#eschew traditional gender norms | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 11 months

Text

Queering the medical ethics of pregnancy to problematize a desire for “normal fetal outcomes” is an abandonment of evidence-based medicine and the principle of “do no harm.”

By: Jennifer Lahl MA, BSN, RN and Kallie Fell, MS, BSN, RN

Published: Jul 18, 2023

In recent years, a striking paradigm shift in medical ethics has emerged, driven by progressive political ideologies purporting to champion “Social Justice.” This shift has precipitated a surge in initiatives centered around diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The resulting effects have varied considerably; they include the introduction of explicit racial bias in treatment protocols in a quest for “health equity,” and an unsettling disregard for biological sex as an important variable in both medical research and patient care. Instead, the new radical movement favors categorizing individuals based on their self-identified and medically irrelevant “gender identity.”

Even more alarmingly, we are witnessing a direct assault on the language associated with women’s health in medicine. Terms traditionally used in clinical settings, such as “mothers,” are being replaced with neutral alternatives like “birthing parents.” Similarly, the term “women” is frequently substituted with “individuals with a cervix,” even though nearly half of women don’t know what a cervix is and such language may therefore cause a significant number of women to forgo important routine cervical screenings.

This trend of overlooking biological sex as a critical medical variable stems from an ideological drive to “queer” the natural world. The proponents of this view resist categorization, arguing that such practices are instruments of oppression wielded by the powerful against the less powerful. According to this perspective, medicine must eschew not only biological categorization of patients, but also traditional notions of what is deemed desirable or adverse patient outcomes.

These ideological shifts have raised substantial concerns regarding potential harm that such denial of biological realities could inflict on patients. However, recent academic discourse has escalated these concerns to new levels. A provocative new paper in the journal Qualitative Research in Health titled “Medical uncertainty and reproduction of the ‘normal’: Decision-making around testosterone therapy in transgender pregnancy” by Pfeffer and colleagues propels us further down the road of medical malpractice.

The authors, a group of transgender sociologists and enthusiasts, and healthcare activists, with not one medical degree among them, argue to dramatically move the goal posts of medical ethics, choosing to completely disregard the health, safety, and well-being of the developing fetus, all in the name of “trans” inclusion. Abiding by their paper’s guidance would land us in a vacuum devoid of medical ethics and a seismic shift away from the importance of scientific research and medical evidence in favor of activist directed healthcare.

The authors argue that “gendered” pregnancy care is too focused on helping women have healthy babies, and that it might be okay for transmen to continue taking testosterone during pregnancy despite the known health risks to the fetus and effects on its normal development. The desire for “normal fetal outcomes,” according to the authors, is rooted in a problematic desire “to protect their offspring from becoming anything other than ‘normal’” and “reflect historical and ongoing social practices for creating ‘ideal’ and normative bodies.”

This is, quite frankly, insane.

In the paper, Pfeffer et al. maintain that:

[L]acking and uncertain medical evidence (HRT with testosterone during pregnancy and chest feeding) in a highly gendered treatment context (pregnancy and lactation care), both patients and providers tend to pursue precautionary, offspring-focused treatment approaches.

We argue that medical ethics exists to guide medical providers and protect both the expectant mother and her future offspring.

The authors of the article strive to underscore the prevailing power dynamic and expertise discrepancy between medical professionals and their pregnant patients. They also highlight “lack of training on trans pregnancy care,” and the failure of the current “precautionary approach” within a “highly-gendered space of pregnancy care.” However, conspicuously absent is any robust, concrete data to substantiate their claims. Instead, they bolster their argument by cherry-picking quotations from their study involving a pool of 70 international “trans” individuals and 22 “health care providers who self-identified as focusing their practice with trans populations.”

Before continuing, we must point out the obvious flaw in the article: pregnancy care isn’t “gendered,” it’s sexed. Only the biologically fertile human females of our species possess the physical attributes necessary for pregnancy and childbirth. This is a simple biological reality.

Let us now turn our attention to the role of a physician in caring for a pregnant woman and the developing fetus.

The doctor-patient relationship is sacred, considered to be the core element in the ethical principles of medicine. Medicine’s practice, at its heart, is a moral undertaking, thus conferring upon the physician the fiduciary duty of ‘primum non nocere’—first, do no harm. In the seminal work Principles of Biomedical Ethics by Tom Beauchamp and James Childress, they delineate the four fundamental principles of medical ethics, often known as the “Georgetown Mantra”:

Beneficence: the duty to “do good”

Non-maleficence: the duty to “not do bad”

Respect for Autonomy: respecting a patient’s right to self-determination

Justice: the principle to treat all people equally and equitably

In the context of pregnancy, the physician must uphold these principles towards both the mother and her unborn child(ren).

The authors of the new paper are quick to point out the power and expertise imbalance between doctors and patients. This is neither a new nor concerning arrangement. Firstly, it is expected and indeed desirable that our physicians possess deeper knowledge and expertise in the field of medicine. We seek their counsel precisely because of their expertise, and in matters of pregnancy, we particularly rely on those with training in midwifery or obstetrics and gynecology. When complications arise during pregnancy, we consult specialists trained in managing high-risk cases or practitioners of maternal-fetal medicine.

Secondly, women are keenly aware of the potential power disparities, or injustices, that exist in medicine, notably in obstetrics and gynecology. This field, with historical roots in unethical practices and racism, often compels women to forego modesty and disclose their vulnerabilities. But one doesn’t need to enter a maternity ward to understand the difference between how men and women are treated in medicine. Generally speaking, women are often not accorded the same degree of seriousness as men in healthcare, particularly concerning pain. Research has shown that women’s pain and suffering are more frequently dismissed or misdiagnosed, especially among women of color. Instances of women being prescribed sedatives instead of pain medication, and misdiagnoses during heart attacks, are sadly commonplace.

A recent episode of The Retrievals, a podcast by The New York Times, titled “The Patients,” unveiled startling experiences of women at the Yale fertility clinic who underwent intense, unexpected pain during egg retrieval procedures. These women recount how “their pain was not taken seriously” and “they were not believed.” It emerged that a nurse at the clinic had been illicitly swapping fentanyl for saline. Even after this revelation, the center seemed to downplay the harm and pain suffered by these women, who had endured excruciating medical procedures with saline salt water as a substitute for anesthesia. These imbalances and injustices are not isolated to “trans” patients and should not be co-opted as a rationale for altering medical guidelines or evidence-based care, especially regarding the most vulnerable among us—the unborn child. Rather, these disparities should move medical professional societies, such as the American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) and the Endocrine Society, to uphold the highest standards of medical practice, grounded in empirical evidence and biological fact, irrespective of a patient’s sex.

The cornerstone of a patient’s trust lies in their belief that their physician’s recommended treatment plan will consistently be informed by these four core principles of medical ethics outlined above.

The concerns raised by Pfeffer and colleagues focus on the modern treatment approach physicians take, which they deem excessively “precautionary” and “offspring-focused.” Fortunately, caring for the child and the mother are neither mutually exclusive nor zero-sum. In situations where a woman aspires to become pregnant and commits to motherhood, physicians can provide care that optimizes outcomes for both parties while minimizing potential harm. If a woman chooses to continue a pregnancy, doesn’t the developing fetus also have a right to the four principles of medical ethics? In such cases, the physician is duty-bound to care for both the child and the mother. There will of course be circumstances when the mother may need to cease a particular medication or treatment to safeguard the fetus, and the physician must provide comprehensive counsel to the family, elucidating the risks and rewards involved for both the mother and the vulnerable life developing in utero.

One doesn’t have to look hard to find a list of drugs and substances that are known to be harmful to a developing fetus. Yet, for numerous other substances, safety remains indeterminate due to insufficient research. Pregnant women participating in clinical trials present intricate ethical challenges, potentially subjecting unborn babies to an array of unanticipated iatrogenic issues. Further, scientists might be hard-pressed to find a mother who would be willing to risk the health of her unborn child to advance scientific or medical understanding. Given the nature of the type of research that would be needed to satisfy the safety threshold for women remaining on their high dose testosterone throughout their pregnancy and breast-feeding period, we can again imagine a very small subset of pregnant women who would be willing and eligible to participate in this research endeavor.

This raises serious questions: Should we allow unborn children to be the subjects in medical research? Should we allow breastfeeding, newborn infants to be subjects in clinical trials? This concern is highlighted in the statement of a participant from the study under scrutiny, who pondered, “If I take testosterone, will that reduce my milk production? Will it transfer to my kid? I don’t know. Again, we don’t have any information on that because nobody lets cis women take testosterone and breastfeed” (emphasis our own).

Current research is already probing the effects of testosterone on breast milk production and its impact on breastfeeding infants. One unsurprising preliminary finding suggest that elevated testosterone levels adversely affect milk production. The La Leche League notes that “testosterone interferes with the hormone necessary for lactation (prolactin) and can cause a significant decrease in milk supply” and may shorten the the length of time a baby is able to breastfeed and increases the amount of formula supplementation.

Presently, testosterone is classified as a teratogenic, US FDA pregnancy category X drug, suggesting it can induce birth defects. It is labeled as such because “studies in pregnant women have demonstrated a risk to the fetus, and/or human or animal studies have shown fetal abnormalities; risks of the drug outweigh the potential benefits.”

It is well-established that prenatal exposure to androgens, such as testosterone, can cause genital defects in females. Androgens act as masculinizing hormones, guiding the formation of male genitalia and inhibiting the development of a vaginal opening in males. Consequently, medical practitioners are not displaying “cisnormativity and judgement” in their handling of “trans” patients regarding testosterone “therapy”; they are fulfilling their ethical duties of beneficence and non-maleficence. Given the known effects of testosterone on a developing fetus, a conservative, precautionary approach is duly warranted.

Before moving on, we would like to provide a direct quote from a woman taking testosterone that Pfeffer et al. highlight in their article:

There’s a bunch of research around androgen exposure in utero and intersex conditions…I did have a little bit of a complex feeling around working hard to not have an intersex child… As someone who is gender ‘other,’ to work hard to not create a different body that is gender ‘other,’ it feels weird. It feels a little hypocritical. But it kind of came down to wanting the child I created to have the most options in their own body in their own life which most intersex folks don’t have fertility open to them.

It’s essential to differentiate between being intersex and being transgender. Intersex variations or differences in sex development impact an individual’s chromosomes, genitals, hormones, reproductive system (including the gonads), and their entire life. Research shows that intersex adults experience significantly more health issues and are more likely to report physical health limitations than those without intersex variations. These are serious considerations for both expecting mothers and healthcare providers.

When considering the experimental nature of women who are on high-dose testosterone while pregnant, we concur with the authors that there is a scarcity of evidence and studies, but this is largely because this is unchartered territory. Safe and ethical methods to study, track, and monitor this demographic are lacking, as is a substantial sample size necessary to collect meaningful data. Putting the fetus aside for a moment, we currently have no data on the effects of testosterone on the pregnant woman herself, specifically a pregnant woman with gender dysphoria.

For those who wish to become pregnant, taking testosterone can be problematic. As indicated by Planned Parenthood, “some trans men’s ability to get pregnant might decrease after taking testosterone for a while,” in some cases halting ovulation entirely. In such instances, stopping testosterone may be necessary to conceive. For those who managed to conceive while still on testosterone, the NHS website recommends pausing testosterone usage during pregnancy and that pregnancy itself could trigger mood fluctuations and exacerbate feelings of “gender dysphoria.”

Pfeffer and colleagues write that most participants in their study use testosterone “as a critical medically managed component of their transition” and that there are concerns and fears about pausing testosterone prior to or during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Specifically, pausing testosterone would make “public recognition as a man more challenging” and might increase body dysphoria and depression, including postpartum depression. We have to stop here, rub our eyes, and shake our heads. Why would someone wanting to pass as a male desire to take on the very female task of pregnancy? Not only that, but none of the stated concerns or fears of stopping testosterone during pregnancy, postpartum, or while breastfeeding are life-threatening or permanent conditions. There are ways to safely manage depression and body dysphoria that don’t involve potentially harmful compounds.

Pregnancy, postpartum, and breastfeeding are stages known to be associated with dramatic hormonal shifts. Physicians must consider these factors when counseling a patient who is also taking exogenous hormones, like testosterone. The effects of external testosterone on the female body during pregnancy, postpartum, and breastfeeding remain unknown.

It seems that at least one of the the doctors interviewed agreed:

I think if you choose to have a pregnancy and your female hormone levels would be already so high that testosterone probably wouldn’t even mentally help… if you’re producing breast milk and you couldn’t be without testosterone for mental health… if you couldn’t deal without testosterone, then you probably shouldn’t be pregnant.

Upon reviewing the treatment approach proposed in the article, it’s clear that the authors lack a nuanced understanding of medical ethics and the principles of evidence-based medicine. They offer a distorted interpretation of the four basic principles of medical ethics and their application to patient care. If a “trans man” seeks to conceive and bear a child, the physician is obligated to safeguard both patients—the parent and the fetus.

The authors’ suggestion that medical providers should deviate from the principle of “do no harm” to follow paths where the evidence indicates harm is quite shocking. This perspective, driven more by ideology, emotions, and personal desires than by evidence, conflicts with the foundations of evidence-based medicine.

By: John Ely

Published: Jul 20, 2023

Fury over 'insane' call to let pregnant trans men take testosterone despite risk to babies - as woke, Government-funded researchers claim gender-affirming care is more important than having a 'normal' kid

Controversial study was funded by a £500,000 grant funded by the UK taxpayer

Pregnant transmen shouldn't be pressured to stop taking testosterone despite the risks it poses to babies, researchers have controversially claimed in a Government-funded study.

Current maternity care guidance for transmen — biological women who identify as the opposite gender — recommends they stop hormone treatment in pregnancy.

The NHS warns it could 'affect the baby's development', with some studies linking exposure to the male sex hormone in the womb to genital abnormalities.

Testosterone is listed as a 'category X' substance in pregnancy in the US because of the dangers it poses to a foetus.

But a panel of experts, including three from Britain, said the current advice centres too heavily on preventing babies from developing birth defects.

Objections against the use of testosterone in pregnancy are too focused on creating 'normal' babies, they argued.

Instead, the team — given a £500,000 grant by a subsidiary of Britain's UK Research and Innovation to conduct research on trans male experiences — suggested NHS guidelines should be shifted to better support trans men to live out their gender identity.

The three British experts were sociologists hailing from the universities of Sheffield, Westminster and Glasgow.

American bioethicists Jennifer Lahl and Kallie Fell called the findings 'insane'.

Writing for the website Reality’s Last Stand, they said: 'Abiding by their paper’s guidance would land us in a vacuum devoid of medical ethics and a seismic shift away from the importance of scientific research and medical evidence in favor of activist directed healthcare.'

Testosterone is considered teratogenic, meaning that it has been linked to birth abnormalities.

Female foetuses are particularly vulnerable to the effects, scientists believe.

High levels of the hormone in the mother's body have been linked to problems with genital development, a process called masculinisation.

Studies suggest this can lead to incontinence and infertility, and trigger subsequent psychological consequences later in life.

Writing in the journal SSM - Qualitative Research in Health, the researchers, which consisted of experts from the US, Australia and Italy, argued such concerns should take a backseat compared to the harms trans men might experience from not taking their hormones.

'Both patients and providers tend to pursue precautionary, offspring-focused treatment approaches,' they wrote.

'These approaches reinscribe binarized notions of sex, resulting in social control in their attempts to safeguard against non-normative potential future outcomes for offspring.

'These offspring-focused risk-avoidance strategies and approaches are, we argue, part of the gendered precautionary labour of pregnancy and pregnancy care itself, and not without potentially-harmful consequences for trans people.'

They based their arguments on a survey of 70 trans people, as well as answers from 22 health care providers who worked with trans people.

Most trans men they quizzed had fears about ceasing testosterone treatment during pregnancy, it was claimed.

Worries included the fear of losing facial hair, change in voice and being mistaken for a woman.

Other feared being misgendered, which could result in 'increased levels of body dysphoria and depression'.

Some volunteers described their opposition to ceasing testosterone while pregnant, explicitly stating they had wanted to be a 'pregnant man'.

Healthcare providers offered mixed answers in what guidance they provided.

But most offered a 'precautionary' approach, warning trans men about the potential risk testosterone posed to their baby.

The authors were critical of this approach, writing stating such advice 'may not take into full consideration the degree to which some trans people’s sense of self and wellbeing is linked to continuing testosterone therapy'.

A UK Research and Innovation spokesperson told the MailOnline the project was funded by its its Economic and Social Research Council.

They added: 'The Economic and Social Research Council invests in a diverse research and innovation portfolio. Decisions to fund the research projects we support are made via a rigorous peer review process by relevant independent experts from across academia and business.'

[ Continued... ]

Jesus Christ...

we find that health care providers reinscribe their status and authority, in the context of uncertainty, by prescribing caution as they advise their trans patients to pause testosterone therapy,

What they're trying to say here is that in the absence of 100% certainty, then any medical guidance is just entirely a guess (just as "assigning sex" is just a "guess"; this is how postmodernism deconstructs), and no better than any other guess by anyone else, including the mother. And any advisory given is simply the medical professional enforcing the power granted by their institutional positionality, and not anything to do with years of medical training and experience.

center normative development of trans offspring, and cast trans patients' pursuit of testosterone therapy during pregnancy as illicit or selfish.

"Sorry you're sterile and have deformed uterus or testicles, but it was all worthwhile because mommy really needed to grow in her beard."

Worries included the fear of losing facial hair, change in voice and being mistaken for a woman. Other feared being misgendered, which could result in 'increased levels of body dysphoria and depression'.

Well, being accurately perceived as a pregnant woman certainly is far worse than having life-long medical complications because your mother was a rampaging egomaniac who couldn't put her vanity aside for 9 months to give a shit about her own baby. Because eating an unwashed apple and having a few sips of wine make you irresponsible, but injecting unnatural levels of powerful mood and body-altering hormones for cosmetic purposes is just being a good parent. /s

There's nothing more uniquely female than being pregnant. You're going to be perceived as a woman. Because you are. If you can't get over that, why are you pregnant?

If you actually had clinically significant dysphoria, the entire idea of getting pregnant should have triggered you in the first place. And if you proceed anyway, then you already accepted the consequences of this choice and forfeit the right to whining about being "misgendered."

explicitly stating they had wanted to be a 'pregnant man'.

Creating a baby as a prop for a fetish is an absolute gutter-trash low.

These same people would stare daggers at a pregnant woman smoking, while being narcissistically as dismissive of their own baby's wellbeing.

When your pregnancy is all about you and not your baby, you're an gaping, prolapsed asshole and an unfit mother.

#Jennifer Lahl #Kallie Fell #gender ideology #pregnancy #testosterone #cross sex hormones #child endangerment #unfit parents #queer theory #narcissism #pregnant man #a new low #fucking had it #i don't even fucking care #religion is a mental illness

13 notes · View notes

semi-imaginary-place · 10 months

Text

viera biology and thoughts. For reference I use "viera" to refer to the race/species as a whole and "Viera" to refer to the society and culture of the Wood, but I am also an inconsistent with capitalization...

"Because a Viera’s male or female characteristics are not present at birth, parents typically opt to bestow their children with names that are considered appropriate for any sex and gender." (staff post "Viera Naming Conventions")

Now this could mean a few things. First is that it is difficult to sex an infant meaning there are no external genitalia at birth as well as that it is considered culturally taboo to do so. For example at a glance new born chickens cannot be sexed, it is possible to do so but you need to look very carefully. The second interpretation is that like many animal species, viera spend their early lives without a sex, in that reproductive structures do not exist at that life stage. Many fish species, alligators, and many other species are like this in that the final sex of the adult is determined by environmental cues or other factors rather than their genotype, so before they are sexually mature adults they are of indeterminate sex. Another option is that viera may be on a genetically determinate pathway (ex: sex chromosomes exist), it's just there's no way to tell (without genetic testing) until puberty, unlike humans who develop genitals and gonads as fetuses, theirs do not develop until puberty. The gonads (testes and ovaries) have parallel developmental pathways, where they are both originally the same organ but later develop in the presence of certain signals into the respective gamete producing organs, the details vary species to species, this is also why sex change happens in certain species after adulthood.

Now I want to discuss here the Wandering Dramaturge as he is the primary source of viera lore in FFXIV. He's a random garlean theater playwright who has met a few viera and repeated to the player character some anecdotes, he's objectively a terrible source of information, but he's also the best we have.

At times it is unclear whether he is talking about sex or gender. And there are several layers to this, how does the Wandering Dramaturge differentiate between sex and gender, how do the viera, how do the writers, and how does the localization team? Is this saying when sexual maturation occurs, when gender is chosen, when both occur, or when the earliest possible occurrence is (not when the norm is). My personal interpretation based on no evidence and only personal preference is that this is the earliest possible occurrence, some viera was telling the Dramaturge about someone she knew who went through puberty especially early and he misinterpreted 13 as a benchmark. I imagine kind of like elezen puberty happens a little later for viera more like 15-17. It's also possible this has little to do with sex and is instead when a Viera chooses their societal role/gender.

"Nevertheless, in line with the cultural tradition of adopting a new name to suit one’s newfound environment or identity, many Viera choose to change their names upon reaching adulthood. Though in many cases male Viera will choose a traditionally “masculine” name, or female Viera a traditionally “feminine” one, there are myriad examples of Viera who eschew these patterns by keeping or choosing names that are culturally recognized as non-binary or associated with a different gender. For this reason, it is nearly impossible to determine whether a Viera is male or female by forename alone."("Viera Naming Conventions" staff post)

A city dwelling viera can reasonably be assumed to have had at least 3 names during their lifetime: a birth forest name, an adult forest name, and a city name, through the naming conventions post it can thus be inferred that Viera society places great importance on taking different names upon milestones in one's life to reflect a person's life journey. Some of this is inspired by FFXII but more than man and woman I imagine for Viera gender and societal role is a choice between wood-warder and villager/hearth-keeper/salver-maker (in FFXII) and this largely matches with irl notions of male and female but isn't exactly the same. For a while not I've been puzzling over why Viera society has such strict gender roles yet such gender fluid names, and I think I may have found a decent explanation. The societal roles might be very strict, but the individuals within them and the requirements for those roles are less rigid. So a Viera's life path is less sexually deterministic, and perhaps uncommon (or not) but a young viera choosing to become a wood-warder (or not) would not be taboo.

Much like a later statement, I am choosing to interpret that there is a degree of filtering occurring here, that the Wandering Dramaturge doesn't actually get it but is trying his best to convey what he has heard, yet still it comes through that he finds it strange how wood-warders live lives of solitude whereas I like to imagine it as ascetic eremitism.

#ffxiv #ffxiv world building #viera #Wandering Dramaturge

5 notes · View notes

phoukanamedpookie · 2 years

Note

Why do you think masculine coded characters like Azula, Utena & Lady Oscar (from Rose of Versailles , inspiration for Griffith) are overlooked compared to other female characters that stray from gender norms like Toph or Arya Stark?

I'm iffy at best about calling female characters "masculine-coded." That sort of terminology has a way of veering into transmisogyny and misogynoir, and I'm deeply uncomfortable with that.

As for the other characters, a lot of that depends on the specific media in question. More Western audiences, especially Americans, are familiar with ATLA and Game Of Thrones than they are with most anime.

Arya Stark, for instance, literally grew up before our eyes, so the care and attention for her were already there regardless of what she did. She also slots easily into the Strong Female Character(TM) mold that has people ignore her complexities in favor of just going all out with only badass as her identifying trait.

Like Arya, Toph is tolerated because she gets to be badass and not much else. More importantly, her character doesn't demand to take up time or space typically reserved to highlight the depth and complexity of male characters. That scene where her "field trip" with Zuko turns out to be a bust is played for laughs, but it also illustrates how the narrative doesn't allow Toph to demand space, time, and care comparable to the male characters.

Azula, by contrast, practically demands it just by showing up. She doesn't downplay her strengths, doesn't sacrifice her own wants and needs, unapologetically takes up space and refuses to fit into the neat, tidy box that the narrative, as well as fandom, try to shove her in.

And, to a certain degree, audiences are more forgiving of women who eschew traditional norms of femininity as long as they can pretend she's a girl being playful and not a woman expressing her authentic self.

#fandom misogyny #fandom misogynoir #fandom transphobia #azula #toph #arya stark #utena

22 notes · View notes

hasanyoneseenmyspoons · 1 year

Text

Berg and Høeg lived life on their own terms, both as romantic partners in a time of little LGBTQ visibility and as business partners running a studio and publishing company when women were highly restricted in their careers — and beyond. But decades after their deaths in the 1940s, another radical aspect of their lives resurfaced, tucked away in boxes of glass negatives marked “private”: the couple eschewing traditional gender norms in playful portraits they took of themselves and loved ones.

3 notes · View notes

desinersden098 · 23 days

Text

The Evolution of Fashion

What is Fashion?

Fashion, a term that often conjures images of glamorous runways and iconic garments, is a multifaceted and ever-evolving industry that extends far beyond the mere act of dressing. It is a powerful form of self-expression and cultural reflection, intricately woven into the fabric of society. At its core, fashion encapsulates an intersection of art, history, sociology, and commerce, making it a rich subject for exploration and discussion. Historically, fashion has always been a marker of status and identity. In ancient civilizations, such as Egypt and Rome, clothing and adornments were used to signify social status, profession, and even political affiliation. The Renaissance period saw the emergence of intricate designs and luxurious fabrics, reflecting the growing wealth and artistic sensibilities of the time. Moving into the 20th century, fashion began to democratize, with trends being set by a mix of haute couture designers and street style influences. The advent of the Industrial Revolution and, subsequently, the mass production of clothing, revolutionized fashion. This period saw the birth of ready-to-wear collections, making fashion more accessible to the masses. Icons like Coco Chanel and Yves Saint Laurent played pivotal roles in this transition, introducing concepts such as the little black dress and the tuxedo jacket for women, which broke traditional gender norms and redefined elegance and simplicity.

Fashion Trends

People’s attitudes toward fashion trends vary widely, reflecting a spectrum of interests, values, and levels of engagement. Some individuals avidly follow the latest trends, viewing fashion as a crucial aspect of self-expression and social identity. They often look to influencers, celebrities, and fashion magazines for inspiration, eager to incorporate new styles and accessories into their wardrobes. Others may take a more selective approach, integrating only those trends that resonate with their personal tastes or align with their practical needs. A growing segment of the population is increasingly conscious of the ethical and environmental impacts of their fashion choices, favoring sustainable and ethically produced garments. Meanwhile, some people prefer timeless and classic styles, eschewing fleeting trends in favor of enduring elegance. Overall, people’s engagement with fashion trends is a multifaceted phenomenon, influenced by cultural, social, and personal factors.

In contemporary society, fashion continues to be a reflection of broader cultural shifts. The late 20th and early 21st centuries have witnessed an explosion of diverse styles, influenced by globalization and digitalization. Social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok have become influential in shaping fashion trends, allowing for instantaneous dissemination and consumption of new styles. This digital age has also seen the rise of fast fashion brands like Zara and H&M, which cater to a demand for constantly updated wardrobes at affordable prices. However, this has brought about significant concerns regarding sustainability and ethical labor practices. The sustainability movement is one of the most crucial issues facing the fashion industry today. The environmental impact of textile production, waste from discarded clothing, and unethical labor practices in garment manufacturing are pressing concerns. In response, there has been a growing emphasis on sustainable fashion, which prioritizes eco-friendly materials, ethical production processes, and circular fashion models. Designers like Stella McCartney and brands like Patagonia are at the forefront of this movement, advocating for responsible consumption and production. Furthermore, fashion is increasingly becoming a platform for social and political statements. Designers and consumers alike use fashion to address issues such as gender identity, racial equality, and body positivity. The runways and red carpets have become spaces for activism, where statements are made not only through words but through the deliberate choice of attire. Fashion’s role as a cultural barometer is also evident in the resurgence of traditional and indigenous styles. There is a growing appreciation for cultural heritage, with designers incorporating traditional techniques and motifs into modern designs. This not only preserves cultural history but also introduces it to a global audience, fostering a deeper understanding and respect for diverse cultures.

Fashion among youngsters is a dynamic and ever-evolving phenomenon, reflecting their desire for self-expression and individuality. Influenced by social media, celebrities, and cultural trends, young people often experiment with diverse styles, blending vintage and contemporary elements to create unique looks. Streetwear remains a popular choice, characterized by casual yet stylish apparel like oversized hoodies, graphic tees, and sneakers. Sustainable fashion is also gaining traction as environmentally-conscious youth opt for eco-friendly and ethically-produced clothing. Through their fashion choices, youngsters communicate their identities, values, and affiliations, making fashion a powerful medium of personal and social expression.

Fashion on social media is a vibrant and influential landscape, shaping trends and consumer behavior globally. Platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Pinterest serve as virtual runways, where influencers, celebrities, and everyday users showcase their style, inspiring millions. The immediacy and visual nature of social media allow for the rapid dissemination of new looks and trends, making fashion more accessible and democratic. Hashtags, stories, and viral challenges drive engagement, while influencers and fashion bloggers often collaborate with brands, blurring the lines between marketing and personal expression. This digital ecosystem has also amplified the importance of inclusivity and sustainability, as diverse voices and eco-conscious movements gain prominence, urging the fashion industry towards more ethical practices.

The 19th century marked the birth of haute couture, with Paris rising as the fashion capital of the world. Charles Frederick Worth, considered the father of haute couture, established the first fashion house in Paris in 1858. Worth’s designs were characterized by their luxurious fabrics and impeccable acclimatizing, setting the standard for high fashion. The early 20th century saw revolutionary changes with contrivers like Coco Chanel and Elsa Schiaparelli challenging traditional morals. Chanel introduced the conception of casual enthusiasm, with her iconic little black dress and relaxed outlines, while Schiaparelli’s avant-garde- garde designs incorporated surrealist rudiments, pushing the boundaries of fashion. The end of World War II brought significant changes to the fashion assiduity. Christian Dior’s” New Look” in 1947, with its cinched midriff and substantial skirts, represented a return to feminism and substance. Still, the 1950s and 60s saw the rise of ready-to-wear making fashion more accessible to the millions. Contrivers like Yves Saint Laurent and Mary Quant revolutionized fashion with their innovative designs, feeding the youth’s requests and reflecting the social changes of the period.

Fashion in the 21st Century

The 21st century has witnessed a technological revolution in fashion. The rise of e-commerce and social media has transformed how fashion is consumed and retailed. Brands now engage with guests through online platforms, and influencers play a significant part in shaping trends. Sustainability has also become a pivotal focus, with contrivers and consumers likewise prioritizing eco-friendly accouterments and ethical product practices. Technology has further told fashion through inventions like 3D printing and wearable tech. Contrivers are experimenting with smart fabrics and interactive garments, incorporating fashion with functionality. The future of fashion pledges to be a mix of traditional artificer and slice-edge technology, feeding the different and dynamic preferences of global followership.

In conclusion, fashion is a dynamic and integral part of mortal culture, continuously evolving to reflect the times. Fashion is a powerful and ever-evolving form of expression that transcends mere clothing to reflect cultural, social, and individual identities. From the runways to social media feeds, it influences and is influenced by the world around us, embodying trends, values, and innovations. The industry’s ongoing shift towards sustainability and inclusivity highlights a growing awareness and responsibility among both creators and consumers. As fashion continues to blend tradition with innovation, it remains a dynamic and integral part of the human experience, celebrating diversity and creativity while adapting to the changing tides of society. From ancient symbols of status to the digital influencers of the moment, fashion tells the story of our collaborative history and bournes. As we move forward, the emulsion of technology and tradition will continue to shape the future of fashion, making it an ever-investigative field to watch.

#fashion #dresses #bridal fashion #fashion trends

0 notes

billie1223 · 1 month

Text

Unveiling the Enigma: Billie Eilish's Captivating and Confident Sexy Persona

In the realm of pop culture, few artists have stirred up intrigue and fascination quite like billie eilish sexy pics. Beyond her chart-topping hits and boundary-pushing style, Eilish has cultivated a persona that defies conventions and embraces authenticity. Central to this persona is her unabashed embrace of her own sensuality and sexuality, which she expresses with confidence and power. In this article, we delve into the enigma of Billie Eilish's sexy allure, exploring how she redefines the narrative surrounding sexiness in the music industry.

From the moment she burst onto the scene with her debut single "Ocean Eyes," billie eilish sexy pics captured the attention of audiences worldwide with her haunting vocals and unique aesthetic. Unlike many of her peers, Eilish eschewed the conventional image of a pop star, opting instead for oversized clothing and a style that challenged traditional notions of femininity. Yet, beneath the layers of baggy attire lies a woman who exudes a quiet confidence and an undeniable allure.

One of the most striking aspects of Billie Eilish's sexy persona is its authenticity. In a world where sexiness is often equated with overt displays of skin and sexuality, Eilish takes a different approach. She embraces her sensuality on her own terms, refusing to conform to societal expectations or industry pressures. Whether she's performing on stage or gracing the pages of a magazine, Eilish radiates a magnetic charm that captivates audiences without resorting to clichés or stereotypes.

Part of what makes Billie Eilish's sexy persona so compelling is its complexity. She embodies a multifaceted version of sexiness that encompasses vulnerability, strength, and self-assurance. In her music, Eilish explores themes of desire, longing, and intimacy with a rawness and honesty that resonates with listeners on a deep emotional level. It's this willingness to bare her soul and embrace her imperfections that makes her so relatable and compelling as an artist.

Moreover, Billie Eilish's sexy persona challenges traditional gender norms and empowers her fans to embrace their own sexuality without shame or apology. By rejecting the notion that sexiness is synonymous with a particular body type or appearance, Eilish encourages individuals to define beauty and attractiveness on their own terms. In doing so, she paves the way for a more inclusive and diverse understanding of sexiness that celebrates individuality and authenticity.

The Enigma of Billie Eilish

Billie Eilish is more than just a musician; she's a cultural icon whose influence transcends genres and boundaries. With her signature blend of alternative pop and electropop, she has captured the hearts of millions around the globe. Yet, it's not just her music that captivates audiences—it's her enigmatic persona and fearless approach to self-expression.

Redefining Beauty Standards

In an industry often dictated by conventional beauty norms, Billie Eilish stands out as a refreshing antidote. With her unapologetic style and refusal to conform, she challenges the status quo and encourages fans to embrace their individuality. Her hot pics serve as a powerful reminder that beauty comes in many forms and that confidence is the most attractive quality of all.

The Enigma of Billie Eilish

Redefining Beauty Standards

The Evolution of Billie's Image

From her early days as a teenage sensation to her current status as a global superstar, Billie Eilish's image has undergone a remarkable evolution. Gone are the days of baggy clothes and neon hair; today, she effortlessly combines high fashion with streetwear, creating looks that are both edgy and sophisticated. Her hot pics reflect this transformation, showcasing a newfound sense of maturity and confidence.

The Power of Self-Expression

For Billie Eilish, self-expression is more than just a fashion statement—it's a form of empowerment. Whether she's rocking a bold hairstyle or experimenting with avant-garde makeup, she uses her appearance as a canvas for creativity. Her hot pics serve as a visual diary of her journey, documenting the highs and lows of fame with raw honesty and vulnerability.

Breaking the Internet

It's no secret that Billie Eilish's hot pics have a tendency to break the internet. From magazine covers that sell out within hours to Instagram posts that rack up millions of likes, she has a knack for capturing the public's attention. Yet, amidst the frenzy of fame, she remains remarkably grounded, prioritizing authenticity over likes and followers.

From her early days as a teenage sensation to her current status as a global superstar, billie eilish sexy's image has undergone a remarkable evolution. Gone are the days of baggy clothes and neon hair; today, she effortlessly combines high fashion with streetwear, creating looks that are both edgy and sophisticated. Her hot pics reflect this transformation, showcasing a newfound sense of maturity and confidence.

The Power of Self-Expression

For billie eilish hot pics, self-expression is more than just a fashion statement—it's a form of empowerment. Whether she's rocking a bold hairstyle or experimenting with avant-garde makeup, she uses her appearance as a canvas for creativity. Her hot pics serve as a visual diary of her journey, documenting the highs and lows of fame with raw honesty and vulnerability.

Breaking the Internet

1 note · View note

xyrilsapida · 5 months

Text

Women of wonders

EXEMPTED!

feminism is the belief in full social, economic, and political equality for women. Feminism largely arose in response to Western traditions that restricted the rights of women, but feminist thought has global manifestations and variations. Being a feminist simply means believing in equal rights for all genders. It's not about hating men. It's not abo women being better than men. It's not about eschewing femininity.

Miss Universe's promotion of transgender individuals and mothers aligns with a broader effort to be inclusive and representative of diverse experiences. By acknowledging and supporting contestants who are transgender or mothers, the pageant aims to break stereotypes, challenge societal norms, and celebrate the achievements and beauty of women from various backgrounds. This reflects a commitment to promoting a more inclusive definition of beauty and recognizing the diverse paths and identities of women around the world. different body types, including those who are considered chubby or have fuller figures. This reflects a shift in beauty standards towards embracing a variety of body shapes and sizes. The pageant aims to send a message that beauty comes in diverse forms and that individuals should be celebrated for their unique qualities, challenging conventional notions of attractiveness. This inclusivity promotes a more positive and accepting outlook on body image.

In conclusion, Miss Universe's promotion of equality, inclusion of transgender contestants, recognition of mothers, and acceptance of diverse body types demonstrates a commitment to breaking traditional beauty norms. By celebrating individuals from various backgrounds, gender identities, and body shapes, the pageant sends a powerful message about embracing diversity and challenging so expectations. This inclusive approach not only reflects changing attitudes towards beauty but also contributes to fostering a more tolerant and accepting global community.

0 notes

notjustanyannie · 1 year

Text

1 note · View note

zorlok-if · 2 years

Note

🌌 for everyone!

From this ask list.

🌌 MILKY WAY - what was the inspiration behind your oc? what was the first thing you decided about them?

This one's actually really interesting because, as I mentioned before (but a while ago), Zorlok is a character I played in a Monster of the Week campaign and this story/cast is inspired by that game. So, many of the characters did not start off as my OCs. Some are new and some are adopted (though I've changed them considerably). It's been an interesting process divorcing these characters from who they were before and reinventing them in my storytelling style.

Tommy: When I thought of the idea for Zorlok, Tommy came about simultaneously. Originally, his name was Timmy (so, the bottom left bit in this art by @mansymdraws nearly made me do a spit take the first time I saw it). The idea for Tommy came from me asking myself who a demon would least like to be stuck in a Faustian pact with and boom, Tommy was born. I think he's also inspired by TV/movie high schoolers like the kids in Stranger Things, It Chapter 1, etc.

Dev: Dev was one of the other two PCs in the original campaign. The main idea behind Dev has stayed pretty similar (a former criminal trying - not so successfully at times - to redeem xemself with an ex-friend detective nipping at xyr heels) but I've made a lot of changes to xyr backstory that were likely inspired by Dorian Gray, Fig Faeth, Arsene Lupin, Peter Pan, Jay Gatsby, etc. I also took a small element of the original character's story and altered it to work better within the context of this story (hint: the original Dev—who wasn't named Dev—didn't wear an eye patch). I also knew that the gender selectable Dev I was creating would use neopronouns when nonbinary and that xe would play with/ignore gender norms no matter xyr gender identity.

EJ: The other PC, EJ is probably the character I've made the fewest changes to. I think that I've turned down some of the original goofiness of EJ, who was a bumbling ball of anxiety before, and made them a somewhat more optimistic bookworm (though they are still in many ways a bumbling ball of anxiety). In the original campaign, EJ's player and I loved to play off the Odd Couple-esque dynamic between the two who were forced to constantly be around each other even though they didn't always get along. That's something I've kept. They also have a non-traditional relationship with gender (but, in all honesty, you can probably just copy and paste that into the description of every character I write).

Adam/Eve: One of the original NPCs, A/E—who was originally just Adam, a cis man—arose from a character choice associated with Dev's character, specifically this one:

Randomly, our GM (or Keeper in this system) named the detective Adam and I enjoyed playing off that since I was playing a demon. When I took over the character I wanted to continue playing with the Adam thing, but I wanted them to be a trans person who had adopted the name as a way to eschew their former faith and project the idea of them remaking themself and their body in their own image. They're also inspired by classic film noir detectives, Riz Gukgak from Dimension 20, and the idea of Sherlock/Ganimard (or someone who thinks they're Sherlock/Ganimard).

Lucía: Originally Anna, Lucía was just a member of a rival group we were pitted against. She was completely different in terms of personality, appearance, skillset, etc. Really, Lucía's pretty much an original character who occupies Anna's former spot. (She's also tied to ROs from a different IF that I've worked on which is set in the same universe). Lucía's also inspired by the women from Arcane, particularly Vi and Caitlyn. Her name is also inspired by Lucifer (as many of the characters' names are inspired by religious themes and/or are deeply symbolic) though she's only like him in that they've both fallen from a position of grace having sided with the enemy and... you know what, yeah, Lucí's actually got a few parallels to ole Luci.

Ciel: Ciel is the hybrid of an original NPC, Ethan—who was a hunter on the rival team with Anna—and the version of Zorlok that I played. (And yeah, the name wasn't intended to be so but might in some ways be a reference to Black Butler). Ciel's big thing is that they pride themself on being a mystery, so, I won't say anything else here. 😈

The Celestial: A completely original character. I can't say too much without getting into spoilers, but the Celestial emerged from my desire to have a character who knew Zorlok's past but couldn't share it with them. Who could provide some insight into infernals and celestials, but you also can never be sure if it's reliable info or not. I've suggested before that eir relationship with Z is similar to Aziraphale and Crowley's from Good Omens, and I think that's a really good comparison (but even though ey's meant to be a fallen angel figure, the Celestial's closest to Crowley in all honestly). Ey's mostly inspired by classic roguish tricksters like Loki, Anansi, etc. but also fall into the classic fallen angel archetype.

Danny: Danny was a character from the original game, though I can't tell you why they came about. I'd also just like to say that I didn't name Danny and they've always been a ghost, but, yeah they're perhaps a bit inspired by Danny Fenton (and I don't know if that was my GM's original plan but I like to think it was). I think I've drawn aspects of them from many different places, including Rick Blaine, Samwise Gamgee, Jorah Mormont, Indiana Jones, Victor Frankenstein, Edward Elric, etc.

Rose: Rose is one of the characters who's based on an NPC from the campaign, though he was originally named Chris Jeffries. Rose serves as a domestic, "normal" contrast to the fantastical absurdity of the rest of this story. I also knew I wanted an older RO who was a parent and Rose was perfect for that. Character-wise, I know that my GM based him on Andy Dwyer from Parks and Recreation and while I've tried to keep a bit of that spirit, Rose is a lot more complex now. He'd also fit into the game Dream Daddy while the rest of the cast is more Monster Prom.

Okay, I think I answered all these questions 😅 Let me know if I missed something or if you have any questions about this stuff!

#thanks for sending this in!#asks #zorlok #cast #tommy #dev #ej #a/e #adam/eve #lucía #ciel #danny #the celestial #rose

27 notes · View notes

phoneybeatlemania-bit-the-dust · 3 years

Note

I think the Beatles appeal is that they present themselves as these soft boys in touch with their femininity, they sing about love and holding hands. I know i first got a crush on Paul cause he looked so gentle and like he wouldnt ever hurt me. Of course the image is just that, an image and not the truth, Paul could be ice cold, John has an acid tongue and a violent streak, George could be sullen, Ringo was a mean drunk. But they're only human after all

Theres been a few different papers ive been reading on the topic of beatlemania and gender, because I find it very interesting :) But yes - a lot of people have argued that it was the femininity the Beatles embraced, at least towards the external public, that helped them garner such a devoted audience of chiefly female fans! They were able to relate to their female audience, because they did embrace a lot of “girl culture” and femininity, rather then abstaining from it as so many other musicians would have done.

A quote from an essay (x) I read recently states:

“…a study of the causes of Beatlemania by A. J. W. Taylor concluded that the Beatles’ masculine image was part of their appeal to young girls (Taylor 1968). Stark (2005) argues that it is their lack of connection to the groin-centered rock that came before (1950s’ Elvis) and afterwards (1970s’ heavy metal) and a connection to their female fans that provides a challenge to the usual masculine discourses at work in the music industry (Cohen 1997). Bannister (2000: 173) states that “The Beatles eschewed an aggressive, individualistic masculine mode of performance” and this is supported by a statement from John Lennon illustrating that they made a deliberate decision to take up a different position: “The Beatles didn’t move like Elvis, that was our policy, because we found it stupid and bullshit.””

- It Was 50 Years Ago Today: Reading the Beatles as a Challenge to Discourses of Hegemonic Masculinity by Martin King

I don’t agree entirely with what Caitlin Moran says here (x), because I feel shes being idealistic - but I think there are still plenty of truths and take aways to her essay. One point that I think might have gone a bit misunderstood by some was the “rather than becoming men by killing their fathers, they became their dead mothers.”

It appears to me that in evoking the Oedipus Complex, in which boys desire to kill their fathers*, she is suggesting that the Beatles chose not to take this path (metaphorically, but also obviously literally) because of the influence women had had upon their lives. The heavy influence of maternal figures, for all their merits and flaws, is undeniably apparent within the psyches of John and Paul, and I think Moran suggests here that it was the importance and respect for maternal relationships that John and Paul were deprived off, that led them to embrace femininity and to a degree reject masculinity.

(*Note that this is an infallible theory, that many psychologists have criticised)

But as you illustrated above, they weren’t as soft and warm-hearted as their public image might have led us to believe - certainly they all had issues, and I don’t believe any of them had (or have) a perfect relationship with their own gender, in which they’re perfectly comfortable being perceived as feminine, nor are they comfortable entirely with the connotations of that. But they still abstained from traditional gender norms to a degree that I feel was ground-breaking, and challenged the hegemonic perception of masculinity present throughout the 1950s.

#beatles #beatles and gender #quotes #ref #asks #anon

28 notes · View notes

grendelsmilf · 3 years

Note

just got around to reading macbeth (to be fair english is not my first language, otherwise i would’ve read shakespeare’s stuff about a billion years ago !!) and honestly... im kind of obsessed? i really got into it towards the end, it just feels so vivid and the themes are especially poignant to me. anyways Thots on macbeth and also which of shakespeare’s plays do you recommend for someone who uhhhh just started reading his work.

i’m so happy about this! I love when people get into shakespeare, at any age (english isn’t my first language either so I totally get it), and i especially love that you’ve come to me about it! macbeth is probably my third favorite of his plays, after othello and king lear, and I’m so fascinated by its themes of fate, and the shifting/bending of spatiotemporality on the theatrical stage as it relates to both the otherworldly/mystical elements of the play and its teleological inevitability. it feels like a pretty obvious commentary on the greek tragic tradition, without being heavy-handed about its influences (which def isn’t true of all of shakespeare’s works. lol) and also lady macbeth is honestly just one of THEE characters of all time. i’m fucking obsessed w her and also w the witches, and the commentaries on women & gender in this play that they provide, respectively and comparatively. i have this idea for staging macbeth that involves a very sparse stage and an ever-shifting moon & the outlines of trees looming closer, with an acknowledgement that neither time nor space will be “normative” on this stage in a way that a lot of shakespeare people still refuse to acknowledge despite the way in which so much modern theater eschews spatiotemporal convention (not that the stage ever could have accommodated that to begin with, theater is a fundamentally time/space-bending artform). that’s why i think macbeth is so difficult to stage, but, like macbeth himself, in my hubris, sometimes i imagine i could be the one to do it.

#ask #anon #oh god u got me talking about #shakespeare #anyway yeah king lear & othello are my recs hehe

13 notes · View notes

woman-loving · 4 years

Text

I’m curious about “respectability politics” and how it applies to variations on the “born this way“ / “it’s not a choice” argument for toleration of homosexuality.

I’ve heard that “respectability politics” was theorized by Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham in Righteous Discontent: The Women's Movement in the Black Baptist Church 1880-1920, which I have not read yet. (Although this might be a good time to start it, cause I’m just about to finish my current book!) My impression was that it referred to appeals to middle-class norms of respectability as a basis for claims to citizenship and protection and nondiscrimination under the law.

I associate the “it’s not a choice” discourse (and I’m not entirely sure if that’s a bit different from the “born this way” discourse) mostly with a counterargument to conservative Christian pronouncements about homosexuality in the US. I had previously rejected the idea that this argument was a form of “respectability politics,” because I didn’t think that “not being able to choose your sexuality” was a typical marker of middle-class respectable citizenship. I had instead described this argument as “toleration politics,” where, rather than being seen as meeting moral (or citizenship) requirements just as well as everyone else, a special exemption from the standard requirement was being requested based on a (tragic) inability to fulfill it.

But I’m thinking about some things I’ve read and feel like variations of these arguments (which each have their own particularity, but also some commonalities imo) may have more to do with respectability than I originally thought.

But the other part of the equation is that they may involve appeals to religious patriarchal moral authorities. And I’m curious about the relationship between patriarchal religious morality--which I would basically describe like that, although I’m trying to work “religious” out of it--and class and citizenship dynamics. Because it seems like, at least in Christianity (and also in Islam from what I know about it), the acknowledged orthodox sexual morality is patriarchal and doesn’t authorize sex outside heterosexual marriage, even if it overlooks it. (But what variations might I be overlooking because they’re not considered orthodox by more institutionalized authorities?) Is there an automatic link between orthodox patriarchal sexual morality and “middle-class respectability,” just because the former is taken as a basis for the later? In the US, appeals to Christian patriarchal morality are also important to citizenship given the influence of Christian conservatives in politics, but is this also/only about middle-class ideals? (This has all got me thinking about the argument I heard Naomi Goldenberg make on The Religious Studies Project that religions can be understood as vestigial states.) I’m also thinking of religious authority here in terms of patriarchal authority: is this a good way to think about it and how is it incomplete?

Anyway, there are some passages that have been fitting themselves together in my brain:

Karen, editor of Frauenliebe, used sexological concepts of congenital and acquired homosexuality to draw a strict boundary between the two. She argued that anyone seeking same-sex love out of enjoyment of transgression [acquired homosexuality] damaged society and should be "separated from the public." On the other hand, Karen continued, "Same-sex behavior, entered into voluntarily and clearly by both partners [congenital homosexuality], belongs, like every intimate heterosexual behavior, to the realm of things one accepts but does not talk about."[68] Karen also warned aspiring writers to avoid writing explicitly about sexual experience in their stories and essays.[69]

Categorical exclusion shaped a debate in Frauenliebe about bisexuality. Like prostitutes, bisexuals were excluded from homosexual community. Frauenliebe printed fifteen responses to a letter asking readers to express their view on women who had relationships with both sexes.[70] They saw homosexuality as moral and bisexuality as immoral. It was not only movement leaders who wanted to discipline sexual desire in their followers. Letters from readers grouped bisexual women with prostitutes and "sensual" heterosexual women, accusing all of seeking homosexual experiences out of curiosity or sensual desire rather than as an expression of inner character.[71] [...]

Vilification of bisexual women allowed women the opportunity to enter into the classification and definition work of sexology and to create a purified figure of the female homosexual suitable for political citizenship. The "sexual" in homosexual was tamed through strict denial that irresistible desire defined the category. Rejection of prostitutes and bisexuals allowed women to construct "female homosexuality" as materially and sexually pure. As a type, they argued, "true" homosexuals kept desire under the control of the individual will.

-- Marti M Lybeck, Desiring Emancipation: New Women and Homosexuality in Germany, 1890-1933, 2015 Fuller quote here. This one links sexual morality and citizenship most directly and perhaps in the most “respectable” way (the realm of things you don’t talk about).

To understand how MSM is read, it is important to examine how explicit and implicit boundaries are drawn around the category gay. Consider, for example, a passage from Paul Farmer in which he claims that, in recent years, there have been fewer HIV cases than predicted among gay men in the United States, a category he implicitly racializes as White via the contrast with “injection drug users, inner-city people of color, and persons originally from poor countries in sub-Saharan Africa or the Caribbean.”21(p47) He further excludes gay from poor and suggests that “males involved in prostitution are almost universally poor, and it may be their poverty, rather than their sexual preference, that puts them at risk of HIV infection. Many men involved in homosexual prostitution, particularly minority adolescents, do not necessarily identify as gay.”21(p47) With this juxtaposition, Farmer seems to suggest that same-gender behavior among poor men of color (especially youth) is sex work rather than sex for pleasure and is devoid of identity and community; same-gender behavior among White men is read as synonymous with gay identity.

Compare these assumptions with a recent ethnographic report on men at risk for HIV in Dakar, Senegal.22 While many of these “men who have sex with men” are poor and engage in sex work, the authors found that they have indigenous sexual-minority identities that are differentiated and socially meaningful. Senegalese sexual-minority identities serve as a basis for social organization, including, but not limited to, sexual roles. The authors describe ibbi as men who “tend to adopt feminine mannerism[s] and to be less dominant in sexual interactions,”22(p505) whereas yoos are men who “are generally the insertive partner.” They also stress that the categories have “more to do with social identity and status than with sexual practices.”22(p506) [...]

Is MSM a useful term for describing groups that eschew prominent LGB categories? Much has been made of the fact that men on the DL lead secret lives and do not consider themselves gay.25,26 But DL is not a behavioral category that can be conveyed as MSM. As Frank Leon Roberts has put it, “DL is . . . about performing a new identity and embracing a hip-hop sensibility [italics added].”27DL functions not as a nonidentity but as an alternative sexual identity and community denoting same-gender interest, masculine gender roles distinct from the feminized sissy or faggot, Black racial/ethnic identity, and a dissociation from both White and Black middle-class gay cultures.26–28

-- “The Trouble With “MSM” and “WSW”: Erasure of the Sexual-Minority Person in Public Health Discourse,“ by Rebecca M Young and Ilan H Meyer, published in American Journal of Public Health, July 2005. This one doesn’t deal with the “it’s not a choice" argument directly, but suggests who people might want to exclude and have actually excluded in practice from categories of “sexual orientation" and “born this way” gay identity.

Omar’s analysis of linguistic terms has direct impact upon the issue of interpretation of the Qur’an. This analysis, published in 1997, predated the El-Moumni Affair by four years, yet illustrates exactly the conflation of terms which the imam pronounced in that controversial interview. Omar writes, “Many words are used to express sexual relationships that take place between man-and-man or between woman-and-woman. . . . Whether in modern standard Arabic or local dialects, there are terms like sexual deviance (al-shudhudh al-jinsiyya) and sodomy (al-liwat) and also homosexuality (al-junusiyya). . . . The problem is that most people use these different terms as synonyms, creating a situation of naming experiences with names that do not really fit, thereby generating misunderstanding and confusion about the topic of sexual orientation. . . . I see the critical importance of writing about homosexuality as the attempt to remove these confusing mix-ups of terms and issues.”[15] In this crucial passage, Omar explains that his project is to differentiate between homosexuality and sodomy. In his understanding, the Qur’an condemns sodomy as the act of anal penetration rather than homosexuality as sexual orientation, while the Islamic legal tradition mistakenly conflates the two.[16]

The distinction between homosexuality and sodomy makes sense if one asserts that there is a psychological reality called sexual orientation, which is separate from and prior to any sexual act. He writes, “Sex is a phenomenon that happens by way of the body, whereas sexuality is a matter existing at the level of psyche and personality.”[17] In his analysis, only a person with a psychological identity of constant and exclusive same-sex desire should be called “homosexual” (junusi in his terminology, or mithli jinsiyya in the Arabic terminology of other contemporary writers). The person who performs same-sex acts without doing so within the framework of exclusively homosexual orientation can be described as sodomite (luti). It is this behavior that characterizes the Tribe of Lot, who wanted to perform same-sex acts for reasons other than as a genuine expression of their sexual identity and psychological persona.[18] Omar’s analysis challenges classical Islamic law. Jurists instituted practical norms forbidding same-sex acts such as sodomy (liwat), with the assumption that those performing them were, in their inmost character, actually heterosexual (or at least functionally bisexual).

--Living Out Islam: Voices of Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Muslims, by Scott Siraj al-Haqq Kugle, 2014. I read this one yesterday. I can’t be sure whether bisexual people are considered at all, even as a footnote, in Omar’s analysis, and if they are, whether their pursuit of same-gender sex would be categorized with the acceptable homosexuals or unacceptable heterosexuals. I’m not sure here if Omar has in mind for sodomy rape specifically, or any anal penetration, or sexual activity (anal or not) between men that’s perceived as ‘voluntary’ rather than following the demands of exclusive sexual orientation.

But I think it’s interesting how intent/context/constraint of orientation is factored into ethical analysis here and in the first quote, in a way that accepts some forms of or reasons for having same-gender sex as unethical or socially disruptive. And in the first quote, these ‘voluntary’ expressions are imagined to be rooted in hypersexuality and sex work, distinctly un-middle-class. The last quote is engaging with Islamic legal traditions as well as theology, and I don’t know much about how this articulates with “citizenship,” although the author was writing in the Netherlands where LGBT rights were guaranteed by secular authorities.

Anyway, that’s what was bouncing around my head last night.

#lgbtq #born this way #it's not a choice #citizenship #respectability politics #religion #patriarchy

42 notes · View notes

charliejrogers · 3 years

Text

Miracle on 34th Street (1947) - Review & Analysis

What a weird, wonderful movie. Miracle on 34th Street is quite possibly the oddest Christmas movie I’ve ever seen. In part this is due to the fact that some stuff just doesn’t age well. How many old, strange men are you willing to let your seven-year-old daughter hang out alone with, Ms. Doris Walker?! But also it’s weird because because despite its typical Christmas-movie themes of faith/belief, true love, family, etc… it’s a wholly unique film that doubles as a legal drama!

This was my first viewing of the perennial classic, a film which started as a story by Valentine Davies and was adapted for the screen and then subsequently directed by George Seaton. Though baptized a Roman Catholic, Seaton himself grew up in a Jewish neighborhood of Detroit. He even had a bar mitzvah. I wonder how much of Seaton’s upbringing affected the final product we see. The central theme of holding faith in something that doesn’t make sense to those around you probably resonated strongly for the director who as a kid who became interested in a religion that was foreign to both of his Swedish immigrant parents.

From a direction standpoint, it’s fairly by the books and of its time, with a few notable exceptions, one being the opening credits sequence which shows a lone man walking slowly about the NYC streets from behind. He’s dressed in all black and we have no idea who he could be. He could literally be anyone in the world. Then all of a sudden, like magic, his face is revealed: the man we’re following is Santa Claus! Or, at least it looks a whole lot like him. What is Santa Claus doing in New York? Is this even Santa Claus?

These are questions that end up being central to the movie and just straight up never get answered. I loved that writing choice. The writing is the first of the film’s three big stars. This film won the Oscar for both best story and best adapted screenplay and it deserves every ounce of those awards. The story is so sublimely clever. Put shortly, the movie is about a man who claims to be Santa Claus and due to his uncanny resemblance to the jolly holiday figure, his natural aptitude for talking to children, and his almost savant-like knowledge of toy stores in Manhattan, he gets hired to be the mall Santa for Macy’s flagship Manhattan store. However, not everyone is as convinced that he is the real Kris Kringle. Certainly the Macy’s company psychologist does not. An uptight and unpleasant man, he (like others) thinks Kringle is utterly delusional but (unlike others) he also thinks these delusions presage future violence whenever inevitably others may challenge Kringle on this delusion. The psychologist thus schemes to get Mr. Kringle committed to *cue thunderclaps* Bellevue!

What ensues is a legal battle. I can’t imagine any other Christmas movie whose climax ends in a courtroom but it’s an incredibly satisfying thing to watch. We have the idealistic lawyer, Mr. Fred Gailey, who believes that Kringle, while clearly delusional, poses no actual threat to the community and actually does the community a great service in spreading kindness. Nevertheless, has to prove that Mr. Kringle is legally THE Mr. Kringle lest Kringle spend the rest of his life in the looney bin. Note… I have a very healthy and “modern” view of mental health, and would never use the term “looney bin” to describe today’s mental health hospital… but I use the term here because the images we get in the film of Bellevue’s inpatient psych ward are of sedated men in all-white clothing… in other words the movie certainly thinks of being in a psych ward as a looney bin, which adds a bit of dramatic tension to the story.

There’s certainly some not-so-subtle condemnation of psychology going on this movie (at least of the kind practiced by the Macy’s psychologist, Mr. Sawyer (a snivelling Porter Hall)). This was coming at a time when increasingly science was taking the place of religion, so it makes sense that psychology would be an enemy in a movie about faith and clinging to things that don’t make sense. The trial over the existence of Santa Claus almost serves as an inverse Scopes Monkey trial; Kringle even ironically compares his lawyer to Clarence Darrow, the lawyer on behalf of science.

What this movie nails so absolutely perfectly is that honestly… I don’t know if Kringle really isn’t Santa Claus. I’m not claiming that Santa exists in the real world, but in the world of this film, it’s really not obvious whether the film leans one way or another. That’s an ambiguity that tends to make art shine when it’s present. We see through Gailey’ legal maneuvering that the legal defense for Santa Claus’ existence is tenuous at best. At one point he calls the prosecutor’s child to the witness stand to argue that Santa Claus must be real since that is what his Dad (the prosecutor) has always told him. Therefore it seems like the film’s psychological explanations are probably the most likely. Yet at the same time… when a little Dutch girl comes to see Santa at Macy’s because she can “just tell” he’s the real Santa… why else would Kringle know Dutch songs about Santa off the top of his head? Why does an old man who lives in an old folk’s home on Long Island know so much about Manhattan’s toy stores?

And then there’s the more practical questions about Santa lore. Why is Santa in New York? He says he was born in the North Pole… so why did he leave? If he’s real, then why does he need to direct parents on where to buy the best toys? Is it merely that the world has outgrown him?

There’s also a whole economic piece of the script that I won’t even fully touch on. But basically Kringle in attempt to do right by parents, doesn’t merely recommend toys from the Macy’s toy department, but lets them know about better deals on toys that are located in stores elsewhere in Manhattan, including those that are rivals of Macy’s! This policy is such a hit with customers, it ushers in a revolution in department store policy, with department stores across the nation vying to extend more goodwill to customers. As I said, there’s something in there about the power of the free market and how capitalism doesn’t have to be evil... but I’ll leave it there and return to the central questions of the film. Like... does Santa Claus exist?

I don’t know! But the film raises really interesting questions and just leaves them there for us to sit with. Everything that the film tells us points us to the common sense conclusion that this man is NOT the genuine Jolly fellow… yet we want to believe there’s something more and that’s what makes this film so special. We literally as the audience go through the same mental charades as the characters in the film.

Thus far, I’ve attributed this brilliance to the plot, but there’s another absolutely vital element: the performance by Edmund Gwenn as Kris Kringle. This guy deserves every ounce of his Oscar for his performance. There’s not a second that he’s on screen that he doesn’t ooze charisma and charm. This whole movie would fall apart were it not for him, good plotting be damned, since we need to believe, even for mere fits and flitters, that this man is Santa Claus.

Never is he more convincing than when he interacts with children. There’s the absolutely magical scene with the little Dutch girl I mentioned above, but it’s when Kringle chats with little Susan Walker (played to heart-melting perfection by nine-year-old actor Natalie Wood whose got a stink face that never ceased to make me chuckle) that this movie achieves greatness. Though the trial scenes put the theme of faith vs. psychology at the forefront, the real heart of this movie is the conflict of faith vs. practicality. Little Susan is raised by her mother (and her Black nanny/house-caretaker who gets depressingly little credit… or screentime), and her mother Doris Walker (Maureen O’Hara) is a thoroughly practical women. She’s a high-up exec at Macy’s, and seemingly one of the only women to be in such a position. As such, she’s a unique character for her time. Rigidly pragmatic, she eschews any and all attempts at fun and imagination for her daughter (as well as for herself). We get the sense that a different film, a different story, might dive deep into Walker’s struggles as a single mother in the 1940’s trying to be taken seriously in the business world. In a sense, she’s a forerunner to Faye Dunaway’s character in Network. She was clearly hurt by romance in the past (she and her husband divorced, which I imagine was rather scandalous at the time), and this fear of getting hurt by romance is what compels her to teach her daughter to avoid the stuff completely.

Clearly, there’s some cool gendered stuff going on here. Imagination, romance, faith: these are all things that are stereotypically more female-coded, while business, pragmatism are more male-coded. You inherit your father’s name but your mother’s religion as the old tradition went. And in our society at least, the latter (pragmatism/business) is supposed to make you successful and get you places… the former (faith/romance) does not. Yet in this movie, we have idealism and romance of our male lawyer Fred Gailey (John Payne) and the pragmatism of our female businesswoman Doris Walker. It’s a fun play on typical gender norms, but more interesting is to see how this duality plays out in the development of little Susan under the dual influences of her mother and the combination of Misters Gailey & Kringle.

Natalie Wood goes down in the pantheon of all-time great child actors, up there with the kid from Kramer vs. Kramer. She’s precocious but not in a way that’s off-putting. The way she evaluates the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade in such a matter-of-fact way is hilarious, and as I mentioned the stink eye she gives Kringle when he tries to tell her that he’s Santa is nothing short of perfect. Over the course of the film, we see her more harsh nature melt away and she becomes a kid. It’s a beautiful reminder of that childhood only comes once in a lifetime. If this movie shows us nothing, it’s how hard it is to maintain a sense of levity once one becomes an adult. We have to start worrying about what our bosses might think, what the press/public might think, what voters(!) might think. Never again will it be fully OK to have your heads in the clouds and believe in nonsense, so why take that away from children.

As much as this is a perfect film, I could have done without the romance plot. Mostly because it seems unnecessary. Doris seems to change in her attitudes towards Kringle and towards raising her daughter that constitute enough character growth thata having her all of a sudden fall head over heels for Gailey just seems forced. For that matter… Gailey’s a weird dude. This movie romanticizes a weird, creepy type of romance where Gailey spends time with a small girl just to get time with that girl’s mother. Walker and Gailey are such opposites and share no on-screen chemistry, that I just didn’t buy the plot.

But that’s OK. It’s a small blemish on an otherwise wonderful film. It hits different emotions than, say, It’s A Wonderful Life, but it’s magical all that same, and one that I can actually imagine children wanting to watch. It’s unceasingly clever plot, matched by a once-in-a-lifetime performance by Edmund Gween as Kris Kringle and a great child actor performance from Wood make this a must-see movie for any holiday movie fan.

***/ (Three and a half out of four stars)

#miracle on 34th street #edmund gwenn #maureen o'hara #john payne #natalie wood #george seaton #christmas movies

3 notes · View notes

nomenculture · 4 years

Link

Also see previous entries in this series: The confusion between sex and gender. [x] How not to prove the objective existence of gender. [x]

First, what is genderism? It can be used in the same sense as “sexism” and “racism.” And indeed that is how it’s mostly been used. But in this case I mean it in the colloquial sense of people who enforce gender roles. ...

The concept of genderism, as used in feminism, is usually defined as the belief that certain behavioral preferences are caused by a person’s sex, in general that one’s gender is the result of one’s sex, and therefore that gender is natural (and even desirable).

This stands in stark contrast to the view that gender is a social construct. It is also generally held as being the opposite of feminism, because feminists believe that being of the female sex does not constitute an obligation to take on a gender role which is constructed as inferior and subservient.

What are the behaviors and roles considered appropriate for one’s sex?

If you are a Feminist (even a Liberal Feminist or a Fun Feminist), the answer to this should be “There are no behaviors and roles considered appropriate for my sex because Females can be and do anything.”

There is a lot of nuances in definitions here, but they are not entirely necessary. For example, some include within genderism the belief that there are two genders. But the two genders are an artefact of culture; some culture have three genders or four genders, and really, the exact number is irrelevant: all that matters is that some are seen as superior and some are seen as inferior. Genderism would not magically disappear if we added another gender to the list.

So who are genderists exactly? There are two kinds. One is traditional genderism, which generally in the West holds that one’s gender was assigned by God or evolution through their sex. This covers the gamut from non-science (Bible fundamentalists) to pseudo-science (evolutionary psychology) to quasi-science (studies and papers written to “prove” genderism), as well as most conservatives and liberals.

Even if they vastly disagree on pretty much everything, the goal of all traditional genderists is to suppress feminism and restore “women’s place” in society in order to uphold the gender hierarchy. And these various factions have been quite successful; together they encompass so many approaches that one of them is bound to work.

The second kind is trans genderism (not to be confused with transgenderism). Trans theory states that when a male does not feel that ey is a man, or when a female does not feel that ey is a woman, this is a fundamental biological problem which must be rectified by chemical treatment and/or surgery. They believe in the link between sex and gender just as much; they simply add another layer, the “innate gender” which trumps one’s “assumed gender” and otherwise takes over its role.

Trans activists believe they are anti-genderism. This may be so, but the very definition of transgender implies a link between sex and gender:

Transgender (an umbrella term) (adj.)- for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from the sex they were assigned at birth.

Transgender (sometimes shortened to trans or TG) people are those whose psychological self (“gender identity”) differs from the social expectations for the physical sex they were born with.

These are by far the most common definitions of transgender given by trans-friendly groups, and they clearly link sex and gender. If one is male, then one should feel like a man, and that if one is female, then one should feel like a woman. Gender rebels must be “helped” with chemical treatments and surgery so they can perform the proper gender.

In contrast, the traditional genderist position is that males are men and females are women, and gender rebels must be punished, not rehabilitated. The radfem position, on the other hand, is that we should live the way we want regardless of sex, that neither sex nor gender should limit us, and that gender-rebels deserve neither medical rehabilitation nor punishment.

From a radfem perspective, trans theory is extremely offensive in that it enforces gender roles while giving the illusion of choice. It ostensibly tells people that they can be whatever they want, but in practice they use one’s conformity or non-conformity to gender roles to assign them a label of “cis” or “trans.” And have created a new gender heirarchy between “cis” and “trans.”

Reducing “woman” to a checklist of characteristics that others have forced upon us is insulting. Feeling that you are a woman because you have a medically made hole in your body that does not act anything like our reproductive organ is insulting. Thinking that you can be a woman without experiencing the effects of being a woman in infancy, childhood, adolescence and adulthood is insulting. Womanhood is not putting on a frilly dress and being emotionally available. Womanhood is dealing with the fact that that is the expectation of us, which you just reinforce.

Cis/trans is a tyrannical, binary label which aims to erase all levels of gender rebellion. Everyone who is not genderist and who rebels against gender has no choice but to take refuge in the domain of queer and eschew the cis/trans binary completely (I know nothing of queer theory, so I will refrain from talking further about it). Given the fact that it reduces third genders from other cultures to a “trans” label that simply doesn’t apply, it is also a colonialist, some might even say white supremacist, concept.

I’m a bakla Filipina. To call me trans for being bakla is to entirely erase the cultural specificity of my identity and to enact a type of cultural imperialism, something I most certainly do reject. Yet in Asher’s binary construction of cis/trans I am considered trans, something that I am not. Either that or simply rendered invisible.

Please note that I am not accusing trans activists of being white supremacists. I know very well they are not. What I am saying is that some have called the cis/trans binary white supremacist from their own cultural perspective, and I completely understand that.

Gender rebellion is a consequence of the existence of gender itself. Once you set up these little prison cells where people have to conform to one or the other set of behaviors, there will be people whose personalities lead them to adopt an admixture of both, and who will rebel against the attempt to impose a set on them. Now we know for a fact that few people, if any, are totally gender conforming, but most people try to follow their role enough so they don’t stick out. Some people, by virtue of having a personality that is too divergent from these sets, cannot do so, and will naturally rebel.

If you research the subject outside of radfem blogs, the first thing you will find is that many people hate radical feminism with incredible passion and vitriol. The biggest part of this vitriol comes from trans activists and their allies, who accuse radfems of being transphobic and of propagating hatred.

The reason for this should not be hard to understand. Gender is an integral part of trans theory, and anyone who seeks to eliminate gender is undercutting trans theory at its very foundation. To deny gender is to deny the transgender identity. I don’t dispute that this is bigotry, but the bigotry is the result of a systemic analysis. An anarchist is right to be a bigot against policemen and soldiers, because their job is inherently one of repression, no matter how nice the individuals might be. An antitheist is right to be a bigot against priests, even if they are nice.

Anyone who identifies their job or their very well-being with hurting other people should rightly be hated, and gender hurts people on a massive global scale. Gender is the rationale for oppressing women, gender sustains the rape culture, gender is an excuse to beat down, imprison and kill people. In that it constrains us to a set of preferred behaviors, genderism is necessarily a denial of freedom, in the political sense as well as in the personal sense. To follow a gender role means to be told how to act, how to talk, how to think, how to react, how to dress, how to have sex; as long as we have to follow gender roles, we are slaves to hierarchy.

Feminism does not believe that asking whether an individual identifies with the particular social characteristics and expectations assigned to them at birth is a politically useful way of analyzing or understanding gender. Eliminating gender assignments, by allowing individuals to choose one of two pre-existing gender molds, while continuing to celebrate the existence and naturalism of “gender” itself, is not a progressive social goal that will advance women’s liberation.

Gender is an extremely oppressive and unnecessary construct. Defining “trans” people as those who deviate from otherwise unobjectionable gender norms is not a progressive social cause. Fighting for everyone’s right to be as gender “non-conforming” as they wanna be, on the other hand, is.

Some people even claim that radfems want to kill transgender people. This is a straightforward lie, but it is a fact that trans theory applied to children leads to the extermination of homosexuality, because a majority of gender rebellious children are homosexual. They are also the ones who issue death threats to “cis” people (the most popular trans slogan is “die cis scum”). It is traditional genderists who kill transgender people and want to take away their rights, not radical feminists. Trans advocates accuse radfem of “transphobia,” but they are the ones who constantly lie to transgender people and tell them that there’s something physically wrong with gender-rebelling children and adults.

I honestly don’t know a group of people more compassionate than people who run radical feminists blogs on the Internet. This is why it boggles my mind when I read claims that radfems are hateful monsters: it is disconnected from the reality I observe in a very egregious way, and so it feels like they’re invalidating my experience. Of course they don’t care that they’re invalidating me: to them, radfem are walking sulfur-smelling devils and that’s all there is to it. I don’t really know what to reply to that attitude except that they’re speaking out of a position of willful ignorance.

#this was written 7 years ago #things have gotten so much worse it's unreal #this post doesnt even mention the word TERF #radfem #radical feminism #gender abolition #gender critical

3 notes · View notes