#i don't think this counts as spoilers since it's more about the discussion of trans representation in general than if gwen is trans or not

[roxtron]

oh no i'm about to talk about trans representation in a way that might annoy some people. Obviously this discussion should have context, so, within the context of people arguing if Gwen is or isn't trans.. I saw this.

To summarize for people who don't want to/can't read what's in the screenshot, the basic point of this person's argument is that it would actually be better for the LGBT+ community for Gwen to be an ally.. And that it would somehow be worse if she was trans herself. So naturally I'm gonna make an entire post ranting about it for as long as I want to, because this is bullshit. First off, I don't think there is ever going to be a scenario where trans people themselves will be more happy to see a character as a trans ally than to see a trans character. That's just.. no. Second off, even if we're following the logic of the comment, that allies voices and representation are somehow more important than trans people's voices and representation- Simply by the fact that allies are viewed as more 'normal' by society- I can't even write this as one solid sentence, it's just such an awful point. I thought we've gone through this enough times that you're not inherently special for being an ally, you don't need ally representation more than trans people need representation, it's literally just "congrats! you're not a transphobic asshole and are doing the bare minimum to being a decent human being." I think the community has already had enough of cishet allies trying to insert themselves into the community solely because they're allies. (Example, people trying to claim the 'A' in 'LGBTQIA+' is for 'Ally.' Obviously it's not. There's multiple identities that start with A that the acronym is for. Asexual, aromantic, agender, etc.) Either way the point about allies being better voices simply because they're only allies is just making the problem worse. The only reason the community needs allies voices in any way is because transphobes won't listen to trans people themselves. They'll only listen to the voices of allies, if they bother to listen at all. Giving more ally voices isn't going to have the same impact as making trans voices louder. They're not going to stop seeing us as freaks just because you say we're not, they're just going to be annoyed with you too for 'siding' with us. As good as allies may have intentions they can't and shouldn't speak for our experiences. And if only the voices of allies are heard, there's going to be a huge piece missing during discussions like this. But even beyond that, who says representation has to be for getting transphobes to accept us anyway? Why can't we just have representation to make us happy? Why is furthering fighting transphobes more valuable than making trans people feel seen and understood? I just wanna end this by saying: I'm tired of seeing takes like this. You claim to be allies, but if you are, why does the thought of Gwen being trans make you that upset? Why is it such a big deal to some of you if she is?

[kraymerman]

My favorite Shovel Knight: Body Swap configuration:

Shovel Knight: Male Body, He/Him pronouns

I like the silhouette of the larger horns more, and the Shovel Knight-shaped hole in Pridemoor stays as the male silhouette regardless of what body you choose, and I think the joke is funnier if the silhouette matches perfectly.

Shield Knight: Male Body, He/Him pronouns

It's a switch up I approve of (queer fellas), and I think the Male Shield Knight is hot.

Black Knight: Female Body, She/Her pronouns

It's a change up I approve of (it implies that Shield Knight is bi), and the larger shoulder armor things are way cooler.

Queen Knight: Female Body, She/Her pronouns

I prefer the Queen Knight crown over the King Knight one, and I think the concept of fighting as athletically as she does in a big dress is funny.

Specter Knight: Male Body, He/Him pronouns

I do like the female body over the male body, but I wanted Specter Knight to be a cisgender man (for a reason I'll say later), and the female body's bust is too obvious for me to hand wave. We all have to make sacrifices, I suppose.

Plague Knight: Female body, They/Them pronouns

I like the witch hat design, and since Plague Knight is meant to look pretty androgynous, I like to take it all the way.

Mole Knight: Female body, He/Him pronouns

The fire hair is way cooler than whatever the male body has going on, and I feel like the bust is subtle enough that I can handwave it (or maybe Mole Knight is trans, I like both interpretations).

Treasure Knight: Female body, She/Her pronouns

The absolute biggest glow up out of all of the changeable characters. The female body is better in every way. I like the trenchcoat more than the bomber jacket, I like her diving helmet shape far more than the male equivalent, and it feels a bit redundant to have two buff guys in the order (Polar Knight fills that extempore, bit of a spoiler warning for later on). I am extremely attached to the female, woman version of Treasure Knight, if I had to pick one out of any of the swaps to be canon, I'd pick her.

Polar Knight: Male Body, He/Him pronouns

He fills an archetype, and I like him that way.

Tinker Knight: Female Body, She/Her pronouns

I don't really like the Male Tinker Knight. His head is too flat looking. The pigtails the female body brings a wider frame that I prefer. I like the She/Her pronouns(, and another reason I'll discuss later).

Propeller Knight: Female Body: They/Them pronouns

I like the various flowy bits on the clothing the female body has (and I find it more attractive than the male body, and, as per Yacht Club Games, Propeller Knight is meant to be sexy), and Propeller Knight has They/Them pronouns for a reason I'll get into later.

The Enchanter: Male Body, They/Them pronouns

I really like the armor that the male body has and I like to have a clear distinction between Shield Knight and the Enchanter (and I like how "Enchanter" is gender-neutral).

Now to get to the later point I've been talking about in terms of Specter Knight, Tinker Knight, and Propeller Knight.

In addition to just picking what I like, I also wanted to include, in terms of the Order of No Quarter, an equal amount of representation between all the different types of people that can appear in this game.

With this setup, we have:

Three Men

Three Women

Two They/Thems (Three, if you count The Enchanter)

With this setup, not only do you have an equal representation between all, you have a diverse selection when roaming the map.

In the first section, you have Queen Knight and Specter Knight; a man and a woman

In the second section, you have Mole Knight, Treasure Knight, and Plague Knight; a man, a woman, and a they/them

And in the third section, you have Polar Knight, Tinker Knight, and Propeller Knight; a man, a woman, and a they/them.

At every moment, you have as many possible options as the world setup allows.

Alternate Favorite Body Swap choice:

Swap Queen Knight's and Propeller Knight's genders, because I like how the name Monarch Knight feels in my mouth and, really, I'm fine with any gender for Propeller Knight, because, regardless of gender, my crash on Propeller Knight is deep-seated and ravenous.

In conclusion, this is my favorite body swap configuration for Shovel Knight. I prefer it over the almost completely male-dominated cast of the base game and it's more inclusive. Have a wonderful day. :)

[thefudge]

Just out of curiosity, did you read JK's essay? I don't support everything in it but many parts resonated with me. Not to mention the horrific online abuse hurled at her, especially the countless, countless "choke on my dick" phrases thrown at her which are so violently misogynistic, it left me with a deep seated feeling of not only discomfort but fear as well. Idk I guess I just felt safe sending this because your blog seems more open to discussion from the other side instead of instant cancel.

i’m glad you think so about this blog and i hope that remains the case.

i didn’t have a chance to read JK’s essay until today (my previous ask about her was written before that) but here are some very, very imperfect thoughts on it:

the essay confirmed my previous take that she has inoculated herself against certain outside arguments but it’s also made me wonder about JK’s understanding of gender and sex. She is very attached to “natal women” and calling all people who menstruate “women” because of “common experiences”, despite the fact that her beloved de Beauvoir, whom she quotes in the essay extensively, acknowledged that “woman” is a social construct. JK herself at one point complains about having to comply with the rules of femininity while growing up and how it made her want to stop being female, so what is the truth? She argues that young girls shouldn’t be thinking about transitioning just because they are made to hate their femaleness but that’s!!! exactly what!!! pushing the term “woman” as sacrosanct does to girls!!! most of what JK felt in her childhood was the kind of misogyny which connects women strictly to their uterus. it made being male a better alternative precisely because of the gate-keeping of penis/vagina. a young girl who acted like a tomboy, for instance, would be criticized for trying to deny her sex, because deep down her biology still made her a “woman”. both sex and gender cannot be divorced from socio-cultural realities, because we act with our bodies and embody what we act. so, if we expand what it means to be a “man” and a “woman”, we liberate, not confine. JK wants young people to feel free to be whoever they want to be, but they must be called “women” when discussing menstruation or else (i won’t even go into the obvious addition that many cis and trans women exist who cannot or no longer menstruate).

Now, she does bring up some fair points about cancel culture and freedom of expression that I will level with, but the problem is that the nuancing she is trying to achieve also serves as weirdly specific dog-whistling. So let me address that:

(warning: spoilers for the Cormoran Strike series)

Right off the bat, we have this explanation added in her intro: 

“On one level, my interest in this issue has been professional, because I’m writing a crime series, set in the present day, and my fictional female detective is of an age to be interested in, and affected by, these issues herself (...)”  

and already, i’m asking questions. how is Robin Ellacott, one of the protagonists of the Strike series, “affected" by these issues, personally? she’s “of an age” to...what? be gender critical? there’s not a lot of that in the novels (unless you count Robin being tall and knowing how to drive well being framed as anti-girly...).  How does crime relate to it? How is she connected to this really? 

the real connection JK wants us to see because she’ll reveal it later in the essay is that Robin was r*ped in college. she’s a sexual assault survivor, which must make her critically engaged with the fate of trans women because....because underneath JK’s empty statement about her female detective....is the correlation that men “disguised” as trans women can perpetrate the same sort of horrific abuse.  she keeps making this correlation throughout the essay.

Here she talks about various people who’ve reached out to her:

They’re worried about the dangers to young people, gay people and about the erosion of women’s and girl’s rights. Above all, they’re worried about a climate of fear that serves nobody – least of all trans youth – well.

And again here:

“So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.”

This one is my favorite because it’s so twisted (here she’s listing her charity work):

“The second reason is that I’m an ex-teacher and the founder of a children’s charity, which gives me an interest in both education and safeguarding. Like many others, I have deep concerns about the effect the trans rights movement is having on both.”

“safeguarding”

hmmmm

What JK wants to spell out with these “common sense” arguments is that she fears that trans women are predatory, and the most convincing argument she can bring, ultimately, is that she herself has been the victim of sexual abuse and therefore, that potential fear never goes away. That’s a very dangerous leap to make. The climate of “fear” she mentions is also connected to cancel culture, of course. She fears women won’t be able to express their opinions online without receiving various amounts of vitriol. But you see how she has merged all three issues together? So that if you agree with one, you must agree with the others. Because yes, cancel culture often goes too far, and yes it is a real issue, but to say that the trans community shutting her down foments the same atmosphere of “fear” as boogie trans women hurting children in bathrooms and her being abused by her cis husband… that’s a veeery slippery slope. Instead of sticking to “freedom of speech” and whatnot, she keeps correlating these issues that should not be correlated (some of them being false issues, as well).  

Is there too much opprobrium around discussions of trans identity? Yes. Are there worthy discussions to be had about young women, homophobia and gender dysphoria? Absolutely. Can being trans become a fashionable trend/identity among kids, like the bygone goth and emo labels? Sure, but these discussions shouldn’t be had at the expense of trans people who have to constantly prove that they “mean” it. Because by stringing up all these issues together, JK is saying “the kids don’t know any better, and the adults are faking it”. Yes, cancel culture is impeding dialogue, yes, we shouldn’t shy away from discussing young teens’ identity problems, but if you pile up all of these things in a giant “trans women are the problem and they might be predatory too” milkshake, you won’t get anywhere.

I want to come back to this quote:

The second reason is that I’m an ex-teacher and the founder of a children’s charity, which gives me an interest in both education and safeguarding. Like many others, I have deep concerns about the effect the trans rights movement is having on both.

Beyond the (in my opinion) not very tasteful enumeration of things she’s done to help, JK’s mention of “education” there is veeery interesting. On the one hand, she probably feels that schools will try to censor “free speech”, but on the other hand, I bet she’s also concerned schools will not do enough censoring, so that impressionable kids become pressured into adopting a trans identity. You see how it flips on a dime? What does she ultimately want children to learn about this? Does she want them to be kept in the dark completely? Does she want them to be allowed to critique or invalidate trans identities without being censored? On this second point, things get complicated. Schools and institutions will naturally censor free speech.  Kids are there to learn how to express that free speech; they will be told “hey, don’t say that to your colleague, it’s not very kind” or “you need to structure your argument appropriately instead of just saying “I don’t like it””. Is there room for criticism in how schools operate that benevolent censorship? Obviously. Hell, Foucault & co. have been talking about this for decades. So what does this argument about education ultimately mean? What are we protecting the kids from? Imo, it goes back to that covert argument about sexual violence.    

Since I’m a teacher too, I’ll talk about my own experience: I brought some texts to my undergrad class about the trans experience with the goal of 1) building empathy, because literature is the grand unifier of experience and 2) showing different literary perspectives which i also included within literary theory. ultimately, the trans experience is about being human. we were learning about being human, nothing more, nothing less. if younger kids end up treating it as a fad it means that a) they need more, not less education,  b) parents and schools should work together to make them understand that being trans is not the same as being “emo”, for instance. this partially resembles the trend of white kids adopting black culture just because it’s cool, but not actually engaging with the black experience. who do you sanction for this? black people? because in this analogy, the trans community should be responsible for children not benefiting from education and parental support.

oh, I know what JK is saying. the trans community is responsible for shutting down conversations about this. it’s part of the general climate of tiptoeing around trans issues. yes, here I can agree with her that Twitter discourse either helps build sympathy or loathing for the “cancelled” person instead of seriously grappling with what that person has done. it’s the nature of Twitter and I hate it, but to go from that to saying women and young girls are in danger from other “fake” women really undermines her own argument. There are normal pitfalls as we try to incrementally do some good in this world. Cancel culture and the deplatforming and ruining of lives of certain individuals will not promote the cause and is certainly to be frowned upon, but JK will be absolutely fine. there are hashtags right now like “istandwithJK” and there’s a slew of people who support her. the misogyny she faces is deplorable, but we shouldn’t conflate valid criticism with trollish vulgarities. I don’t want to minimize the dangers of online culture; I know people have lost jobs and livelihood, but that is a discussion to be had under different parameters, admitting the responsibility of both parties (for example, maya forstater realizing that maybe saying some hurtful things about public figures and proudly talking about the “delusion” of transwomen will come back to bite her in the ass) and the fact that under capitalism, your job is always at the whim of appearances and simulacrums. essentially, you are the job. this is a state of things that deserves a larger discussion not on the back of the trans community. should we live in a world where you are allowed to say anything, free of consequences? some of us do, because we can say whatever we want in our head, in our room, in our house (other ppl aren’t so lucky), but the trouble starts in the public sphere. even if we wanted to build a public sphere where everything goes, we’d be at each other’s throats in five seconds anyway because we’re human. the most we can do is educate and correct where we can.  “facts don’t care about your feelings” discourse is often not informed by facts at all and forgets the vital importance of feelings.

anyway, that’s my incomplete take. still lots to think about and debate. ultimately, i think any fair points JK brought up were tainted by other bad-faith arguments and i wish she’d use this time to self-reflect because this isn’t a topic that should be breezed past in 3k words. nor should young trans ppl be called “adorable” (facepalm). i myself have many questions and constantly grapple with all of this, but since she’s a writer (and for better or worse, i still like her books), she is in a perfect position to investigate the matter with kindness and stop giving ultimatums. and i hope this post fosters discussion and doesn’t shut anyone down.

( forgot to mention that other nifty subplot in the Strike series about these really unlikable kids who are transabled and experience BID ( Body integrity dysphoria)  and want to have a disability. Strike is super-offended by them since he’s genuinely disabled and we as readers are meant to think they’re real pieces of shit, and while transableism is suuuuper complicated and my thoughts on it vary wildly, i do think those BID kids also stand in for other folks in her mind..again, food for thought.)