#primary gender

[theriu]

Thinking about how every story where some guy travels across dimensions involves him meeting a bunch of himself with different unique traits, and then one of them is just “you but a girl.” And you know what, it would be frankly hilarious to me if there was a story where dude goes to other dimensions and every alternate version of him is a woman. Surprise, he is the token guy variant of a usually-female character. :D

[communistkenobi]

the more I read about contemporary homophobic laws globally the more it becomes apparent that there is basically a 1:1 direct relationship between whether a country was under historic British rule and how many anti-sodomy laws they currently have on the books. like I knew this in a general sense but not the staggering degree to which this was the case. and I know this probably isn’t really shocking especially given how insanely anti-trans the UK is right now but it’s kind of insane to see just how much homophobia is a comprehensively global export of the British

[biracy]

Hayden told me I should post this blame him. This one's for all the transgenders who just can't. Who don't want to

[dontmean2bepoliticalbut]

[boyfridged]

i’ve been thinking a lot about what is so unique and appealing about 80s robin jay’s moral standing that got completely lost in plot later on. and i think a huge part of it is that in a genre so focused on crime-fighting, his motivations and approach don’t focus on the category of crime at all. in fact, he doesn’t seem to believe in any moral dogma; and it’s not motivated by nihilism, but rather his open-heartedness and relational ethical outlook.

we first meet (post-crisis) jay when he is stealing. when confronted about his actions by bruce he’s confident that he didn’t do anything wrong – he’s not apologetic, he doesn’t seem to think that he has morally failed on any account. later on, when confronted by batman again, jay says that he’s no “crook.” at this point, the reader might assume that jay has no concept of wrong-doing, or that stealing is just not one of the deeds that he considers wrong-doing. yet, later on we see jay so intent on stopping ma gunn and her students, refusing to be implicit in their actions. there are, of course, lots of reasons for which we can assume he was against stealing in this specific instance (an authority figure being involved, the target, the motivations, the school itself being an abusive environment etc.), but what we gather is that jay has an extremely strong sense of justice and is committed to moral duty. that's all typical for characters in superhero comics, isn't it? however, what remains distinctive is that this moral duty is not dictated by any dogma – he trusts his moral instincts. this attitude – his distrust toward power structures, confidence in his moral compass, and situational approach, is something that is maintained throughout his robin run. it is also evident in how he evaluates other people – we never see him condemning his parents, for example, and that includes willis, who was a petty criminal. i think from there arises the potential for a rift between bruce and jay that could be, have jay lived, far more utilised in batman comics than it was within his short robin run.

after all, while bruce’s approach is often called a ‘philosophy of love and care,’ he doesn’t ascribe to the ethics of care [eoc] (as defined in modern scholarship btw) in the same way that jay does. ethics of care ‘deny that morality consists in obedience to a universal law’ and focus on the ideals of caring for other people and non-institutionalized justice. bruce, while obviously caring, is still bound by his belief in the legal system and deontological norms. he is benevolent, but he is also ultimately morally committed to the idea of a legal system and thus frames criminals as failing to meet these moral (legal-adjacent) standards (even when he recognizes it is a result of their circumstances). in other words, he might think that a criminal is a good person despite leading a life of crime. meanwhile, for jay there is no despite; jay doesn't think that engaging in crime says anything about a person's moral personality at all. morality, for him, is more of an emotional practice, grounded in empathy and the question of what he can do for people ‘here and now.’ he doesn’t ascribe to maxims nor utilitarian calculations. for jay, in morality, there’s no place for impartiality that bruce believes in; moral decisions are embedded within a net of interpersonal relationships and social structures that cannot be generalised like the law or even a “moral code” does it. it’s all about responsiveness. 

to sum up, jay's moral compass is relative and passionate in a way that doesn't fit batman's philosophy. this is mostly because bruce wants to avoid the sort of arbitrariness that seems to guide eoc. also, both for vigilantism, and jay, eoc poses a challenge in the sense that it doesn't create a certain 'intellectualised' distance from both the victims and the perpetrators; there's no proximity in the judgment; it's emotional.

all of this is of course hardly relevant post-2004. there might be minimal space for accommodating some of it within the canon progression (for example, the fact that eoc typically emphasises the responsibility that comes with pre-existing familial relationships and allows for prioritizing them, as well as the flexibility regarding moral deliberations), but the utilitarian framework and the question of stopping the crime vs controlling the underworld is not something that can be easily reconciled with jay’s previous lack of interest in labeling crime. 

[omegaverse-seeker]

I need different people takes on this:

Omegaverse illnesses.

I already saw some, like the greyrocking by pack-the-pack and the allolfactory syndrome (I don't remember the blog name) but I need more.

I want see more of this. What causes disease X? Does it affects any dynamic or just one in specific? Does it just affects pups or grown-ups too? Does it have a cure? What are the symptoms? What are the treatments?

In short: I want to see more omegaverse illnesses/medical takes.

To the person who sent this ask first, I'mma do a big post to talk about diseases and disorders.

I probably won't answer every question you are asking in your ask, but there will be a general idea of what each ailment entails.

Keep an eye out, I'll post it eventually.

[calamitys-child]

Something about like. Longitudinal dysphoria. Like it's well known at least in groups ive chatted to that a lot of people get dysphoria about stuff sorta one thing at a time, most commonly people who wanted top surgery but not bottom surgery getting rid of the primary focus of their dysphoria at their chest and deciding subsequently that they Do want lower surgery bc they are now more cognizant of that dysphoria. Like fork theory. Get the big fork out and you suddenly notice the little forks more. Anyway I'm at peace with my build and my chest, and I love my shit lil beard and body hair, and respect where my voice is at, and I don't want bottom surgery. I don't. I don't get dysphoria about the fact I have this anatomy, and I do not yearn for the results of that surgery at a level which outweighs the effort it would take to seek, undergo, recover from, and continue with the results of that surgery. I think what I Do always get dysphoria over is simply the Inconvenience. Having to wait to use a stall in the typical men's toilets one stall four urinals set up always always pisses me off (pun intended) purely because its so ANNOYING. My gender is man (inconvenient) and normally I get to play and enjoy and relish in that Inconvenience but every time I'm standing in a tiny public bathroom trying to stay out everyone's way bc I have to piss in the one (1) stall it fucks me off like. I've been on t for 3+ years when do I get to surpass this hurdle in my physical being (never without invasive surgery with an intense recovery for results I don't really want) like CMON man have I not put enough xp into transsexualism to be good at pissing at urinals yet. I deserve this for pure efficiency's sake if nothing else

[mommyashtoreth]

Okay goomenheads. Question:

[gucciguccigarbage]

I'm all for acknowledging that some types of bigotry are faced more or exclusively by certain subsets in a community but I also kinda think that you have lost the fucking plot entirely if you've put so much stock in the idea of "tma/tme" classification that you find yourself adding "tmes read this" as some sort of gotcha on a post about your experience with one of the most universal forms of transphobia there is / being mad rather than reassured when people point out youre not alone in that

Like it's very important to point out when something is transmisogyny rather than general transphobia, but sometimes it IS transphobia in general and we should all be able to commisserate.

[pied-piper-pluto]

freiren sounds so up my alley and the one thing that's holding me back from watching it is that I hate the costume designs.... this is not a freiren-exclusive problem i feel that way about most fantasy anime these days it just bothers me with freiren because otherwise i Want to watch it

[four-bastard-bustle]

"You say 'i want to be your girlfriend', but do you want to be my man?" is the singular lyric from my t/ordmatt toxic breakup playlist that drives me the most insane

[omegaverse-seeker]

Can you talk some about diseases in the omegaverse?

You've asked the best/worst person for this. I went to college for Public Health and Creative Writing, and this ask has piqued all my interests.

I am going to do a bigger post about this. It will take me a little time, but you'll see it eventually.

[rabbitindisguise]

After I talked to my housemates about it and found out this isn't common knowledge, I'm thinking about how some people don't know what "gay icon" means anymore. Which makes tons of sense because it's more intuitively "person who is famous and gay." It's just that historically it means "person who gay people tend to flock to" but because people have come out of the closet more "popular celebrities who are openly gay" are a thing now which makes the intuitive definition sound more reasonable

Examples of gay icons:

Dorothy from the wizard of Oz/Judy Garland

Madonna

Cher

Lady Gaga

Mariah Carey

Brittany Spears

Oscar Wilde

Freddy Mercury

Diana, princess of Wales

The golden girls

And yes, including:

Taylor Swift

I wish the lesbians thirsting after Taylor Swift- and other gays that like her music- a very "hope you get a new album soon"

[elliegoose]

the most annoying part about the discourse around the "tme" and "tma" labels--aside from the fact that most posts i see about it are essentializing as hell, and seem to treat trans womanhood as this singular, metaphysically and objectively defined experience that cannot possibly overlap with or be compared to the gendered experiences of anyone else who isn't transfeminine, even other trans people--is that whenever someone correctly points out that when almost everyone in a space is trans being obligated to disclose whether you fit the "tme" label or "tma" label is essentially just being obligated to disclose birth assignment, people reply "well cis people can't be tma so actually you're just a transmisogynist" as if that is actually responding to the objection rather than completely ignoring and dismissing it.

it's already imo bad gender analysis to insist that the labels we wear carry so much weight that other queer people who aren't trans women are not even allowed to highlight the similarities between transmisogyny and how they're treated by the patriarchy as well. it's straight up intellectually dishonest to pretend that in trans spaces, putting everyone into a binary of tme/tma and making people disclose where they lie on that binary is anything other than invasive and pressuring people to disclose birth assignment.

[uncanny-tranny]

The whole "sex is gender" crowd really gets to me because there is a fundamental lack of understanding what sex is in people.

Sex is not just primary sex characteristics, and I question why it is seen as such. Do you really demand to see if somebody has the primary sex which you deem "appropriate" every time you need to gender somebody? No, most often you will look for markers in a person's secondary sex characteristics (that is if you assume people's gender, or don't ask).

If sex is gender, then I can tick off the boxes where I fit the "male" marker (which will almost completely male). But, at the end of the day, it isn't about the idea that sex matters (well, primary sex characteristics, anyway). This argument is using scientific wordage in order to weasel out of respecting trans people.