized caricature version of what women are actually like.

Star points out, “That song didn’t say anything about the real you! You could plug any name into that song, and it wouldn’t make a lick of difference.” This quote points out precisely what is wrong with many female characters in the media. While male characters may be allowed conflict and interesting development and traits, female character traits often include things like, “her hair is silky soft,” “her favorite color’s pink,” and “[she] smells like lavender.” This perfectly mimics how female character’s are often one-dimensional, in comparison to the complex male characters that appear in the same piece of media.

Star clearly expresses her distaste over this type of song and characterization, as she feels it is basically nondescript and doesn’t fit her. Star feels guilty writing a “puff piece” about herself, when she knows that she isn’t the princess that the kingdom wants, and that she and her parents have betrayed and lied to their citizens and High Commission. Do to this, she helps her Ruberiot, the Official Songstrel of Mewni, write a song that explicitly confesses to her and her parents’ actions.

The contrast between this song and Queen Moon’s song also helps to highlight precisely how different Star is from past Disney princesses. While the stereotypical Disney princess may sit on the sidelines in order to remain soft, while their prince is allowed to be strong and hard to save them, Star does not fit that mold. It would be inappropriate to say that she is a polar opposite of the princess stereotype, though, and that is what makes her such good representation.

Often times, fictional women are expressed as either “feminine” or “strong.” Writers give their strong female characters lines expressing distaste for fellow women and their femininity, a trope often referred to as “Not Like Other Girls.” Star, on the other hand, breaks this strong vs. feminine dichotomy, as she is both strong and confident in her femininity. While Star’s wardrobe in the show almost entirely consists of dresses, she also has an affinity for weapons and both physical and magical combat. Star goes out of her way to fight villains and charge into battles headfirst, because she is confident in her abilities to hold her own. And, while Star’s reckless behavior leads to harm and her downfall in some situations, it is always presented as a “think before doing” issue, rather than a “girls shouldn’t fight” type issue. Star expresses a clear distaste when other characters don’t let her think for herself, as seen in the episode “Blood Moon Ball.”

She expresses to Marco her ability to take care of herself, as well as her desire to be trusted. These feelings are met with thought and understanding, which helps to express particularly how poignant Star vs. the Forces of Evil can be. Many teenagers struggle with the ability to come into their own abilities as they grow up, and often times, when they express that desire to others, they are met with misunderstanding and/or a lack of trust. This conversation between Marco and Star, though, is incredibly touching, due entirely to the fact that Marco makes an attempt to understand Star’s point of view, and he gives a genuine apology for upsetting her.

The New Modern Disney Cartoon

Star vs. the Forces of Evil has proven itself time and time again to be the type of cartoon that stands out among the crowd. It provides positive representation of LGBT identities and stereotypically queer traits, including body dysphoria and a male character having comfort in feminine clothing. Star vs. the Forces of Evil also presents a positive female role model that breaks away from many harmful traits that are often applied to Disney’s princesses. This show provides deeper themes, while still managing to stay child-appropriate and relatively light hearted, and I hope it is a sign for the direction Disney will keep going with their cartoons.

[leonawriter]

I kinda decided to look at some youtube reviews of the toy range of the Voltron lions because, well, they still aren’t out in the UK damn it, no kidding I’m super salty about that, not even pre-order, and I want to know which ones I’d be getting if/when they finally do decide to grace us with their presence.

It’s just been really interesting that both these people I’ve watched have referred to the Lions as ‘he’. Male pronouns. Whereas fandom (here, at least, and on AO3) seems to be united on the fact that while Voltron may be ‘it, he, they... whatever’, the Lions themselves are all female.

That said, what I’ve found out so far is that both the basic range and the combinable range have their pros and cons.

The basic range is definitely aimed at kids. They’re smaller, and while they have some articulation, it’s limited. Green and Red have a ‘laser bold shoots out of mouth’ gimmick (but does mean they can’t move their heads), Blue and Black have a ‘slashing claws’ gimmick that gets in the way of articulation on the front legs, but because they have nothing holding the head to the body, means they have a neck to move their heads. Blue has a ‘pouncing’ gimmick, which - again - interferes with articulation. The paint job seems good, for something that size, but compared to the larger figures? Lacking in finesse.

The bigger Legendary/Combinable ones so far seem way better. The paint job is so good - they used metallic paints and silvery-looking plastics for the right effect, but also have the right colours elsewhere, like the white on the mouth (the basic range had an overall grey for anything it could get away with). Articulation seems to be good, too, with an extra joint at the base of the foot that the basic range didn’t have. Their mouths also close properly! Which the basic range didn’t do. The tail is soft/can move, which is great, and I guess necessary for the combining part. 

They also come with tiny soft plastic speeder bikes that have tiny figures of their pilots in! (You’d better not let that be the only figures of the Paladins we get, Dreamworks/Playmates. You’d better not.)

Interestingly, one difference between the Yellow/Blue and Green/Red Lions here is that while the Legs don’t have as much movement in the head and middle due to needing to become, well, legs, the Arms do. Their heads move a bit more, and they have rotation in the middle - which can look a bit weird as the Lion, because it goes from side to side and up and down, for better articulation as Voltron. 

What was funny is that in this video I’m watching? The guy thought Blue’s missile looked weird facing forward like the instructions said, so he put it on back to front so it looked like wings. But Blue doesn’t have wings, and now the missile is pointing backwards. Oh well- NO, THE RED ONE’S MISSILE ISN’T WINGS EITHER. OF COURSE IT WON’T FIT BACKWARDS. At least Green’s rotates and is supposed to.

Black has sound effects you can turn off and on. I personally hate sound effects in my toys, so that ‘you can turn it off’ is a good thing. Also, maybe it’s just me, but they sound a bit ridiculous. (There’s at least one ‘pew pew’ of a laser firing, but also at least a few voiced by Josh Keaton, I’ll assume.)

The guy’s then combined all five lions into one - as in, formed Voltron out of them. I will say this; if I had them all, I’d hesitate, because I wouldn't want to accidentally break anything. He’s gone on and on about how some of the paint chips weren’t there when he got them, which is another issue I’d be careful of, I guess. But on Voltron itself, the major issue is the fact of weight and balance. Its main gimmick is the fact that it can combine - not that it’s very good at being Voltron and manoeuvring once it’s made it there!

Overall, I think I’m going to try and wait until the bigger Lions come over this side of the pond, and when they do, if I want to, then I’ll get a separate figure of Voltron itself, simply so that I know it’ll be built for stability and being able to stand alone.  And as for me, I don't mind the scratches to the paintwork as much as this guy, because seriously, have you seen the Lions in the show? They’re covered in wear and tear. There’re places where the paint has worn off, which to be honest, in the show it goes back to an original silver or metal whereas in the toy range it’s whatever was underneath that colour, but... I’m not as bothered.

It was interesting watching those videos, though! Even if I did have to sit through them misgendering the Lions and submitting them to indignities.