#interesting question anon

[kidovna]

How would you react if El comes out as a trans boy next season, making Mike queer and Midleven the main queer ship?

i’d be very happy for el for coming out and figuring that about himself but i still wouldn’t want mike and el to be endgame. it’s not el’s gender which drives the direction of that ship for me 🫶🏽

[makeitastrength]

If Tim showed up to Angela’s house and told her he’d killed Ray, what would she do? Everyone always jokes about Angela covering up murder, but I honestly think she genuinely would if the reasoning behind it was good.

Oooooh, interesting. Oh gosh. I don't know. These questions of "where would this person draw the line" are so interesting but also so hard to answer. I also don't feel like I have as good an understanding of Angela as I do of Tim and Lucy. But I'll do my best.

I guess… maybe? She’s certainly made lots of threats toward Oscar and Elijah and anyone else who has threatened the people she loves.

The question for me, though, is would Tim murdering Ray be considered a good reason? Like yes, Ray killed two men. But that only happened because of the decisions Tim made. So while he could frame it as justice for them, it’s also covering his own ass, which is harder to justify. I’m not sure what Angela would do.

But I’m interested to hear your thoughts, anon, and any one else’s as well!

[be-the-glenn-to-my-maggie]

I know I've heard James Cameron say that Neytiri might travel to earth somehow. But if she were, what do you think this would mean for her character's development?

Great question, yes he has said that. Of course it will help with her development, to see the reason for humanities desperation. Feeling for the billions of regular people who have no chance versus the upper class who are ruining her planet. I can't imagine how horrified she would be. I feel like it would strengthen her hatred for the RDA, but might help her sympathize for the individual human.

I do have to say that I am not crazy about that idea, I don't really care to see Earth again when there is so so much going on on Pandora already. I don't care to see the Na'vi take a six year journey to get there omg, are we not busy what's gonna happen on Pandora while they're gone?? That's 12 years of time just fucking around lol.

[bogkeep]

Thoughts on have a house of identical cats?

meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow

[astolfofo]

what song would you assign to all the yan jjk characters?

Life itself, Glass animals - Megumi

Carousel, Lexie Liu - Geto

Play with fire - Sukuna

Momento Mori - Choso (idk him too well lmao)

Rebels - Mahito

Noriono Neurose/Dear/Teddy Picker/Liar Mask/Suki Suki Daisuki or whatever the fuck you call it - Yuuta

Maneater/Pork Soda/The other side of paradise/No time to die - Gojo

Peak-a-boo - Maki/Mai it works for both of them Ig

Psycho - Nobara

[bisexual-horror-fan]

Have you ever thought about becoming an advocate? I know that's probably a crazy random question but you seem so naturally good at it

You know I have thought about it. I've made mention of it here but the one thing I thought the most seriously about was going to school for, (other than culinary school), was so I could become a sexual health educator and researcher but to be honest, college/university is not for me I think. I would have loved to get a legit degree and use that to advocate for queer kids, better sex ed and particularly for the rights of intersex and trans people, I am extremely passionate about all of those facets and improving life for them but as it stands right now, I don't have the right standing to do much. I know a degree is not needed to do some good or make some change but I can't in all the ways I would like to without it.

That LGBT+ youth group I mentioned before that I went to, is the kind of thing I would love to do when I am older, being a leader and helping out other young kids like how I was helped way back when is a goal and it would so me a lot of good, giving back to the community, you know?

For now though, doing what I am doing now is still being helpful in a lot of ways and makes me feel good.

[impeccablebackside]

So you said Tantomile sometimes wants to get it on with a tom. Who does she have in mind, if any?

Truthfully, I have not put much thought into it, but you deserve a good answer anon. I regard Tanto as being a lesbian through and through, but she still has urges to get something less sapphic and more phallic in her love.

I mentioned in a post a number of months ago that her first time was likely a quiet affair with some tom one night, and honestly I am thinking that was also the last time she was ever with a tom. A one and done tryste that made her realize that she was certainly (or at least 95+%) a lesbian. It was pleasurable to a point, but not greatly enjoyable, lacking the spark that would have made it a great thing. Perhaps it was a lack of connection with that particular partner, but I think that it would not have been much different regardless of who was giving it to her.

Anyway, like I inferred in that post from a few days ago, it is the physical relationship between her and a tom that drives these infrequent thoughts. Being penetrated by arguably the most 'sacred' and special flesh another person could offer for lack of a better way to say it. The beautiful intimacy inherent to that process, where two people can literally connect their bodies together. The feeling of having her pussy filled tightly with the warmth of someone else. It is not that she cannot get dicked down good with a strap, because she will and she does. It is what is missing from all of that that weighs on her mind in those moments.

Tanto does not feel like she is necessarily missing out by any means, just that maybe it she is being rash to be closed off. However, she knows more than well enough that it would certainly lead to the same conclusion in the end as her first encounter. The horny thoughts can be intrusive though, and even those with the strongest mental will can be led astray.

To actually address your question, I think that she is comfortable without trying again with a tom. Though, if she had to choose, I suppose her pick would be Munk or Misto. It would have to be someone who could fulfill her and respect her over and above the simple act of sex. Someone who would appreciate how meaningful and extraordinary it is to have her open herself up to them like that and let them in so intimately.

[bunnikida]

would u rather step on someone or be stepped on???

Both? Both. Both is good. I have experienced stepping on someone though, so for the sake of experience I would prefer getting stepped on next

[lovelaceisntdead]

Whats your favourite day of the year and why?

I don't think I have a definitive favourite day of the year? I don't think there's a day that happens every year that I would call my favourite, it would depend on what was happening on that day. I guess maybe like the first of October? I love October for lots of reasons so the first is the start of all of that so I'd definitely say it's up there with the best days.

[bklynmusicnerd]

Could u imagine if a older GH super couples like say S&B were around now with stan Twitter!? Those couples were huge back then, but with the way I see clips of couples from different netflix shows or tv shows go viral on Twitter now, I could only imagine.

Oh wow, I really can't. I think the social media commentary during "clink boom" probably would have been amazing lol. I watch that sequence all the time on yt and wonder how crazy that must have been to watch live. I'm really envious of people who were alive and alert for 90s GH tbh. But yeah, idk, maybe the discourse on Sonny and his toxicity would have started sooner if there were social media back then. I'm sure scenes like him finding the wire on Brenda would have inspired a lot of (necessary tbh) discourse.

[honeyedlashton]

What's ur favorite dipping sauce?

If this is a serious question, I’d say like honey mustard or Barbecue. (Maybe spicy barbecue actually that shit is delicious.) Or like ranch? But I think my final answer would be Chick-fil-A sauce. It’s got the thickness I want from a dipping sauce preferably, and it’s the perfect amount of sweet and savory at the same time. It really is like the best of all three so I guess it wins by default 🫣

(Though white barbecue sauce is on a whole other level, too…so I guess it just depends what I’m dipping 🤤)

If it’s not a serious question then the answer is obviously 5sauce. (Both the red and yellow depending on what it is, but I’d be interested to try the brown and white varieties that were never released) ❤️💛

[happygomadhatter]

What do you think people notice about you first, when they meet you for the first time?

Irl? Probably big boobs. That's the one i hear most often. I also have the kind of face that people feel comfortable talking to so maybe that, albeit on a more subconscious level

[professional-shitpost]

What would you be doing if you were in the world of Tintin?

Dead /j

In all seriousness, I’m not actually sure. There are MANY reasons why me exiting in Tintin’s time is a horrible idea. But let’s say my gender, physical and mental health issues weren’t a factor.

I would probably be an investigator of sorts, maybe not fulling traveling the word like he does, but definitely try and solve cold cases and such.

That or an author/artist combo of sorts, aka what I do irl. It would be neat to get paid for what I do.

[gibbearish]

so this post has been made unrebloggable now (shocker) but ive been feeling the need to address it since i saw it on my dash multiple times, so let's explore how lying on the internet works. more specifically, how blending truth, lies, and omissions to whip uninvolved people into anger works, because i think this is an excellent example and that pointing out the misinformation and the tactics used to spread it here is important, both in correcting the specific falsities but also in helping recognize similar tactics in the future.

so here we have several things that are technically true: staff has been very openly shitty to trans women for a long time and them banning predstrogen is clearly part of that, there is currently a movement regarding discussing transmisandry/transandrophobia, transmisogyny and transphobes sending transphobic asks is by far nothing new, and baeddel is/was a slur. however, among all of this are half-truths, unprovable speculation, or outright lies made to make you believe these events are originating specifically from transmascs.

firstly, the transandrophobia movement has been drastically misrepresented here in the same way it has been for the whole argument, "they're just trans MRAs" has been repeated so many times now that i'm gonna be hearing it in my dreams when i'm 80. i can understand not being willing to address the nuance of that whole discourse in one post that isn't directly focused on that, i'm certainly not, but in this example it's not unwillingness to address a complicated topic, it's a deliberate misrepresentation to frame one side of the discussion as The Evil Bad Ones That Can't Be Trusted. additionally, this post IS about that discourse and is just pretending it isn't to mislead a wider audience, so refusing to address it at all beyond this brief mention is deliberately misleading people about the goals of the group because They're The Other Side Of The Discourse. "transmisogynists" is used as a buzzword here, it doesn't actually refer to Anyone Who Hates Transfemmes, it refers to Transmascs Who Discuss Transmasc-Specific Oppression Using A Word They Coined To Point Out That Queer Spaces Have A Big Problem With Masculinity and just. doesn't tell you that's what it means, relying on the structure and framing of the post to create the Transmisogynist = Transmasc association in the audience's head so op doesn't have to say it outright (and of course the implied Transmasc = Transmisogynist association that follows because creating THAT association is the Actual Point of this post). the mentions of transmascs in this post are designed to look like afterthoughts, op says "typically those who espouse transandrophobia" to make it look like they're saying there's other people they're referring to here too, but almost everything in this post draws from the transandrophobia discourse. some random cis transphobe in texas has never heard the term baeddel in their entire life much less used it in a debate about transphobia, this is an intercommunity argument through and through, but op is trying to mask the fact that they're just referring to "transmascs who disagree with me specifically" and make it look like it's part of a wider trend. and again, i'm not going to go into the nuances of transandrophobia here, but i highly recommend reading some of the theory on it by @nothorses (x) and @genderkoolaid (x) because the "theyre just trans MRAs" argument kinda just collapses under its own weight as soon as you look into it even a smidgen. i've linked a couple broad overviews there but they both discuss it frequently and in-depth, specifically nothorses has a pinned post linking to many different discussion threads that i would recommend checking out if you do want to learn more about what the actual conversation surrounding these words is.

so, after framing the movement this way, they go on to say that the reason predstrogen was banned wasn't /just/ because staff has a long and established hate boner for trans women, but because the transandrophobia movement was teaming up with TERFs to mass-report her and other transfemmes, and implies that this is part of a deliberate conspiracy between Transandrophobia Truthers™, TERFs, and staff. you'll notice that there are no, say, screenshots of transmascs saying theyre deliberately reporting her or of that they're working with TERFs, behind-the-scenes lists of people who reported a certain account, or any evidence for this beyond "she was a trans woman, they're trans men who hate trans women, she got banned, so these must be related". which i find especially funny now given that photomatt has continued melting down about this since it happened and made it pretty clear it yknow. was just part of staffs ongoing hate campaign against trans women that has been going on much longer than the transandrophobia debate? and that maybe the fact that The Literal CEO is having a personal meltdown about this might explain where that could be coming from or at least why it's been allowed to continue for so long, moreso than any individual users reporting someone could? but i digress.

who reported what account is completely unprovable as a casual user unless people directly admit they did it, so to bring it up like this begs the question of what actual reasoning they have for saying it beyond trying to tie a current display of bigotry into an unrelated discourse. that's not to say it's impossible people who discuss transandrophobia were wrongfully reporting her, because again, thats something we have no way of knowing, and the internet is a shit place so i wouldn't be surprised. but given the circumstances and the rest of the lies here, i have my doubts about this being an actual yknow. Thing That Happened rather than just another lie to make people mad at transmascs. now one could make the argument that op wasn't saying transmascs are /deliberately/ teaming up with TERFs/staff, that "teaming up" was just a poor choice of words to refer to multiple groups who happen to have the same goals in mind at the same time but aren't actually coordinating with one another, but given the deliberate misinformative slant of the rest of the post and the overall phrasing in this section, i have trouble extending that grace. regardless, however, that doesn't change that who is reporting who isn't something verifiable, so stating it here as a confirmed fact is disingenuous at the absolute best, and a lie chosen specifically because it's unprovable at worst. if op /does/ have proof that transmascs have been teaming up with TERFs to get trans women banned, not including that with this post is just uhhhhh dumb, and if op /doesn't/ have proof then Why Would You Go Around Telling People That's What Happened Unless You Were Lying To Them On Purpose With Ulterior Motives.

next, op goes on to discuss the rise of the term baeddel. now as i said before, the truth here is that it certainly was a slur and certainly can still be used as one, again the internet is a shit place so i would be a fool if i tried to say "no one is using this as a slur". however, this is once again a drastic misrepresentation of the situation. baeddel's rising use is due to certain trans women reclaiming it and aligning themselves with the original group's politics, namely that femininity is good and masculinity is bad (aka terfism 101), with the added caveat that by abandoning femininity for masculinity, transmascs are evil and betraying devine womanhood and their community by putting more Evil Manhood into the world. of course that in turn is a drastic oversimplification of their politics and i highly recommend checking out this post with an actual in-depth exploration of the history (and without my added flavor), but the important part to note here is that this is not a term transmascs just Started Using one day because they hate transfems so very much as is implied here, its use is directly tied to a group of people saying "hello, here is what i am, and here is what this word means about what i believe," so others went "ok, these specific beliefs are called this." bringing up the fact that it historically was a slur is misdirection here, when you look closer this is almost a 1 to 1 translation of TERFs crying that TERF and radfem are slurs because People Don't Like Their Politics And Therefore Them, so the name for their politics is used negatively, so therefore it's a slur. that argument just has a little more oomph behind it this time because It Was A Slur Originally. and again, that isnt to say no one is now using it as a slur, the rate of decay for online discourse is ridiculous so it being boiled down to and used as "evil transfemme" has certainly already happened, but to act like /every/ use of it is a slur is literally just a lie, when you self-identify with a term based on your shared politics with the original group then you do not get to claim everyone using that term to describe those politics is doing so exclusively to attack you. also this part is entirely speculation but given that op's url is basically just. baeddel switched around to dae bel, i would hazard a guess that they perhaps are indeed aware of the origins of its re-use? but again, that's entirely unprovable and based just on wordplay, but like. given the Everything here i wouldn't be surprised. now, there's definitely an argument to be made about calling users baeddels based just off of their politics when they don't personally self-identify with it, if that constitutes calling someone a slur and if TIRF should be used instead, but crucially, that is not the argument being made here. the argument being made is "ANY AND ALL use of this term is calling someone a slur," and that literally just Isn't The Case.

finally, to tie the whole post off, op reminds us 1) if you hear anything bad about any trans woman ever, it's probably a lie to make her look bad, and 2) if you hear anyone say anything about transandrophobia, disregard everything else they have to say because they hate trans women. not "be critical of the things you see or get sent" or "be on the lookout for things following a certain pattern," a unilateral "anything bad is probably fake and anyone who uses the bad words is probably evil." that is not something someone does if they are genuinely trying to raise awareness of an ongoing trend, that is what someone does when they want you to turn your brain off and be mad at a group no matter what they say.

so yeah, in summary, do be critical of the things you see and be on the lookout for certain patterns, because sometimes people will just Lie to you. or, sometimes people will tell you portions of the truth while leaving out crucial bits so that you'll come to the conclusion they want without anyone being able to say they lied to you without typing up a thirty paragraph long hell post. transmisogyny is absolutely a problem on this site and there are 100% valuable conversations to be had about it and its presence within the trans community, but this post is not that. this post uses real transmisogyny and the wrongful termination of a trans woman's account as set dressing to say that it was all because of evil transmascs who run the trans community behind the scenes conspiring to take out transfemmes, so you should ignore anything they have to say because All of it is secretly motivated by transmisogyny. they're never discussing transandrophobia because it's something that actually effects them, they're doing it to hurt trans women by saying they have it worse. they're never telling you about shitty things a trans woman did to spread awareness, they're lying to make her look bad, or even if it's true they're only talking about it as part of a hate campaign because she's trans, they wouldn't care otherwise. they're never using a specific term because People Use That Term For Themselves, they're calling someone a slur because they hate trans women. there's always an explanation you can think up that ties it back to transmisogyny, and op says that instead of assessing all of what someone says and the context behind it to determine if that's what's happening, you should assume transmisogyny is the answer and refuse to engage any further as soon as you see a word you've been told is bad.

this post is discourse recruitment masquerading as a public service announcement that doesn't offer you any routes to actually learn more about what's going on, it just tells you Here's What's Happening, Here's Who's Evil And Should Be Ignored, And If You Disagree You're Also Evil And Should Be Ignored. content of the actual post aside, i think anything framed that way should be taken with a MASSIVE grain of salt and this would have raised my alarm bells even if i wasn't already pretty familiar with the arguments, people who genuinely want you to know something just because it's good to know will give you options to learn more or encourage you to actually use your critical thinking to assess things, not tell you to sit down and shut up and ignore anyone who disagrees with them.

anyways i guess tldr

[kedreeva]

Sorry about the color mix up. I appreciate the reply and additional info! I guess bc I know nothing about peafowl (and the fact i dont breed any type of animal), I'm having a hard time understanding how being sterile would be unethical. I do somewhat get the shortened life span. I really would like to understand this, I just sometimes need stuff explained like I'm 5.

Up front, there's no "somewhat get" to a shortened lifespan being caused by a mutation in captive populations. If an animal is capable of living 20+ years (and some live 30+ or even 40+!) and some non-essential mutation is causing them to live 7-9 years, it's flat out absolutely unethical to breed that mutation, full stop, regardless of anything else going on. That's indicative of a MAJOR problem in their genetics. There's NO ethical reason to breed that because humans like how it looks. So, even without the sterility, these birds would 100% be unethical to produce.

The short answer on sterility is this: we don't know WHY they are sterile, but they shouldn't be, and that means something has gone wrong. When something goes wrong with an animal, and it's something genetic that can be passed on, the ONLY responsible and ethical thing for a breeder to do is to stop using that animal for breeding and closely monitor any already-produced offspring for signs of the problem, and likely not breed them, either.

The longer more complicated answer is this: sometimes it's possible to separate the problem from the aesthetic when it comes to morphs, like it was for cameo + blindness, but sometimes it's NOT, like it wasn't for spider + head wobble for ball pythons. In those instances, it's... difficult. Because you're LIKELY going to produce animals that suffer the same problem as their parent(s), in the attempt to separate the problem from the aesthetic, and sometimes that's ALL you're going to produce. As a breeder, it's your absolute responsibility to NOT release the offspring into the general population, where the problem may be replicated without control, and to keep or cull the affected individuals if the problem cannot be separated from the aesthetic, or AT BEST find them guaranteed pet-only homes that will NEVER breed them.

Sometimes the problem IS purely aesthetic or harmless, like it was for pied in peafowl, and sometimes it's not, like it was for vitiligo in peafowl. The problem comes when you ASSUME a mutation is the first, and treat it like the first when it's really the second. This has caused FAR reaching consequences in the peafowl community, and I'm sure in others, where now the autoimmune disease that first bronze had has been passed into genpop by folks who thought they were breeding a harmless new variation of pied. Hybrid animals are often sterile (not in peafowl though, hybrid cristatus-muticus birds are fertile) because of a mismatch in chromosome pairing numbers, and often that's harmless. So, in some cases sterility is not an issue because it's the expected result or is otherwise harmless... but in the case of peafowl, it's NOT an expected result and we don't know if it's caused by something harmless or not.

Some species, like mice and horses and cattle and dogs, genetic testing and DNA mapping done with millions of dollars has proven that while some stuff isn't purely aesthetic, it also doesn't cause harm to the animal in a way that affects quality of life or that can be adapted for in captive care. For example, in chickens, the frizzle gene causes curled feathers in single copy and an absence of feathers in double copy. This gene is considered ethical to produce IF the breeding is done responsibly by putting a single copy bird over a zero copy bird, which produces smooth coats and frizzle coats, but it is unethical to produce double frizzles (called "frazzles") because frazzles cannot thermoregulate, can easily sunburn, and easily suffer skin injury during normal chicken activity.

For peafowl, we have NO genetic testing. We do not have the genome mapped. As far as I know there's a research group working on it (mostly for green peafowl though, in conservation efforts), but that's not remotely finished or available to the public to test anything. We don't know where any of the morph mutations sit, or what is causing them or if they do anything beyond just change the color. Sometimes color mutations are the result of malfunctions in enzymes. For charcoal specifically, we don't know what the mutation does, besides what we can observe on the outside- the birds have half or less the lifespan of normal birds, poor feather quality, and the hens are sterile. Is the sterility harmless like it is in some hybrid animals, or is it actually a major organ failing? Is it the only major organ that fails due to this mutation, or is it just the first sign of their shortened lives? Is it some deficiency in something the birds need to be healthy? Does it hurt the bird? We don't know, but we do know the mutation and the problems (multiple, please do NOT forget that this is one OF MORE THAN ONE problems) can't be separated, and so until we do know why and whether it's harmless or not, the ONLY ethical response to seeing a problem in a major organ's function linked inextricably to a mutation in color is to not propagate that mutation. If someone wanted to fork over the millions it takes to sequence and map genomes and then determine exactly what is going on with peafowl, that would be nice and good, but I don't see that happening. When I win the lottery big, I'll be doing it, but til then we can only follow normal breeding guidelines

Also, to put this into perspective... peafowl mature sexually around 3 years old. They are chicks until the turn of the new year following their hatch. They are yearlings that year, and immature 2yo next year. They aren't actually considered fully grown until 6 years old, and should live another 14+ years. Charcoal birds die a 1-3 years after full maturity. Is it a coincidence that they fail to thrive shortly after full sexual maturity, or is it linked? Again, we don't know. We don't know if the sterility is fine or if it's just a symptom of something worse.

Even without the sterility, though, charcoal has enough issues it would be unethical. If it was JUST sterility, with no other deleterious effects, then maybe it would be different. But it's not.

[avonne-writes]

I’m curious why some people see Gale as this big intimidating guy. Like a scary biker or a macho bodyguard? To me he’s got this vulnerable aura around him, his delicate features (even his hands!) make him look like an angel, like that scene with the horse? Like your fallen angel au! He might seem closed off and aloof but that’s only because he’s trying to protect himself since no one else did that for him. Not to mention the size difference between him and Bucky makes me feel like John would be the tough protective figure between them, look at the size of John’s shoulders! Gale would be protective too but not in a I’ma smash some skulls way or people gonna see me and be scared way lol

I think there's space for a lot of interpretations, and it's always interesting to try to put a character into the actor's other roles, so I don’t think it's strange. A well-written AU probably has a nuanced character, so it's most likely explained why he appears this or that way or why he went into a tough profession. Plus Gale also has his own fire, albeit buried deep inside - look at him snapping at his copilot in ep 3.

But I know what you mean by vulnerable aura! I think it’s because we get to see him from John's perspective. Although not skull-smashing, but he might be intimidating from other people’s perspective. Take ep 3 again for example, he’s quite tough and maintains an air of calm and confidence in front of his crew, but once they're gone and it’s just John, Gale lets his walls drop and the vulnerability shine through. The same with the train scene in the last episode. He reassures Solly and acts like a leader figure, but towards John, he’s soft and allows his hurt and sadness to show.

You can practically see him switch:

And yes, it’s because he feels safe and loved when he's with John ❤️ He knows that John will always have his back. I agree that John is a protective figure, and it's true that his size makes him appear more intimidating. Yes, probably he would be the more loudly and obviously protective between them, but Gale has his own ways too.