#hating men is not a valid reason to invalidate others

[plague-and-creatures]

People who try to define lesbian solely by the exclusion on men and men aligned people are weird and come off as kinda immature to me

And I'm not just talking about the "nmlnm" people, I'm also talking about the people that will question a lesbian's sexuality if she idolizes a male celebrity, because no lesbian could ever like a man enough to put pictures of him all over her wall unless she wasn't really a lesbian

Apparently????

It's the people who make it a point that they have a distaste for or hatred of men, and they've tied that into their sexual orientation

Then they go "can we have something that's not all about men for once?", not realizing that by using the exclusion of men to define a certain identity they still are making it all about men

And talking about bi-lesbians with people like this always comes down to what is basically "well bisexuality can include attraction to men and I don't want boy cooties on my sexuality!"

Literally grow up

[imaginative-123]

Vivziepop glazers will basically downvote you and make excuses if you call out the sexist writing on how Viv writes her gay men, btw this is from r/CharacterRant

Edit: Minors do not interact, reblog or like my post bec I will block you.

I'm pretty sure if OP posted it in the main sub Hazbin Hotel, he might as well get downvoted for sure despite being an SA Victim. Viv Glazers surely never failed to disappoint me and I'm so glad Tumblr exist bc this is the website where you're allowed to rant about Viv and her shows. FUCK THIS SHIT MAN. Maybe Viv Glazers should learn that people have different perspectives and actual issues in her works. VIV is not a SAINT OR GOD you GLAZERS! GET THAT IN YOUR DAMN HEAD FUCK I HATE THIS FANBASE IT JUST MADE ME MAD.

Edit: About to go to sleep since I will finish my work tom my comment just got 16 upvotes I guess glazers must've realized I got a point LMAO.

Also the comments that got downvoted who point out the issues in Viv's writing got upvoted including OP's comment on Stolitz in regards to sexual coercion since there's also a person who denied the r@pe got upvoted before hours later got downvoted and it shocked me why people would upvote that comment that screams mental gymastics to defend a Ship that is made through sexual coercion that includes the class difference and power dynamic. The post from CharacterRant sub got people's opinions turn into 180 I guess bc they realized the other people like me who point out the issues and have concerns about the show might as well have a reason the shows that Viv write is not really good most especially when it's related to queer representation and SA.

Lastly the point of this post is to showcase the double standards in the fandom on how they view criticisms most especially when you apply that to stans/glazers who refused to see the actual criticisms and think it's mixed with the so called "haters" when I myself am a fan of Viv's work but also recently gotten more critical bc the roses tinted glass fell off when I start to analyze Viv's behavior online including her shows. So if you think this post is just whiny, egotistical and immature, sure tell me that, I'm not perfect and I accept that but that wouldn't changed my issues with the Standom's behavior that invalidates valid criticisms that critics like me have been voicing for years nor how the Fanbase has gotten even way more toxic over the discourse surrounding Viv's immature behavior including how divided the fanbase is, let's not forget the Standom's cultish behaviour to defend Vivziepop from any form of valid criticism, btw I also don't agree with other critics all the time but I can also see when there is criticism that is valid. So before anyone accuses critics for being "haters" maybe try and understand where we were coming from, the people became critics are also fan of Viv's work, if I was truly a hater then I wouldn't reblogged or like fanarts of the show including listening to musicals from Viv's work, just bc I'm a fan doesn't mean I have no right to voice my concerns over Viv including her work. Sometimes Stans should understand that fans can like the work but also criticize it.

Also the mods from CharacterRant removed the post from an SA Victim, damn for a sub that is supposed to make essays of your issues from any media, they would sure remove a post from an SA Victim's issues with Angel Dust's character. Truly the most Hypocritical moment from that sub.

Update: I went back to see the post and it seems to me the removed post was brought back again. I guess the mods feel guilty for what happened.

[ocean-breeze-pier]

Trans guy talks about the issues with male hatred

It’s EXTREMELY frustrating the way that specifically cis women treat me as a trans guy. We are often acceptable targets for hatred against men because we don’t have the ability to oppress like a typical white cishet man (especially if you’re like me and don’t pass) so they can get away with it.

The more I think about why it’s so frustrating that the second a cis woman finds out I’m a man (after already misgendering me because I don’t pass), I get vilified and hit with sentiments that shitty men are hit with regardless of if it’s true or not.

It bothers me because a huge reason I didn’t come to terms with being a trans guy for awhile was because of my own feelings towards men. I’m a survivor of abuse from (mostly but not limited to) cishet men and I was so traumatized from those experiences that one of my initial trauma responses was a really intense hatred of men.

I didn’t know how to process what was done with me. Not only that, but I was in a vulnerable place with no support system and super lonely. I discovered this community online that made me feel less alone (radfems). They would validate my feelings about men which felt good at the time but in the long run, wasn’t healthy. I started to be even more fearful because of the lens I saw the world through. I was even more scared to be around men and struggled to interact with them.

At the time, I identified as nonbinary. If you know anything about radfems, they’re more often than not transphobic. So as a byproduct I did end up seeing that stuff from time to time despite my focus on during my time as a radfem being stuff concerning cishet men specifically. During this same time period it is no coincidence that I suppressed my gender feelings even more, presenting feminine despite it feeling hollow. I wanted to fit in. I felt like this is what I had to do. I felt like since men are evil (radfem rhetoric, not what I believe now), I cannot associate with masculinity. That if I relate to men in any way I’m a traitor and it’s an insult to me as a woman (bc ofc they saw me as a woman).

These circles are insanely predatory. It’s one big echo chamber. Even though at the time I was involved in that community, I still identified as nonbinary. That never stopped. But I was so self hating that I would let them all misgender me and refer to me with an emphasis on my agab. I tried to be lowkey about my identity. I knew if they found out, I would be ostracized as I had seen them do to others. They were either super pitiful towards trans men or they were very hostile towards them, viewing them as gender traitors who were just trying to escape oppression. Plus I was so ashamed of who I was and desperate to fit into a community where my trauma towards men was validated. This is why when radfems interact with me now in the present day, I am so over it. Like I was already fell for this shit once. I’m not going to again. Fuck yall from the bottom of my heart.

This combined with how my abusive exes would treat me led to me hardcore repressing my gender. The abuse I experienced was not solely about my gender, but it played a huge factor. These men would invalidate me so much that to this day, my internalized transphobia is horrific. They really tried to push me to be more feminine and would refer to me in invalidating terms. Telling me I would always be a woman and just needed to accept it. The constant misgendering. It really mirrored that of how the radfems treated me. Like who I was came down my genitals. Like I didn’t have a say in who I was. That they could tell me who I was.

So when I see cis women hit me with the same types of shit that radfems would say about men it takes me back. The fact I get treated similarly to the way abusive men get treated except simply on the basis of being a trans guy… I think it’s fucking capital W Whack.

I haven’t ever opened up about this on here because I’m ashamed of that time in my life. But I want any trans radfems to know it’s possible to get out of that. You can find community elsewhere. To them, you’re just a pawn in an argument. They will never see you for who you are.

And to the man hating radfems. I really do understand. Men have done fucking horrible things to me. But when I used to be stuck in that mindset, I was fucking miserable. Yes, sexism is a HUGE problem. But treating every single man like a threat is not going to solve anything, and by extension you’re vilifying marginalized men.

You can talk about sexism without acting like every single man is evil. The association between evil and masculinity prevents trans men from realizing who they are (which I’m sure you’re glad about) but it also sucks in general because if you hate how shitty men are, don’t you want a version of masculinity that’s not toxic? If you think men and evil are inherently linked, then what? No one can get better. I don’t want to live in a world where the only option is femininity like I used to believe. Femininity ≠ good and Masculinity ≠ bad

When you’ve experienced such toxicity, it takes awhile to untangle yourself from those harmful ways of thinking. For some people, all this shit is just discourse. For me, it shaped my life in ways I’m still suffering the effects of.

TLDR: Hatred of men + trauma played into me not accepting that I’m a trans guy

[velvetvexations]

I can't help but see a striking similarity between transfem TRFs and the fuckin tradwife "coquette" "pink job/blue job" girlies like

Yes, the role assigned to your gender works beautifully FOR YOU. Forgive me if I'm not exactly thrilled that you refuse to stop forcing the whole worldview that makes it a "default" on ME because you can't feel #valid without convincing yourself that your experience is fucking universal.

Forgive me, ma'am, if I don't feel the need to treat you less like a person and more like precious unobtanium just because YOU feel more protected than objectified that way, let alone if I get really fucking skeeved out that you seem to think that requiring me to go through a cis man for MY healthcare decisions is more protective than oppressive and abusive. Forgive me if I'm not as convinced as you are that gynecological healthcare is a solved issue just because YOUR singular self-hating "theyfab" friend has a good doctor. Forgive me if I'm not convinced that your belief that it is my divine duty to live my life as a cold, stoic meat shield for every poor, defenseless, incompetent damsel in distress by virtue of being a man is as #feminist as you're trying to sell it as.

I get it. You feel neglected. You feel exposed. You feel unprotected and vulnerable. But stop just making up reasons to double down on what FEELS good immediately that basically amount to "women do X and men do Y and men are ALWAYS stronger than women and HAVE to be more responsible and if you say this ISN'T a rigid rule we all must follow you're INVALIDATING MY WOMANHOOD" fucking skill issue. Or are you telling me that every #girlboss you stan isn't a Real Woman either? Like these ideas don't become feminist just because you, personally, don't want to be hatecrimed (but think it should happen to OTHER people more often).

I'm a trans woman and I approve of this message! Everyone can reblog this justifiably angry statement with a trans woman backing it up!

Repeat after me: We should all protect each other. We are siblings. We are each other's guardian angels. I will do everything I possibly can for other trans people safe in the knowledge that they will do the same for me.

[incandescentflower]

Things I like about No Gain No Love:

The female lead is sex positive and clear that good sex is important to her in a relationship. I haven't seen this kind of story since Love to Hate You in that sense - people recognizing that women get judged differently than men when it comes to romantic relationships. Sex is important to her, that's valid. Ji Uk says sex & love go hand and hand for him, also valid. Any judgment on screen is meant to discuss people's preconceptions and call them out. When it comes to that aspect of their relationship, it's never presented to be an intractable difference between them. He is never insecure or concerned about her sexual past.

A character is in a poly relationship. The drama addresses people's negative reactions to that kind of relationship and ultimately their discussion ends in understanding and support.

There's talk about abortion that's not judgmental. There are specific conversations about the fact that people who do not want children can become shitty parents and sometimes the best choice is to not be one. And also, even if you could be a good parent, it is still valid not to want to be one.

Really terrible parents are not being redeemed here. Their actions have real consequences and we see that in all the second generations hangups.

Sometimes parents are good people and still shitty parents. This I like in particular because Hae Yeong's feelings about her childhood are never invalidated, despite all these other characters feeling great warmth toward her mother. It's complicated and the narrative has allowed it to stay that way so far. I especially liked the comment that you can love someone, but not like them. The idea that sometimes you have parents who have hurt you enough that you don't have the same warm fuzzy feelings other people do, but you still love them, really speaks to me personally. It's not a nuance I have seen in dramas before.

Trolling on the internet is an action of harassment that causes suffering for the other person and people should be accountable for that. There are people behind the screen and those commenting should remember that. Gyu Hyun's reaction to Ja Yeon's smut is played as comedic at first, but his actions toward her are not. I appreciated that. This was something that definitely needed atonement. Whether or not he atoned enough is a little questionable to me, but I still appreciated the overall commentary.

Things I hope they address:

I'm hoping there is more reasoning for Ji Uk to not tell Hae Yeong that he was one of her mother's foster kids besides the negative feelings she has toward her mother fostering children. It's clear she's formed bonds with some of her foster siblings and it doesn't make sense for him to keep that from her. The drama has up until now really cared about character motivations so I hope this is a compelling reason and not just something to keep the drama going for later episodes.

I also don't understand why Ja Yeon has not specifically challenged Gyu Hyun's behavior in terms of the choices he is making in how he is treating Hae Yeong and Ji Uk. It's treated by both Ji Uk and Ja Yeon as kind of understandable and yes, he has this terrible parental pressure, but he still has choices. I'm sure that will be his redemption arc, but I don't understand why that's not happening now and why he still thinks what he is doing is fine. It makes it hard to enjoy any intended relationship development between Ja Yeon and Gyu Hyun.

Looking forward to the last two episodes. I'm glad they're coming out this week.

[xxactlyperfect]

Hi again! This is an addition to the ask about neurodivergence and micro-labels. I'm glad you answered, but I feel like you misunderstood me a little bit, so I'll add more context this time:

I wasn't saying that we should be more tolerant to "queer" people just because majority of them are women and I do believe their actions aren't above criticism, especially when they perpetuate gender stereotypes by calling themselves non-binary for not aligning with gender roles (that almost every woman doesn't relate to lol) or even call themselves gay men because they find being a straight/bisexual woman embarrassing.

What I meant is that some radfems (usually the older ones, I noticed) hate the most random communities that aren't even misogynistic simply because they're associated by proximity with LGBTQ – emphasis on the last 2 letters. For example: asexuals and aromantics. I get it, they're not as oppressed as homosexual and bisexual people, but that doesn't mean their sexuality is completely invalid per se and they "didn't find the right person yet" or "have something wrong with them and need to be fixed", not to mention that all of this stuff sounds *exactly* like conversion therapy which is why it's so upsetting to see radfems using this kind of rhetoric.

I also don't understand the hate toward polyamorous people, everyone thinks they're weird and yet refuses to elaborate why they think so. I believe political movement isn't a place for personal biases, whatever people find cringe is subjective, therefore it doesn't answer my question "is this thing morally wrong/hurts women?"

Same logic applies to furries; of course, a lot of people find this subculture unusual, but is it harmful? (And I don't mean isolated cases.)The only "liberal" communities whose criticism makes sense are the trans and BDSM community for obvious reasons that have already been discussed countless times.

This turned out longer than I planned, so sorry for the rant, haha. That question has been bothering me for a while as someone who's gender-critical, but shares a lot of interests and experiences with trans-identified people because of my autism.

I'd like to know your thoughts on this as well!

Ah, my bad. I'll just address the things you mentioned this time.

Asexuality -

Bit iffy on the topic! I think it's a bit misleading to call it asexuality because a lot of the time, a loss of libido is a symptom of a deeper issue. Yet, the label makes it seem like a regular sexuality that could be a part of the LGBTQ. At the same time, I don't want to say that people who experience asexuality are invalid. That's a bit bigoted. Sexuality and libido are very fluid. I don't think we need a label on every specific type. A lot of these labels also stem from hook-up culture, such as "demisexual". We are gaslit into believing that a regular person has a high libido and can have sex with anyone, anywhere. It gets even weirder when children (mostly young teens) start labeling themselves as asexuals, not because of a lack of libido, but because they're scared of sex. Scared for valid reasons, might I add. If I were a clueless kid once again and thought pornography displayed regular intercourse, I'd be terrified as well. To sum it up, I have no interest in telling asexuals they are flawed or need to find "the right person". My guess would be that radfems have a problem with the label "asexuality" precisely because it sort of implies that you're queer just because you have a low to nonexistent libido. The label is also misleading. Asexuals are definitely a non-issue for us or for feminism, at least not comparable to our other issues, but I see the want to call them out. When people start claiming dumb stuff as "acephobia" instead of thinking critically, noticing how this supposed acephobia is just regular old-school misogyny, it gets on our nerves. But I don't think we should have the problem with people wanting to call themselves asexual.

Polyamory -

Another topic I'm unsure about when it comes to where I should stand. I definitely do not view polyamory in fiction as a problem. If someone likes to ship three or seven characters from media, or wants to portray polyamory in media, go ahead. Just keep it from children. Not to be the kind of person to say that the evil kweers will corrupt the kids, but rather from the belief that children already deal with enough. Relationships are stressful as they are. Now, I could obviously not see myself in a relationship like that. It sounds super draining, and I think that's why people dislike it so much. From the perspective of a regular, monogamous person, polyamory looks silly. Polyamory is associated with greed, cheating, promiscuity, insecurity, etc.. It has a lot of these negative connotations. We also have a history of men having multiple wives, but the women only having one husband. And there's this stereotype about the average Jakey wanting to have an open relationship, then getting mad that his girlfriend gets more dick than he gets pussy (to put it vulgarly). I think it's safe to say that the negative connotations associated with polyamory and this deep history of misogynistic culture are what put radical feminists off. Although I have seen some say that polyamory would be less bad if it were a female-only polycule. Is polyamory a huge issue worth our time at the moment? I'd say no. Polyamory already has enough social stigma surrounding it and is overall unacceptable by society for many reasons (except for those few countries that still practice having a man with multiple wives). Again, I see why a lot of radical feminists are against it. Personally, I don't care how many people are in your bedroom on a Friday night. I also don't think polyamory is inherently harmful towards women, but rather that misogyny made it so.

Furries -

Furries are a topic I have not touched upon yet! I have honestly not seen a lot of furry topics discussed on radblr or any spaces for feminism in general. Again, a lot of the furry hate is from social stigma. We can't say that the history of furries is exactly crystal clear; they sure had some questionable incidents in their community, but so did we. Bit hypocritical to generalize as a radical feminist who gets generalized on the daily by everyone and their momma. Again, maybe I am a bit biased. I'm an artist, and I've certainly drawn a fair share of "furries" in my days. I was in the animation meme community, how could I resist making a fursona? I don't think radical feminists really care about furries or think they're harmful. They just view furries as cringe, which is fine. Sometimes to be cringe is to be free. But yeah, furries are closely associated with the entire anime, trans, ultra-liberal stuff. Although, honestly, when I think of furries, I automatically think of the right-wing 4chan ones.

To sum it up; I agree a lot of radfems just hate on something because it's associated with the TQ of LGB. But I also want to give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe they have some other, deeper issue with such and such? This is just my perspective. But yeah, I definitely think a lot of the hate just comes from some radfems viewing things as cringe and therefore queer and therefore inherently harmful.

[redwiccanrobin]

The problem with Trevor

Throughout my life I’ve been a fan of many different properties. And, as I’m a fan of them, I try my best to reach out and make some connections with people who share that interest. Along the way, I’ve come across many bad takes for many different things. Shameless (US) is one of those fandoms that have an assortment of bad takes in its space. For the most part, I’ve been able to address things and then move on. But, there’s been one take that has plagued me and driven me up the wall.

“People hate Trevor because he’s not toxic.”

This was something that was said to me to justify why some in the Shameless fandom didn’t vibe with Trevor. Not only do I find this an odd stance to take, it’s also just not correct. And I want to break down what is wrong with this statement.

But first, let me address something. Some of the hate towards Trevor is unwarranted. Some of the hate towards Trevor is unfair. And some of it is straight up transphobic. Those reasons are wrong, invalid, and will not be present in this analysis of mine and if I see it happening, I will block you. With that being said, I will go on to explain the valid reasons why I, and many others, do not enjoy Trevor as a character.

At first, I was inclined to like Trevor. He seemed nice enough (if a bit bland), gave representation to queer trans men (of which they have few), and he introduced Ian to the queer world. Why wouldn’t I like that? But, slowly, he started to bother me in many different ways. There was a pretentious element to him, an arrogance and rudeness that he showed in reference to Ian. There was a demand that Ian understand every facet of him but, in the same breath, refused to extend that back.

I tried to ignore these feelings out of guilt. I didn’t want to hate the trans character who was helping Ian to know his community. Then one scene struck me, made me angry. Monica had come back to town and Ian was uncomfortable and upset by her presence. He tried to voice these emotions to Trevor but, as I said, Trevor never tried to understand Ian’s feelings. He brushes Ian’s feelings aside and tells him he needs to get over it. Ian leaves with anger filling his veins. And never once did Trevor apologize for overstepping his bounds. Now, I will admit, the scene was a bit messy and Ian didn’t look very good himself. But that was my first true bitter taste for Trevor forming.

Still, I was determined to like him. That was, until I watched season 8.

Season 8 is a bit of a polarizing topic within the Shameless fandom. Some appreciate the decision to show the character’s less than desirable attributes unashamedly. Others feel it’s a bit too mean spirited. Whatever side of the fence you stand on though, a lot of people seem to agree that this is the season where it was abundantly clear how little Trevor cares about Ian’s wellbeing.

Throughout the season, it was abundantly clear that Ian was going through a manic episode. Ian becomes obsessive, angry, aggressive, downright cruel at some points. He is sinking and we are watching as everyone else turns a blind eye to his increasingly erratic behavior. Including Trevor.

Trevor, who has dedicated his life to those in trouble, offers no help to Ian in what is clearly a mental health crisis. In fact, for the majority of the season, Trevor sits back with a smirk on his face as Ian fights for his cause. He allows Ian to sink into his obsession, anger, aggression because it ultimately benefits him and what he cares for. Ian is walking closer and closer to the edge and those around him are choosing to not step in, not offer help. Instead, they wrinkle their noses in disgust and get angry at Ian for being in the way of their goals. And ultimately that is what happens with Trevor.

Slowly, Trevor begins to realize that Ian’s actions and behaviors are no longer reflecting well on his cause. There is also the ego bruise that Ian is now no longer focused on Trevor anymore which he voices to Fiona. He offers some hollow words about how he hopes that Ian is taking care of himself (ie; taking his medication). But I say hollow because when Ian finally breaks down and seeks out Trevor out of fear and exhaustion, Trevor offers him no help. He just rolls his eyes at Ian and accuses him of loving the growing attention (and hostility associated with that attention). He calls him selfish and then he walks away, leaving Ian feeling even more lost and tired. Ian was calling out for help in that scene and was instead scolded like he was a spoiled child throwing a fit at the supermarket. Shortly after this, Ian sets fire to a van and gets arrested. Trevor is never seen again.

I wanted to like Trevor. I wanted to be on Trevor’s side. I wanted to root for his relationship with him. I felt guilty whenever I cringed away from him. I felt like a hypocrite that his actions were affecting me in such a strong and visceral way when I can forgive other characters for the same. It took me months to finally admit to myself that I didn’t like Trevor. And I was truly heartbroken when I came to that conclusion.

The problem with Trevor is not that he is trans. The problem with Trevor is not that he’s not Mickey. The problem is that he was meant to be the solution. He was meant to be the better choice for Ian as opposed to Mickey. The Shameless writers did everything in their power to convince us that Trevor was kind, thoughtful, mature, and loved Ian. But more often than not he was shown to be petty, bitter, self righteous, and condescending beyond words. In the writers efforts to create a character that is supposed to be the definition of good they instead shone a light on his bad characteristics. For every act of kindness we would see him partake in there was him putting pressure on Ian to get into a relationship. There was the dismissal of Ian’s trauma and abuse. There was the lack of empathy when Ian was going through grief. There was the use of fat men to boost his ego. There was the benefiting from Ian’s declining mental health. And those things became harder to ignore when the writers seemed to be deep in denial about the cruelty they put in him. So, no. People don’t hate Trevor because he’s “not toxic.” People hate him because he’s not a good fit for Ian.

[fernlessbastard]

Opinions on transfem/Trans woman c!Wilbur? If you havent already, since its a slightly popular Hc w c!W

honestly I'm mostly indifferent ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

it's not for me, but like I've got no particularly strong feelings either way. I can absolutely see a lot of reasons for that reading - it all does fit, so it's not a matter of there being no justification, but more so just personally I just don't hold that headcanon

the thing with either of them being trans is that like, I am for some reason oddly attached to Quackity being specifically and strictly a man who's into men, or at the very least masc individuals - maybe it's cause I just started off with that "hc" (I mean it is kinda pretty heavily canon - I don't recall him ever flirting with a woman). Wil being mtf would obviously make all of that very complicated - each time I start to think about it I can't help but think if 1. is there any way for Q to still be into Wil without that invalidating Wil's gender identity 2. is there any way for Q - a gay man - to have feelings for a woman that doesn't invalidate his sexual identity Like, exceptions happen, but mm idk It's obvioulsy completely different if you hc Q as pan/bi/homoflexible/whatever else, but yeah personally I'm just really attached to the idea of Q being strictly homosexual

When it comes to the nonbinary umbrella it's kinda similar (with both being amab) - with Wil it works i'd say, there isn't as much of a conflict with Quackity's sexuality, but again, I'm mostly indifferent and you do you; with Q it just kinda doesn't quite fit for me - idk he just has relatively binary man vibes imo

in regards to other combinations of one/both of them being trans: > Wil's ftm - yeah sure I'm down with that, good for him, I don't actively hc that but like yeah no conflict there, plus I guess it'd explain how he had Fundy - though fantasy mpreg makes it so much funnier > Q's mtf - idk personally i just don't feel it in the slightest. He doesn't really give me any of those vibes. Especially considering things like the fact that he's short, has longer hair, is/used to be a sex worker (with presumably male clients), is heavily (and at the very least primarily, if not exclusively) into men, canonically has a big ass, etc, so it just really doesn't sit right with me to then have him be mtf - I just want some more representation of those characteristics in men for once, y'know? It's just feels like it's perpetuating stereotypes. Of course there is no wrong way to be trans - if you're trans, you're trans, and that is valid and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. But we're talking about a fictional character, so if we have a character that's amab, likes men, is a sex worker, is short, has long hair, isn't trying to be this stereotypical "perfect big strong alpha male", is emotionally invested in their romantic life (which additionally is messy), then turning around and saying "woman" just feels like we're just going off stereotypes, and ignoring an example of a great, rare, pretty subversive representation of a man who might come off as feminine at times, but is still fully a man, and all those things that are stereotypically assigned to women and a fem gender identity don't make him any less of a man. Especially the fact that he's into men - it does personally just immediately remind me of all the "a gay man is just a woman" talk (and maybe it's cause I'm from Poland and in my 20s now so i really did grow up hearing those sentiments quite a lot). And obviously i'm not saying that that's what you're doing when you hc Q as mtf, but i am explaining my personal headcanons and reasonings for them, as well as reasoning for why I don't headcanon other things. > Q's ftm - ok so, it fits. And I really really hate that it fits. It would make so much sense but holy fuck guys I cannot handle that ok - I'm ftm, and if he's cis then I can like at least partially remove myself from all of that... but if he's ftm then holy fucking shit everything just hits so much harder like guys I'm not strong enough to handle the pain of seeing this much of myself in him ok I will simply collapse, like him being seen as an object and sexualised and put down and belittled and pressured to be all submissive and shit just hits so completely different if you see it through the lenses of him being ftm and let me fucking tell you I am NOT ready for the breakdown thinking about it and how similar and in some cases identical to my own experiences it all is would cause m > ANYWAY with them both being trans it's just a combination of my previous thoughts as they apply ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

hope that answers your question UwU anyway ha ha bye--/lh

[littlestarofthewest]

hello! before i start i wanna let you know i don’t mean anything hateful by this, it is my genuine curiosity, i’m not trying to be disrespectful, i’m just really interested on your morston opinions. i personally, really am disgusted by the ship. mainly because of the established dynamics in the game between them and the fact that john joined the gang at 12, and arthur would’ve already been 22, and they would’ve never seen each other that way and they basically grew up as brothers, they were raised by the same men, and at the end of the game they even call each other brother. i know you’ve reblogged some morston stuff and i don’t hold anything against you, i really enjoy your writing and you seem like a genuinely cool person, i am just curious.

Hey anon,

I'm going to see this as a question in good faith and will try my best to answer. First of all, there are a lot of posts out there that argue in favor of morston a lot more eloquently than I ever could, but I will try to give you my pov based on what you brought up in your ask.

Personally, I can see John and Arthur both as siblings or as a romantic pairing (obviously not at the same time xD). Many points have been made against it being a romantic relationship, pretty much the ones you made, and as such I have enjoyed fics and art where they are brothers and I even have written some fics that go with that viewpoint. 

Then again, I think there are also valid points to be made for a romantic relationship and arguments that sort of "invalidate" the reasoning behind them being brothers. 

Yes, they have a 10 year age gap. I personally know couples in real life with big age gaps who have perfectly healthy relationships while people close in age are horrible for each other. It's no big leap for me to think that those two characters could be in love and have a great relationship based on that. 

Did they get to know each other when John was 12? Yes. That doesn't mean Arthur perved on him from that day forward. Suggesting that always makes me wonder what weird character traits people put on Arthur. Kids are inherently unsexual. If that doesn't apply to people who hate the ship, then they should probably sort out their own feelings towards children. Fast.

Did they grow up together? While lots of people like to portrait them as brothers from an early age, I think different interpretations are valid as well. Yes, Arthur was 22. He was involved in the criminal activities of the gang and based on how you see the timeline there's a chance he's also been in a romantic relationship. The chances of him even caring about a 12 year old he doesn't know are slim. He could have very well not cared much about John at all until he was old enough to be of any relevance to him. 

I know siblings who have no relationship/love for each other despite growing up in the same house (while also actually being related by blood). So while I don't want to invalidate "found family," I can very well see it not apply here at all. Besides, I find it odd that found family supporters are so dead set on pressing the characters into a nuclear family with Dutch as the dad and Hosea or Mrs. Grimshaw as a second parent while John and Arthur are their sons. Found family is supposed to mean all kinds of different relationships.

And as an add on, while I too enjoy depictions of Arthur holding up a bratty John by his leg or the scruff of his neck, it's complete nonsense. Have people in fandom ever met a 12 year old in real life? A 12 year old boy can very well have the size of an average sized woman (and logically also weigh as much). Of course he's still a kid and needs to be treated and protected as such, but I feel like there is this fandom interpretation that depicts him like a toddler/small child to make any involvement with Arthur later on more scandalous. He was a street kid who managed to get by on his own for a long time. Infantilizing him for outrage is absurd. 

Also, in 4 years in fandom while being in contact with a large amount of morston shippers, I never encountered anyone who shipped them before John was grown up. There might be content like that out there, but I'm not in support of it.

Their established dynamics in the game can be interpreted to anybody's liking. Do they argue like siblings or haze each other to keep positive feelings they can't express without making themselves vulnerable at bay? Does Arthur go out and save John because Hosea tells him to, Abigail asks him to, he loves him like a brother or because he loves him like a romantic interest? Does Arthur tell John to go in the end because he wants to protect his brother or the love of his life? 

Yes, they call each other brothers. Just like other game members call each other brothers. If I remember correctly, Dutch even alternates between brother, son and other things. I don't see it as a fixed term that solely indicates one type of relationship. People in the past have also called each other bachelors and similar terms to not openly admit a homosexual relationship. You can take the term at face value or not.

Like I said, many of these things have been discussed in the past, so I'll skip ahead to what I consider the most important point. It doesn't matter. Nobody needs valid points to justify their ship. There are ships with characters that haven't even met in canon and ships that even cross fandoms. 

I take two characters that I vibe with and since I like romantic stories, I put them into one. I'm also especially fond of AUs which makes canon even less of a factor. 

You being disgusted by the ship is perfectly valid. I don't need to hear good reasons. If that's what you feel then I accept that. The only thing I ask is that other people do the same for me, and especially don't try to actively harm others because of their ships. There's a reason why terms like "your kink isn't my kink, but your kink is okay" and "ship and let ship" were established early on in fandoms. It's healthy for all the parties involved. I interacted a lot with fans who very much disliked morston and blacklisted the hell out of it and we still get along just fine. 

Long story short, people grow up in different circumstances with different experiences, and much likely they will project things onto characters and have a variety of interpretations of canon or simply enjoy making stuff up that isn't there. That's the beauty of fandom. 

I hope that answers your question? And thank you for your interest in another person's pov. Sadly many people in this fandom jumped to conclusions and hatred rather than taking a moment to consider other people's feelings. So kudos for that.

[redheadbigshoes]

I hate how lesbians are pressured by mspec supporters to define what a woman is ( you know, the same question TERFs love to 'ask' transwomen) to elicit a 'gotcha' moment when lesbians have a hard time answering that question because it is a stupid question that leads to pointless semantic debates that go nowhere. And then they go 'Well, since gender is complicated so is sexuality. Therefore, mspec lesbians are valid.'

It's funny how the same pointless question can be either a threat or harmless depending on who asks it. Also, it is hilarious that these mspec supporters also bring up the fact that a lot of lesbians throughout history were 'gender non-conforming.' Well, let's put it into historical context, lesbians were always considered gender non-conforming because they were not attracted to men, which can affect how lesbians view their gender. Gender non-conformity does not necessarily mean non-binary. I would argue that all lesbians are 'gender non-conforming' because of the lack of attraction to men but that does not mean that all lesbians are non-binary. However, non-binary is a 100% valid identity and definitely can be included in lesbianism.

Listen, gender is complicated, but that does not mean we can throw it out the goddamn window.

The ironic thing is that those mspec supporters pretending to care about trans people by asking those questions are the same ones who do not see a difference between a trans man and a butch or a trans woman and a feminine boy.

People need to understand that everyone has different views on gender (and yes those views can be problematic and can be rooted in prejudice). As long as the concept of gender exist there will be always sexualities defined as the ones that exist today (homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality…).

They’re firm believers everyone is mspec which couldn’t be further from the truth. Even if we consider gender not existing or other forms of gender existing, there will be always different sexualities because there’s not a single person in the world who’s attracted to literally everyone. We all have our own preferences, and this won’t fade if the concept of gender disappeared (or changed).

Gender and sexuality are two different things. Though in some cases they can be compared, in other cases they’re not comparable.

Saying how sexuality is complicated to validate “mspec lesbians” is beyond stupid 😭 because every single “bi lesbian” I’ve seen is one of these options: 1) they’re having a hard time understanding they’re just bi, it’s just not a form of bisexuality of 50/50 when it comes to gender preferences, 2) They’re transphobic and do not accept the fact non-binary people are included in lesbianism therefore they’re just lesbians, 3) They can fit in other labels that do not invalidate and harm anyone such as sapphic, queer, trixic, neptunic, omnisexual, pansexual, polysexual…

They should reflect why are they so obsessed with the fact of making lesbians be attracted to men meanwhile not seeming to care about gay men not being attracted to women. Their own internalized issues and problems shouldn’t affect us who have nothing to do with their own stupidity and ignorance.

Every “bi lesbian” (or supporter) has proved to be transphobic. This should be reason enough to not support the label, because it contributes and perpetuates transphobia.

[rametarin]

Hi! I've been following you for a while and I have to say that I like how you go into detail and critically examine whatever discourse you are engaging in and don't just leave it at the basics, even if people find it to be "too much", but I'm the type to read in-depth essays of topics that I find interest in. Feminism (radical or not, although I stand by the fact that feminism has been radical since its inception) tends to be one of the main topics you deeply delve into in a way that I've seen very few do. When it comes to them, it's so obvious that they suffer from a severe case of "The grass is greener on the other side" mentality. This notion is so incredibly popular that even women who do not explicitly identify with the movement buy into it as well, regardless of where they come from and their age, and of course, since you are more educated on this than I am, you definitely notice it even more. I mean, this is one of the primary pillars of their ideology and movement, and they couldn't sustain themselves without it at all. This is one of the very first things people who criticize them notice, and I just can't help but think how miserable do you have to be to think about what you DON'T have and what you CAN'T get away with compared to the other. They don't focus on the benefits and pluses of womanhood, only the cons and the lacking, which points a reality about them that they delude themselves into believing it has to do with a sense of justice, but in reality, it's a sense of envy. This is honestly the case with the rest of left-leaning causes as a whole. They rigidly paint the other as the "oppressor" because they have something they allegedly don't have. Hence, they believe they are in a better state than them. What do you think? Keep up the work!

More or less, yeah. In my opinion, the recruiting pole starts from a position of envy and entitlement, and assumption of how the world works. Or rather, yes, "the grass is greener."

Not everybody will inherently or intrinsically believe or feel like this, of course, but enough of them do that there's a statistical probability. And it takes a certain amount of ego, a certain blindness and inconsideration, callousness.

The girl that believes the whole world hates them and thinks less of them for being a girl and that boys get all the attention and pats on the head and benefits, and girls get the shit labor; that's an immature and incomplete picture that negates what is expected of men, in whatever time or society in which they live, and cherry picks the shit parts to believe they live in the jambalaya of all the worst aspects of patriarchal society, in all eras, simultaneously. When, in reality, this is only true if you neglect history, or are ignorant of history.

Now, there's obviously truth in that actual patriarchal systems are shit, especially weighed against secular, egalitarian, liberal societies that believe you own you and that an individual human being's rights and personhood exists irrespective of their sex/gender, and that if your personal rights and liberty as a human, irrespective of sex, are being denied, then that's a crime, whether male or female.

But that sense of "I'm being slighted because I'm a GIRL" exists, and will continue to exist, the same as it will strike a chord in any population of demographic that is insecure, for valid or invalid reasons, that they're being denied prosperity, accolades or recognition and resources and opportunities, either because they're not the favored demographic or theirs is a hated demographic and unfairly handicapped.

It is this population that socialists chose to tailor their message to, because the female sex (and gender) are the perfect carriers. In a binary sexed species, their participation is absolutely essential to the next generation being born, so they're disproportionately the gatekeepers of who gets to breed and why. They like systems that just happen to exist and provide to any whom happen to be there, because they know that, as a woman, people are more likely to want women to get free shit and protection because you can't really have a future without women having babies. So, again, it's on their own best collective interests to cling to any organization and any rhetoric that promises free shit to women on the basis of being women. It's like promising a cocaine addict free coke for their votes.

And then the entire institution and culture of radical feminism was set up to groom women to tell them, "your feelings over this subject matter, regardless of the reality! If a BOY says otherwise, he's just trying to do what you're doing, but boy feelings are invalid, because-"

And their best trick was the sematic argument that feminism was purely just, "the struggle for female equality." Which I'd liken as the Christians rebranding colonialism as, "The struggle for religious freedom." In that, no that's not even anywhere close to true and so loaded with bias that you're doing a violent rewrite of history in order to try and define goodness and freedom as synonymous with your religion."

Feminism is, was and always has been the argument to analyze and interpret different things through socialist (often Marxist) principles, dogmas, just-sos, maxims and old wives tales, to judge equality from a gynocentrist position.

Which is kind of like Trump going, "Think of this Critically and use a Trumpinian lens and you'll understand I'm right." They use the term, "lenses," but god fucking damnit, that's just, "see things from my bias." Reworded and reimagined to sound profound or philosophical, and give my bias the benefit of the doubt.

They'll argue that you cannot have female equality without feminism and feminism is just synonymous for female equality, but that is absolutely not the case at all. Feminism is not about female equality or social justice, it's about applying a certain set of class struggle theorist ideas through the demographics of sex and gender and then basing the results of that equation on whether reality meets what's on the paper. Socialists will never stop doing this, because they believe their handwaved perspectives are synonymous with scientific rigor and reality. Even when they're trying to argue that gender doesn't exist as a physical reality at all, because that would defeat the view social constructs are the only reason why sexuality is static at all.

They go right after young women and culture them to thinking that you cannot have a belief in a more equal society or law system without also incorporating feminism, and that feminism is synonymous with that. And the only reason that flies any better than, "you can't have a just and fair and righteous society without the Christian god," is because Christians aren't quite so versed or experienced in the tactic of hiding their bias behind semantics. Whereas, feminists and to a large extent, socialist arguments, rely on ambiguous terms that appropriate neutral words and give them a clique charged meta meaning.

They make that rigid and brittle, like a ceramic. And then they incite them by saying, "you either believe this in extremis, or you don't actually believe in female equality." And they make sure that any pattern of argument against their viewpoints gets cultivated out by repeating them in a mocking tone and ( :^) ) smug 90s guy funnyman face. Just so they know, if you use "those" arguments, you'll be just like Ben Shapiro or blahblah whatever Andrew Tate figure they're scapegoating as "proof of a coming wave of antisemitic, misogynistic, racist, male chauvinist hate."

Now, Tate is a worthless bag of skin, and I argue his very existence is reactionary schlock specifically to be theater and be who they point at when they point to their scary opposition, but it doesn't change the fact that feminism is linguistically and culturally and socially structured to where no one that is male is allowed to critique it, and it have given itself carte blanche to critique everything else in its own interest. So, it's a very attractive mindset for women to fall into, and it's institutional to our colleges and universities.

And I argue, it's also part of the network of shitty hammer and sickle flying subcultures and groups that states like Russia find easy to manipulate into being disruptive at home. These people will make social media post after social media post about how Russia "for sure" meddled in our elections by just fucking running shitty ads on facebook and fringe right wing sites, and be utterly fucking flummoxed when you point out just how many fake assed Tumblr accounts and astro turf twitter/Xer accounts were banned for posting inciting and fake material back when BLM had more credibility. There's more proof that Russia was behind BLM riots internationally which killed more people and burned down more businesses, than there is it was behind getting right wing old white lady to vote for Trump, but they won't bring up the detrimental influences Russia has tenured and operating in every college state-side for the left. Just the stupid milquetoast fringe conservative up through the gradients to the unironic ethnostater white supremacist stormfronter types on the right. They're hypocrites that can't smell the smelly smell when it's coming from their own pants.

I adore the ability to post long form online the way I do, because it was absolutely defeating in real space trying to debate anything with radfems that take delight in disrupting, interrupting, insulting you, screaming over you, trying to trick you into an engaging debate on bad faith and just yelling, "LOL KUNG POW PENIS. XP STUPID MAAALE" in public. Putting on the pretenses of offering to challenge your opinion and then spending the entire time not disputing you, just mocking you and telling you you're wrong and talking to you like you're the amalgam of the Tates and Rush Limbaughs and televangelist-heres, which have no bearing on what you're actually saying- just taking potshots at the caricature of you and then doing victory dances for the zingers that might be zingers, if you'd ever actually fucking said that.

Here I can at least state my piece uninterrupted and not misinterpreted. It's very liberating.

[askgothamshitty]

I think i was so delirious last night I forgot to finish my ask oh wow.

I wasn't trying to talk about anora I was just using it a jumping off point. I will.now try to reorient myself from there.

There seems to be this ever growing cultural desire to pathologize and moralize one's opinions. It's no longer acceptable to say, "I think this thing is bad." It has to be "this thing is morally and ethically bad," or else your opinion is invalid.

And i get why people are like that. The discourse driven nature of modern social media leads people to constantly try to find the best reason to feel some way to sort of bully the other person to feel the same way. Lots of things are just going wrong, and it's destroying people's ability to engage in meaningful discussions.

Coming back to age gaps

There is nothing morally, ethically, or politically wrong with an age gap relationship. An age gap relationship is just when two persons with a considerable age difference get into a relationship. While there are many problematic reasons that can influence this type of relationship, none of it is inherent. Any argument you try to present on why age gaps are, in general, bad is rooted in assumptions.

That being said, I fucking hate age gap relationships. Especially when the man is older. I think it's gross and weird. I look down on any man that dates a woman more than five years his junior (and that's only because that's the age difference between my parents and my mom was well into her twenties so it's fine). I don't care what either of you say or how you try to argue it, I think it's weird. I think he's a loser and no woman his age wanted him. I refuse to give a man the benefit of the doubt. Not because im a feminist but because I hate men.

We need to stop trying to justify our feelings, like it's suddenly illegal to have an opinion. I do encourage introspection and self reflection. I think we should try to understand why we feel the way that we feel. But you first have to acknowledge that it is just how you feel. Because sometimes, the way you feel isn't always morally correct. Sometimes, you hold a bigoted or biased opinion. You can be wrong for feeling the way you feel.

You can not try to build a political or moral stance on a feeling. Treating all your opinions as great divine intuition will make your politics hollow and reactionary. You will be more focused on comforting yourself than doing any sort of actual research or understanding.

And as always, this is what makes people terfs. The refusal to investigate one's understanding around sex or gender and accept that you may actually be wrong will push toward a politic that validates these feelings in a seemingly progressive way. Because you're not actually trying to learn or understand the world, you're just seeking a moral argument to comfort yourself.

I hate age gap relationships because I can. There is nothing political or moral about them. They're just controversial. They're not inherently anti feminist although they do sometimes reflect certain ideas around femininity and heterosexuality. But that is a very specific situation full of assumptions. I can make these same arguments without latching onto such a feeble example.

I don't like furries. I don't like interracial dating (don't worry, im black from a predominantly black country. This is not segregation, just pure haterism). I dont like Western cartoons. I don't like seeing white people rap. I dont like seeing white people in kpop. I think thirst traps and edits are cringe. I think self shipping is weird. I dont want to live in an apartment, I dont care if it is more economical and a better use of space. I dont think we should get rid of cemeteries. I dont like elections. I dont like horror movies. I hate indie music. You cannot make me like Megan thee stallion. I font think women should get hysterectomies just because they dont want kids.

I dont like a lot of things for better or for worse. It's nothing political. It's nothing ethical. I just don't like it. I will continue to unlearn all of my biases and beliefs and practice introspection, but I only do myself harm if I assume that I am right about everything. Sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes I'm a bigot, hell I can be a hypocrite. Contradictions and imperfections make us human.

I dont want to see a man in his 30s hunching on a 20 year old and you can't make me.

Very interesting! Thanks for clarifying

[problematic-fodlan]

« No one is validating shitty behavior. Only gross people who do gross things would back up that kind of behavior. It’s gross, it’s weird, and it’s not okay for any fan of any part of this game to behave that way towards someone else. Ever. »

That's not true. Sadly a lot of people validate shitty behavior.

« But it happens to Edelgard fans more,” you don’t know if that’s true cause some of you are so lost in your own groups, you have no idea what’s being said to other people. Happening more or not, does not invalidate what’s been said or done to other person. No one should be saying any of the things I’ve seen said or do the things I’ve seen done.»

It's not just a question of more, it's a question of it taking a unique form. You cannot compare Dimitri and Claude hate to Edelgard, as Edelgard hate is definitely influenced by sexism and lesbophobia ( as in homophobia towards wlw, not saying Edelgard is a lesbian ). Female characters very much tend to receive unproportional hatred for not fitting certain expectations linked to their gender, and this is trend is a stapple of nearly all fandom including fictional women... And fanbase wich include a lot of queer women often lead to their vilainization due to lesbophobia.

And sorry, but the massive difference in amount compared to other lord is a fact, from specific tags on ao3, number or post with certain tags or just countess of events. It's once again a very gendered dynamic, as women get much more hated than men for the same reasons.

You're right that in any case, the form hate take should not excuse bad behavior. However that doesn't mean we should put the hate each lord and fanbase receive on an equal standing. It's especially importabt to consider how discrimination comes at play in those dynamics.

-

[genderjourneyjournal]

Gender Journal Day #114

Date 12/14/24

This is a personal journal about my gender journey my therapist recommended I make. Mostly about gender stuff but also anything else. Feel free to keep reading but keep in mind it’s going to be my unfiltered, personal thoughts.

It’s been a while. I’ve just been deep in the trenches with end of semester work. So I’ve been very tired and haven’t had much time to focus on myself.

I had a talk with a friend last night. I wanted to open up about how scary it is being trans right now. We got into a fight over how they talked about men. They have very valid reasons to hate and be afraid of men. Pretty much all women do. I just didn’t like the way she spoke about it. I know how it sounds but I just wanted to point out that she needs to recognize not all men are like that. The way she speaks can be very “I hate men, they’re terrible” and I was trying to explain how shitty men have already demonized women who talk like that as nothing but “whiny feminists who will complain about anything and just want to hate on men”. And this is bad because it teaches guys not to take women seriously. So if you want men to change you can’t blanketly demonize masculinity.

I understand why she feels like she can’t trust any man she meets or is even in the vicinity of a man. I feel bad because I really don’t want to invalidate some of the very hard things she’s had to live with. She’s one of my best friends. I think it just struck a nerve because she said something that rang bells in my head as sounding kind of TERF-y and I guess I got defensive. But I also didn’t want to lose a friend to those kinds of insidious ideas that prey on people’s vulnerabilities and fears. A trans masc friend of mine also told me she said that when she’s talking about men she wasn’t referring to him, which made me feel defensive of my friend even though he didn’t ask me too.

I just hope I didn’t hurt her feelings. Even if I didn’t get my point across.

Anyway, my point. Last night we were texting, and I wanted to open up to her about how scary it’s been. I try to be strong for her because she gets really anxious and is really upset with the political climate in the USA right now. I want to try to be a pillar for her and seem strong so she has someone to rely on as a friend. But last night I wanted to let her understand how it’s actually been for me. I wanted to let her know that it’s been scary and frustrating for me.

If I were to try and go out and experiment with my gender presentation like I want to, then I have to kind of be afraid of everyone. I wanted her to understand that the way she feels about men is how I’d have to approach literally every other person because trans people are kind of political enemy no 1 in the USA right now. And it sucks because my therapist is kind of right in that I’m going to need to actually try something in order to figure out my gender at this point. Like, even if I end up physically fine, how long will it be before I can feel safe trying for a different gender presentation? Because it’s going to be a long time before I get it perfect, not that I’m even sure how I want to present yet. Like, am I going to have to explain to my kids that I can’t pick them up from school because I needed to use a public bathroom once and got listed as a sex offender? I can’t afford to fail at gender presentation but that also means I can’t experiment. At least not in places that aren’t explicitly queer.

What hurts even more about it is that I’ve just started to get a taste of what I could have, too. I’ve dipped my toe in enough that I’ve seen what it could be. For so long it’s felt like I was living with like, a layer of tv static between me and the rest of the world. Just, it rarely felt like anything was real. But when I have a chance to experiment with feminine stuff, it feels like that veil of static is lifted for a little bit. I get to actually feel alive again. But before I can even figure out my gender identity and how I might want to pursue transition, trans people become the biggest political scapegoat. So now, I have to choose between putting myself in danger every time I leave the house, or continue feeling like I’m not alive for the next 4 years and hope that things aren’t too bad by then. But at the same time, by then I’ll be almost 30. I’d like to enjoy at least a bit of my youth. I’d like to not spend only the last 60% of my life actually feeling like I’m alive. I want to start now.

Unfortunately, I’m not sure my friend understood how I felt. It was late. And I didn’t explain it as passionately as I did here. But maybe that’s what I deserve for being so insensitive to her feelings.

It’s just frustrating. I finally know that I can feel like I’m alive again but can’t pursue that for years. Like, I don’t even have the comfort of denial anymore. Now I am VERY aware of how not okay I’ve been feeling because I felt how much better it’s possible to feel just by wearing a dress!

On the upside at least my new anxiety meds are finally kicking in I think. Despite how busy and behind I am with school stuff I’m not stressing out as bad as I normally do. I thought originally I just passed the point of being so tired and busy that I don’t even have the spare energy to worry or get upset at setbacks anymore, but I do think I generally feel calmer. Do kinda feel tired though. Not sure if that’s the meds or a lack of sleep.

[odiabonecessario]

Hey, it's alright. Just another cent for you:

You apreciate people telling you that your feelings are valid and yours. Maybe you can try to do that for others?

Yeah, i don't know the reasons why you are how you are. Do you know why a femcel feels alienated and starts thinking like that?

You say they are larpers. Why is that? What tells the rest of the world that YOU aren't a larper faking beign an incel?

We don't know your reasons. You don't know theirs.

They peobably have their own issues, there are a reason they ended up like that. Men and women both have shir they go through, it's different but one doesn't invalidate the other.

This isn't an insult or an acusation. Just a tought experiment.

-The creature of the black lagoon.

Pd: Whats in the middle of the sea? The letter E.

I won't lie, I struggle with empathy more than I really notice. It doesn't feel natural for me as it's for everyone else and I hate it so much. Heck, I hate the fact I feed myself from things like women feeling sad after breakups or simps being rejected. I got so insensitive to the point I often invalidate women's struggles just like women did to me and I don't like it. I don't want to be a good person, I just want to not be a bad person

[gwemmieee]

Do u think that there's an AFAB privilege? Would love to hear some articulated thoughts on how obvious it is

AFAB, is an event, not an identity. You're probably asking about people raised as girls, though.

This is a complex thing to answer. From my perspective, it seems like there are certain spaces--many queer and/or feminine ones, especially--where people who are known to have been raised as girls are exempt from certain preconceptions, such as the predatory perception that society often assigns to all AMAB folks who were raised as boys, and even some who weren't, that leads to our struggles to be fully accepted as not just an ally but a full friend and fellow in almost all feminine spaces period, especially ones that are not exclusively made up of other trans fems (and trans fem only spaces that are actually healthy and stable don't really exist yet in most places, besides specific private friend groups). I think they also get more of a pass when it comes to interpersonal relations and conflict, because having been raised as a girl comes with a certain misplaced expectation that you're Just Better at things like empathy, compassion, community leadership, caretaking etc.

Meanwhile, if you're neurodivergent and do not appear as someone who was "definitely" raised as a girl, you're typically not allowed to have any negative feelings or say anything wrong, even out of well-intentioned ignorance, without instantly being made a target and controlled, gaslit, ostracized, etc. In any space. And in my experience and the experience of most trans fem friends I have who have ever been ostracized from a queer space, the mistreatment truly is usually orchestrated by a queer person who was raised as a girl, most often trans masc, who openly denies these dynamics and their underlying reasons as real or valid, and who has cultivated that queer space to be one where generally nobody else is willing to admit it, either. Instead, they've all agreed that we must call someone out, attempt to control their feelings and boundaries, and be ready to kick them out, the instant they *sound* like a bad person, even if they didn't actually sound like a bad person and it was all a misunderstanding that wasn't even their fault. No chances are given before they start being treated like an outsider, in small, subtle ways at first, just enough that they are tempted to accept the abuse and become docile and controlled, but in much bigger ways if they protest.

This is still a common occurrence that dominates queer spaces, and it is deeply harmful. Usually when you see women, especially trans fems, talk about avoiding all men including trans mascs, I'm not excusing them for being that way, but this is usually why they are that way. It's a common response to an extremely founded survival instinct after you brush with death and depression over and over and over again just trying to be treated like a human being by anyone else at all. Sometimes we only survive because we collectively identify as victims with this specific common experience and find each other, our closest experience to real community, by hating on masculinity together.

To bring up that these are facts about queer, feminine spaces in general seems to be a hot button issue these days, because a lot of trans mascs have genuinely been ostracized from those same spaces for their masculinity, which is wrong. This has probably become a larger problem especially recently, due to an overcorrection by trans fem folks and our allies in response to the dynamics I mentioned previously and the resulting survival instincts. But none of that invalidates the fact that these dynamics are still common and still being abused by more masculine folks to hurt more feminine folks in queer spaces. A lot. Nearly constantly in nearly every queer space.