#just because you are privileged in some ways doesn't mean you won't be discriminated against in others

[hjartasalt]

Saw someone on tiktok yesterday talking about "the cons of pretty privilege" and then just mentioned like, having to go to multiple job interviews and often not being taken seriously by men in her profession? I'm sorry but that is just regular misogyny like you're treated that way because you're a woman not because you're conventionally attractive

[junequeer]

I watched fdsignifier's video on the manosphere a while ago, and it's changed how I look at identity politics and discourse.

He makes the argument that we as a society tend to look at straight, white, cis men as the 'default' experience, but maybe we should instead look at it as an intersection of identities, the way we do with minorities. Instead seeing straight white cis men as the 'control group' to base all other identities and experiences off of, we should look at it as a cross-section of those things--straight, white, and cis as separate things that come together to form a person's experience. The same way we use intersectionality to understand a black queer woman's experience and identity.

And maybe this feels like a rebranded "white men are the most oppressed class" argument, but really, I think (and fdsignifier says) that seeing straight, cis, white men as the Default actually makes other intersectionality less effective. He also talks a lot about how the lack of support and understanding for straight, cis, white men as a class or identity leads to things like mass shooters, but I won't be talking about that (please watch his videos they're amazing)

But I think this leads into the discourse around trans men and transandrophobia.

The idea that straight, white, and cis mean are the Default experience, the un-oppressed experience, means that it is impossible to be oppressed for any of those things. Taking it further, a lot of people seem to act like being straight, white, cis, or a man cannot inform or influence someone's internal identity. It is the 'blank slate,' the thing you are before you know what you are. And if you stay that way, well... you are the Oppressor, and that is the only identity a lot of people seem to assign you. So the idea of trans men being oppressed is ridiculous and insulting, because being a Man is the Default. It is the Oppressor State, not an identity that influences your life in anyway other than rewarding privilege.

But if you take these things as being separate identities, as being separate aspects that intersect, then things change. If straight, white, cis, and man are all separate things that intersect to make a person's life experience, then we're able to see things with more nuance.

It's no longer "Man is an impressive class" and more "Men have a life experience explicitly informed by their maleness, the external perception of maleness that the world perceives, and the cross-section of other identities changes and informs this experience of maleness."

I just think a lot of misunderstanding about trans men-specific discrimination and transphobia would be cleared up if people stopped acting like being a man is the default, net zero, non-reactive identity.

Being a straight, white, cis man is not the default. It is not a yard stick to measure all other experiences against. It is it's own intersection of identities, with it's own experiences. And this means that changing some of those things--not being straight, or not being white, or not being cis--fundamentally changes the experience. And to act like it doesn't, acting like just being a man is close enough, you are ignoring reality. If identities are chemicals reacting to each other, then it's changing one of the chemicals and saying that the results should be the same.

It isn't.

[nothorses]

hey uh random question about a post i saw earlier- asking you this because you're more or less a reputable source but uh are trans mra an actual thing or closer to hyperbole. what I'm trying to say is i saw a post (by someone i won't reveal now because i don't wanna start shit up but i could tell you in another ask if you wanted to) that compared a post on discrimination men face in their daily lives (trans men weren't specified but op's url left no doubt about that) to MRA and was also tagged "#transandrodorks" so uh yeah !

asking cause i wanna hear both sides on this issue and all. the person who made that post has made more than a few iffy statements about trans men so yeah. my current stance is that transandrophobia is helpful in describing the specific oppression transmascs face, such as hard-to-access reproductive care

have a good time of day

If there are actual "trans MRAs", I haven't met them. I have, however, definitely been accused of being one!

A short list of things people have accused me of being a "trans MRA" for:

Saying male privilege was not designed to include trans men, and if it can, it excludes us.

Saying trans men, as a class, do not posses privilege on the basis of being trans men.

Saying trans men have higher rates of lifetime sexual assault and suicide than trans women do (a real statistic repeated across several individual studies) though trans women have higher rates of other forms of violence and marginalization.

Saying trans men experience discrimination that is unique to trans men.

Talking about Baeddels, just like, in general.

Using the word "transandrophobia".

Saying testosterone does not turn people into horrible monsters.

Talking about Joan of Arc's relationship to masculinity and the possibility of transness.

Defending trans women and discussing transmisogyny as a real issue that must be dealt with.

Some of it's been from transfemmes, and some of it's been from TERFs, but the vast majority of the people who have said this have been cis women.

That's not to say there aren't transmascs who make shitty arguments or say and do shitty things- aside from the fact that that's just true of any group, in general, I have also seen transmascs who get misogynistic or transmisogynystic in their arguments for the existence of transandrophobia.

But this isn't unique to us, either. Baeddelism is an entire movement built around transfems getting horribly transphobia toward both trans men and nonbinary people as a whole in their arguments for the existence of transmisogyny. Does that mean it doesn't exist? Does that mean all transfems who believe in transmisogyny are like this?

Obviously not.

There are always going to be people who take these things too far, who use real issues and useful concepts as bludgeons against groups that should be- and are- our allies.

We need to make it clear we don't condone that and we don't want to be associated with that, but we also can't be held responsible for that as an entire demographic. It's unfair to associate us with it anyway, despite the work we do to make our separation clear.

And I'd be super suspicious of anyone trying to discredit the concept of an entire marginalized group experiencing unique marginalization just because some of the voices in there might be, or are, using that concept the wrong way. Transmascs shouldn't have to be a flawless group of perfect individuals in order for any of us to be believed when we talk about our lived experiences.

[lananiscorner]

hi! I totally agree with your post, that it's bad to dismiss mental illness depending on privilege, but intersectionality is probably not the word you want to use! (intersectionality is about recognizing racial realities in a racist system, most specifically to empower black women because they are one of the most disempowered groups.) hopefully this doesn't come across as aggressive, it's just some words in social justice discussion have important meaning and I think it's good to respect that! thank you!

Thanks for your ask, anon, but, frankly, I disagree. That is not *all* of intersectionality. It is a *part* of intersectionality and where the analytical framework came from, but it is not all of it. Intersectionality at its core is just "there are different axis of oppression/privilege, such as race, ethnicity, age, gender, physical/mental disability, class, religion etc. and these all play together to create a system of advantages/disadvantages, rather than a person only being affected by a single one of them".

The idea that you can be privileged in one way, yet oppressed in another (e.g. a white woman) is one of the core ideas of intersectionality, because looking at these specific aspects of personhood (race and gender) as individual yet interconnected is what allows to distinguish different levels/expressions of oppression (e.g. both white women and black women suffer under sexist patriarchical societal norms, but white women have privilege where black women don't).

The feminist movement (and particularly issues faced by black women) is where this analytical framework came from, but it is by no means the only place this framework is applicable.

Dimitri's case is one that can be analyzed from an intersectional perspective, because *everyone's* case can be analyzed from an intersectional perspective. Let's say there are the following axis of oppression in Faerghus:

male vs female

rich vs poor

noble vs commoner

crested vs uncrested

able bodied vs disabled

mentally healthy vs suffering from MI

citizen of Faerghus vs foreigner

I specifically do not mention race/skin color here, because at least in FE3H every single instance of a foreigner being discriminated against is... because they are a foreigner, not because they're darker skinned, and there are light-skinned foreigners who face suspicion and potentially discimination in the game (Shamir), just as much as there are "darker than average" skinned Fodlanders who face none (Catherine). Also, for some reason tumblr won't let me format that list above as bullet points/numbered, but whatever.

Anyway, let's say those are the seven axis of oppression in Faerghus. Intersectionality means recognizing that while these are individual axis, they do intersect--they are not seven lines stacked neatly on top of each other to form one line and they are not floating in some nebulous space wholly disengaged from each other. Dimitri is 6 : 1 on the advantaged : disadvantaged scale here, although you could argue that the strength his crest bestows him actively poses a physical challenge to him, so while being crested and able bodied puts him as advantaged in those regards, in daily life having his crest and the strength that comes from it actually disadvantages him frequently (Dimitri comments multiple times on how he often accidentally breaks things).

Outside of an intersectional framework, these distinctions would not exist. Outside of intersectionality, you'd either look at Dimitri and go "male, rich, noble, crested, able bodied guy from Faerghus obviously doesn't have problems" or "yes he is mentally ill, but all the other stuff doesn't have anything to do with that". Intersectionality is saying "yes, he is all of those things and that means *his* struggle with MI is going to be different than say... a Duscur commoner's struggle with MI [hi, Dedue!], because the Duscur commoner ALSO has to deal with discrimination for being from Duscur and the financial constraints/anxiety/etc. that come from being poor, which is not gonna help dealing with the MI, so while both a poor man from Duscur and Dimitri are mentally ill, Dimitri's experience with this disadvantage and all the systemic issues that might entail (Fodlan does not really seem to have therapists?) is very different from that of the Duscur commoner."

And that's it. That right there is intersectionality. But the basis to understanding intersectionality is to understand that someone can be oppressed in one way and privileged in others, that those two things are not mutually exclusive, and that's what people who devalue Dimitri's experience with MI because he's an absolute monarch, as if rich and powerful people cannot ever possibly have problems, are missing.

Anyway, TLDR: "intersectionality" is an analytical framework that has its origin in black feminism, but that doesn't mean that black feminism is the only place where we can and should apply it.

[midorree]

How (I Think) Quirk-based Discrimination Works In BNHA

I've seen a lot of claims about how people interpret the quirk-based discrimination from an ableism allegory (not quite) to actually comparing it to Jim Crow laws, which is completely out of pocket. Quirk based discrimination in BNHA is very unique, especially with quirks not existing for very long in the grand scheme of things. Trying to compare it to existing forms of discrimination (that, mind you, exist in the fucking show) is simply put, not accurate in the slightest. Racism has existed for long enough for it to be embedded into our everyday lives and systems. Ableism has existed long enough that it affects how we view disabled people as people and how doctors view their disabled patients. Quirk-based discrimination has not.

PART 1: Comparing and Contrasting: Ableism

I've had this conversation a couple times with my friends, and typically we find that ableism doesn't match up with qbd. First and foremost, let's define a disability.

[Image ID: disability: a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities. A disadvantage or a handicap, especially one imposed or recognized by the law. End Image ID]

Quirkless people do not meet this standard definition unless they are already disabled. Being quirkless does not limit movements, senses, or activities in any way shape or form. Being quirkless is not a hindrance in every day life when it comes to these specific criteria.

But why would people thing that being quirkless is the same as being disabled? Let's take a look at accommodations and accessibility.

In the BNHA universe, quirks have existed for long enough that people with mutation quirks that alter their body significantly can comfortably buy clothes as seen with Shoji in some occasions.

[Image ID: Shoji is wearing baggy, patterned pants tucked into laced boots and is wearing a tank top. End ID]

He is able to buy shirts with bigger sleeve holes rather than having to fix his clothing so that he may be able to wear it himself. This is also seen with UA making a uniform so that he can fit without him having to work excessively for it.

[Image ID: Shoji wearing UA uniform. The uniform has no sleeves. End ID]

Why does this matter? Because Shoji is a perfect example of how small accommodations for people mutation quirks exists idly in the BNHA universe. Everyone has a different quirk and require different accommodations, and with Quirkless people, when it comes to buying clothes, or walking up steps, or going comfortably to a restaurant it's never a problem! Assuming they are able-bodied/neurotypical, they truly won't have a problem with getting by in day to day life.

However, there is one thing I will say is similar to ableism in this aspect: how doctors would treat quirkless people. With the opening episodes/chapters of BNHA we see firsthand how a doctor treats a child who is quirkless. Uncaring, cold, and straight to the point as to let them down as hard as they can saying "you might as well get used to it." The doctor had little to no belief that Izuku would become a hero, saying that he should pursue other careers instead. It's not a perfect match up, but I'd say in my personal experience it's pretty similar.

PART 2: Racism in BNHA

I'm not going to dwell long on this one because it's frankly very tone deaf and not very thought out to be comparing qbd to actual racism.

[Image ID: White text on a black background that states: What was worse, he would now be forces to keep his family from visiting or even living in America. It was never talked about openly, but the way quirkless were treated in the States came very close to how they handled different races with the Jim Crow laws of the past. He would never subject his Izuku to that kind of hatred. End Image ID]

There's a lot to unpack here, but let me preface this by saying this: qbd and centuries upon centuries of racial discrimination are not the same thing, especially considering racism exists in the show/manga itself. Big Yikes.

Let's start by defining what Jim Crow laws were.

[Image ID: Jim Crow laws were a collection of state and local statutes that legalized racial segregation. Named after a Black minstrel show character, the laws—which existed for about 100 years from the post-Civil War era until 1968—were meant to marginalize African Americans by denying them the right to vote, hold jobs, get an education or other opportunities. Those who attempted to defy Jim Crow laws often faces arrest, fines, jail sentences, violence and death. End Image ID]

So lets make a hypothetical and say quirkless people were treated like this. Okay, what would be an identifying factor in discrimination? Would quirkless people have to tell employers their quirk status? Possibly. Would the right to vote be revoked? Due to what? Would they be held back in educational places? Why would they be?

There are too many unanswered questions as to why these things would happen. The Jim Crow laws happened due to white entitlement after the enslavement of an entire race. Qbd happens because of inherent power dynamics (which I will get into later), and while racial discrimination has that factor, it has existed way longer and is more prevalent in society. What if a quirkless person was a quirkless person of color? Think on that.

There are also heroes of color that exist in the show, and racist caricatures of people of color.

[Image ID: Pro Hero: Native with a shocked expression and some sweat dripping down his face. End Image ID]

This fucker right here.

The BNHA universe has existing racism in and out of canon, seeing as the black/brown characters are underrated outside of the show, and microaggressed within the show.

PART 3: Kacchan vs Deku 3: How Did Deku Being Quirkless Affect Their Relationship And Why?

The line "not all men are created equal" really stuck with me while writing and thinking about this meta. Deku has understood and worked through social dynamics and understandings since he was four years old. He's understood that since he's quirkless, people with quirks hold power over him that he can't defend himself against. He understands this, and chooses to roll with the punches.

Bakugou also very much understands how social dynamics work, and chooses to use it to his advantage. He bullies Deku as a boast of power rather than a boast of privileged. It's been drilled into young Katsuki's head that quirkless people are weak, and that he is strong, His teachers are seen encouraging this behavior and the adults around him tend to not view him as a person, but as an existing beam of potential. Propaganda probably exists even in his Sunday cartoons. The strongest people he looks up to all have quirks, and he makes that correlation of quirk = strong at a very young age. He learns that quirkless ≠ strong. A part of me feels like this is intentional.

Izuku being quirkless would put him at the bottom of the food chain, in a sense, and anyone who had a quirk would be listened to more than he ever would. Izuku learned that not all men are equal because of the inherent power dynamics that come with having the ability to fly, or create explosions, or use fucking fire and ice on command, because he realizes he will never be stronger than Kacchan (at least for now). Even Izuku's idols who he considered to be strong and amazing and admirable were people with quirks. People with power over him.

When Izuku got OFA, the playing field shifted, and Katsuki was afraid and confused. Just because Izuku got a quirk, that doesn't mean Katsuki's view on quirkless people changed. We don't know if it did because its never addressed. He has made significant character development and is working to atone with Deku, but would that still happen if Deku had stayed quirkless? We don't know.

PART 4: Conclusion

The BNHA fandom has a lot of views on how qbd might work, but these are just my thoughts. These are all my opinions and if you'd like to add something feel free to! I just hate the fact that qbd is being compared to actual racism when that just doesn't apply and wanted to weigh in my two cents. Qbd, in my opinion, is all about power dynamics and how easily that can be abused.

[fireemblems24]

I am so glad you pointed out the imperialist vibes Edelgard has sometimes. As someone who lives in a country who was basically occupied ahem conquered because they said "we have better ideas that will improve your lives" and had our culture absolutely shattered, one of the main reasons why I disagree with Edelgard so much is because of that. She thinks her point of view is superior and the most morally right and I really don't like it whenever she sounds so confused about people defending their homeland. Especially that one line she has with Dimitri in Chapter 17 ffffff—

Like, girl, they have the fucking right to disagree with you please stop sounding so confused as to why they can't see eye to eye with you gahhhhh

I would be more tolerant with the war if she had say, did diplomacy before it? But she tried to had Dimitri and Claude killed in Part I (the prologue). I would also understand her better if the war was a last resort and the other leaders were corrupt and all that. But they're not. Many of the students (who have power because many are noble heirs) outside her house are heavily affected by the nobility and Crests (Sylvain, Ingrid, Mercedes, Lysithea, etc.) or at least understanding of the problems caused by them (Dimitri). It's so frustrating how so much of this can be prevented if she just talked about it.

Also, to those who said she wants the change to be quick, even with war it won't be. The fucking war basically caused continent-wide damage. It's going to be so hard to actually fix this. Hell, there's definitely going to be an eventual rebellion by former Kingdom / Alliance people or sympathisers. It's not going to be as clean cut as the game or some pro-Edelgard people make it to be. Not everyone is going to agree with her, whether she takes over or not. She just destroyed the stability of the continent and while yes, she can rebuild it again, it will still take time and who's to say future leaders won't be corrupt? Also, a hierarchy will always exist, whether she likes it or not. Especially if she plans to set up a meritocracy. Meritocracy is going to usually end up giving power and privilege to those with already pre-existing privilege as they the opportunity to show off their merits or develop those skills. Poor and disabled people are going to have difficulty as they don't have equal opportunity to develop skills and accomplish stuff. I'm generalising, but it just ends up as a hierarchy, again. Not only that, it also has ways to enforce discrimination.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is, she needs to long term plan out her systems. I apologise since I have bad memory but as far as I remember, the game doesn't give us too many details on how she wants to establish her system. All I remember is she does the war > Church / Rhea out of power > Establish her government > ???. Someone please clear this up for me because I'm confused.

...and again really, diplomatic reforms are an option. Yes, they're much more tedious. Yes, they take so much more longer. Yes, sometimes it feels impossible to accomplish. But did she not even consider it as an option?

All in all, I do like Edelgard. But I really wish the game let us go against her while we're with her? I wish it wasn't just general "agree with Edelgard" for CF. I remember someone pointing it out to me before that it would've been really great if she had someone in her house who does the same role Felix does in AM... which is basically disagree and call out the lord's shit. And they pointed out Ferdinand could've probably been that character for CF. And I kinda agree? I really think CF would immensely improve if Edelgard had a challenger / foil to her beliefs similar to how Felix does that for Dimitri.

Anyway, sorry for the very long ask lol. I like Edelgard and I agree with some of her morals and ideals such as the crest system being bad but....she's done so dirty asdfghjkl. I do think she's written well enough to incite these emotions in me, and she makes for a good antagonist. As a protagonist lord however.... yeah.

First off, sorry it took so long to respond, but I wanted to give an equally throughout response. 

While I haven’t gotten to chapter 17 yet, I can attest to the notion that Edelgard’s rhetoric is eerily similar to Imperialist propaganda. I do understand this is fiction, and that it’s okay to hand-wave/enjoy things in fiction that you shouldn’t or wouldn’t in real life. Crimson Flower has its charms and parts I enjoy. Edelgard is an interesting character more hampered by things that plague Three Houses as a whole than anything else, but it’s still worth examining how dangerous her rhetoric is. Because, unlike you, my country sits at the opposite end - the Imperialist nation selling that rhetoric to its citizens, and, unfortunately, at the time I bought it - which makes me really sensitive to this. 

I’m from the US and I’m specifically speaking about the US’s invasion of the Middle East. I was in middle or high school, just barely a teenager, and naive and ignorant enough to believe what my leaders said. Because guess what? I bought into it out of misplaced and ignorant (and racist) compassion. I was horrified at the idea these people were suffering unfairly just because of where they were born whereas I got all these promised privileges just because of where I was born. I really thought the US would go in there and give them democracy and everything would be great. Looking back, I realize they were lying, that we’ve only made things worse, that it’s horribly racist to assume the US was just inherently better, and I’ve sense then gained access to fast-speed internet, traveled, matured, etc . . . and thankfully this all happened before I had any actual power to do anything like vote. But to this day I’m beyond pissed off they used my own compassion against me to line their own pockets. It was ignorant and racist, but it was all based in concern that others didn’t have the same quality of life I had and a growing realization of my own privilege. And that’s what I hate so much. It didn’t sound evil. It sounded good. It used people’s good will and compassion against them and twisted it into evil for their own causes. 

I don’t think Edelgard is after Faerghus and the Alliance because she wants oil. I think she honestly thinks she’s doing good. And, if this were real life, I think that makes her rhetoric even more dangerous than a corrupt politicians’.  Because everything else is still the same. She’s being ignorant, nationalist instead of racist in this case, and honestly thinks her moral superiority will improve everyone’s lives even if it means ravaging the entire content in war. She is dangerously naive and ignorant. 

Maybe I’d support her more morally if I believed for an instant the general populace welcomed the changes she wants to bring, if the leaders she fought against weren’t open and wanting change themselves, ect . . . But the dialogue indicated her presence inspires people running and screaming in terror, not welcoming her presence (see the chapter where you kill Claude). The Kingdom is still fighting tooth and nail against her. She’s not supported. Her changes aren’t wanted. And she hasn’t bothered to learn a single thing about the cultures she’s determined to squash under her heal nor the leaders heading them. 

I also think I’d support her better if we had a clearer idea of what her plans were. But CF has shifted from Edelgard speaking about interesting ideas and classism to evil dragon overlords and chastising Byleth for making her blush. The decision to side with her or Rhea is not choosing between two ideals, but an emotional, spur of the moment thing. Edelgard’s early supports with Byleth attempt to convince the player to side with her not based on political ideals, but on feeling sorry for her. 

CF gives you no choice but to agree with everything Edelgard says (as you said, there’s no “Felix” or a “Lorenz”). It wants you to support her war without question, and therefore you don’t get any answers to questions like - if this is really just about Rhea, why are we invading the Alliance? Because they won’t hand power over to you? Why didn’t you just stick to the Empire to enact your changes? In the end, you’re left with what sounds more and more like an entitled Imperialistic princess with absolutely no idea how ignorant she is hell bent on conquering what she thinks belongs to her based on a conspiracy theory. 

All that said, I do think Edelgard has interesting ideas and isn’t wholly wrong, just how she goes about it is horribly wrong. And I fully believe the core issue is how CF has dropped the ball big time writing wise, because diving deeper into her ideas and not her crush on you would go a long way. So would shifting the narrative away from evil boogey dragon lady must die and everyone else is wrong and I am superior and right and more towards a clashing of ideals, this route could’ve been a lot more and seemed a lot less ignorant, naive, entitled, and Imperialistic. 

[batfamfucker]

I have never understood the argument that trans people literally just living their lives and transitioning to become who they've always truly been is sexist. "It takes us back 100 years" NO IT FUCKING DOESN'T!!! TRANS PEOPLE MERELY FUCKING EXISTING DOES NOT ENDANGER FEMINISM!!! Stop making it about you. Women who were assigned male at birth are not fucking misogynistic for fucking transitioning and stating so is transphobic. You are not brave, you are not raising awareness of a 'terrible issue', and you are not a true feminist if you agree with JKR on any of this. JKR is not a hero, she is not some God send who's 'finally standing up for women during this misogyny', she is a transpbobe who is being protected by bigots, wealth, and childhood nostalgia because some people don't want to believe that the books they grew up reading were written by someone with a moral compass made of such cheap fucking plastic it could break with even the slightest of insecurity.

The term "People who menstrate" is not sexist, it is not taking anything away from cis women, it's just inclusive to trans men and non-binary people. Stop saying shit like 'if you menstrate you're a WOMAN' or 'only women menstrate' because, not only is that trans erasure, but it proves that you do not believe trans men to be real men, or trans women to be real women, or even some fucking cis women to be real women because guess fucking what!!! Some cis women don't menstrate!!! For a variety of reasons!!! That doesn't fucking mean they ain't women though does it???

Stop hiding behind fake feminism to support your transphobia the way that fake 'Christians' hide behind religion to support racism, homophobia, etc. That trick is getting old.

Feminism was created to allow women to be equal to men, but, like every movement, it had evolved and adapted to become more inclusive due to the needs within society through different time periods. Modern feminism is not just about women being equal, it's about everyone being equal and no one being discriminated against due to gender inequality, that includes women, non binary folk, and men. And before some of you @ me by saying men are not oppressed, I understand they have significant privilege, but can you look me in the eye and tell me that men don't also have unrealistic standards placed on them, that toxic masculinity is not a thing, and that society does not expect things from men that are unfair and unjust just because they are men? Hell, me even having to make a post about this issue proves my point because ya'll won't even keep your mind open for two fucking seconds to realise that trans men are real men, and having gender neutral terms for menstruation is vital to ensure that they feel safe and accepted within our society, it is not women erasure to support trans people, but claiming it is is fake feminism.

And if you're so opposed to fighting for men too, as this suggests you may be, then go ahead and fight for just women. But if you're going to do that, fight for ALL women. INCLUDING trans women. Not just white, cis, straight women. If you clearly care about all women, as you claim to from the glass pedestal you've put yourself on, show it by actually fucking supporting ALL women. That means trans women, that means queer women, that means women of colour, and women who have other religions beliefs than your own. I better see you supporting black lives matter and black women, I better see you standing up against the dangerous stereotypes that Muslim women face, I better see you fighting against homophobic dealth penalties in countries where being gay is still illegal and punishable by death for queer women, ect. Fight for these women the way they have fought for you, for the way trans women have fought for you, even as you still fight against them. We're on the same side so why the fuck are you fighting them? You've got the wrong target.

If you want equality, then fucking prove it by fighting for equality for all women, not just equality for you. Because let's be honest, you don't actually care about people's rights unless they're your own, that's what this is really about.

So to JKR, and anyone who 'stands with JKR', with all due respect, of which you are due none, fuck off. Just fuck off. Take your 'subtle' transphobia and your fake ass 'feminism' and keep it away from me. Stop making this about you, I know some of you are bored during quarantine but you can't seriously be desperate enough to start the pettiest beef for even an ounce of the putiful attention you crave. Grow the fuck up, mind your own business, and stop dragging trans people when you have literally nothing to do with their lives, because, shockingly, their lives do not revolve around you. Find something actually meaningful to do with your life, travel the world, follow your dream career, maybe even write a book. Or, maybe, don't, because if you're supprting JKR, I can only imagine how it'd turn out. Don't want to let another generation of kids down when they realise the author's a terf now, do we?