#so sex is also a socially constructed divider

[mxtxfanatic]

There’s something to be said about how gender is weaponized in tgcf. Like, the gods can transform between different physical genders, but their powers aren’t divided into “girl weak, boy strong.” Ling Wen is more powerful in her male form because her followers worship her as a male god. The Brocade Immortal forces her into her male form when she wears it not because that affords it more martial skill and power but because it can’t handle being pressed against the female form of the woman it loves. Shi Qingxuan is the opposite: his female form is more powerful because he is worshipped as a female god, and he enjoys that. The gods go between their forms depending on which one brings the most benefit, making gender into a weapon.

Then we have Xie Lian who, though never physically transforming into a female form, repeatedly and successfully uses people’s gender assumptions as a shield. He makes himself into a bride as to not use an innocent civilian as bait to catch a ghost, and he later disguises himself as a mother to hide from the crowd of cultivators. Because his enemies in both cases perceived women as weak and fragile, the ghost bride did not think to see if Xie Lian was a threat, and the cultivators were embarrassed at having barged in on a “defenseless woman” dressing with her “child.” The shield of “woman” allowed Xie Lian to fool his enemies and complete his goals in both cases.

Anyways, just thought this was cool.

[genderkoolaid]

(different person than last anon) can you give us like actual scientific papers that "nonhumans" are real and not just ppl that need a lot of psychological help? bc like while gender + sex can be very diverse and change w the individual, species is extremely specific and thats why shit like making crossbreeds is so insanely hard and they usually end up infertile bc the genes arent meant to be combined. n also the only example i can think of of any other species having "i am not the species i was born as" thoughts is that one female monkey that was raised so close w people she thought she was a person and she would refuse to breed w any of her primate species bc of it. you would call that mental illness in that monkey because she cannot be a person in a monkey body, just like someone can't be a dog or angel or horse in a human body, so why do you not consider being "nonhuman" also a mental illness?

can you please explain about alterhumanity? I don’t mean to be negative, I don’t understand… “there are only two sexes” is wrong because biology knowledge we have today actually doesn’t support that. did modern taxonomy find out something similar about humans? that’s very interesting, I don’t know a lot about it! but if you do I’d love to read that research!

So I think "there are only two sexes" isn't the best example; the comparison is more like "people can't change their gender because gender is whats in your pants"

Yes, we can look at chromosomes and hormones and sexual organs, and that stuff is related to gender. But to say "gender/sex is a construct" does not mean "chromosomes/hormones/sex organs don't exist." Its pointing out that our relationship to those things is culturally dependent (I wouldn't say "unnatural" because humans making social constructs is natural).

Similarly, we do divide up species based on reproduction and common ancestors. But "humanity" is also a construct. What it means to be human & who is defined as human can and does change depending on our culture. Not only can some people be excluded from humanity (for example, people of color and neurodivergents), but some people believe they are spiritually nonhuman (whatever that means for them). Some people who have been rejected from humanity identify as alterhuman as a way of saying "you don't want me, then I don't want you" (voidpunk is related to this although not inherently alterhuman). Some people are delusional and identify with alterhumanity as a way of coping with their delusions (and also, yes, you can be self-aware about your delusions). Some people believe in reincarnation or alternate universes or have some other spiritual belief related to being nonhuman. Some people just feel like dogs and enjoy being a dog and it doesn't matter why because they just like it.

Honestly, the monkey does sound like a monkey-version of alterhuman, because (if I can get a little anthropomorphize-y on y'all), it sounds like she did not feel apart of "monkey culture." Obviously we can't know if monkeys have a concept of monkey-hood like we do with humanity, but if they did it would not be hard to imagine how a monkey raised with humans would feel more human than monkey. But regardless... we don't need other species to have alter-species-hood for the same reason we don't need snails to crossdress for trans people to exist. Other animals probably don't have the same complex. abstract social constructs we do.

Why can't someone be a horse in a human body? For the same reason someone can't be a man in a woman's body- because "science says"? Both trans-denial and alterhuman-denial emphasizes biology over sociological investigation, which leads people to just keep shouting "but science!!!!!!!!!!" at people who are more invested in questions of culture and constructs and what it means to be [man/woman/human] in society.

(Also, I'm kind of uncomfortable with how the first ask talks about mental illness. Specifically "person believes harmless weird thing, so they must need Psychological Help for their Wrong Thoughts")

[identitty-dickruption]

I feel like tumblr's analysis of the social model of disability would be more coherent if the impairment–disability divide was more broadly understood so I'm going to do my best to briefly summarise that!

before I launch into this, I just want to make a few caveats:

the social model is not my preferred model of disability. I am way more into the political-relational model

I don't necessarily subscribe to the impairment–disability divide in full, and I have my own critiques of it

BUT nothing pains me more than seeing people critique a model I dislike whilst arguing that the model is saying something that it isn't actually saying. so here we go: the impairment–disability divide!

once upon a time, a feminist called Judith Butler (building on the work of Simone de Beauvoir) wrote a book claiming that "sex" and "gender" were separate categories, where sex is natural and gender is social (I, an intersex person, largely disagree with these definitions but that's a different story). she argued that, while the category of gender is usually based on the category of sex, separating the two categories from each other allows for more nuanced cultural analysis

in the late 1970s and early 1980s, a group of disability scholars in the UK read this work and thought that it could be roughly reworked in such a way that it could also apply to disability. HENCE the impairment–disability divide. to them, "impairment" refers to the natural state of having a disability (e.g. not being able to see/hear, not being able to walk, experiencing hallucinations, etc). "disability" refers to the social meanings given to those impairments (e.g. being Deaf)

this is the context that the social model was born into in 1983 by Mike Oliver. he never claimed that disability is 100% social in the way many people would conceive of "disability". he would not agree with claims that disabilities and impairments are completely socially constructed. instead, he was arguing that "disability" is only a coherent category because of various features of social and built environments. he thought that people wouldn't have as much of a need to identify as disabled if they were treated better by society

TLDR: the impairment–disability system breaks disability into two parts (the natural part and the social part). the social model of disability argues that having various impairments would be easier if society was more accessible and less discriminatory

[edonee]

You asked yesterday for someone to explain what trans people mean when we say we do or don't feel like a gender or sex. My comment is too long to put in the replies to I'm answering here instead. I don't really think this will change your mind at all, but this is the best way I can explain what it feels like to be trans masculine.

Seeing myself and having others see me as a girl was painful. I felt a deep sense of wrongness when people called me "she" and when people described me as a girl. It sometimes made me throw up, it made me cry, it made me dissociate. When I transitioned and people called me "he" or "they", I felt an overwhelming amount of joy. I felt like they were seeing who I was, I felt right. I felt this deep sense of wrongness in relation to my body as well - I couldn't stand seeing my breasts, I couldn't stand having a period, I hated the way my face was shaped. I also often felt uncomfortable when doing things or wearing things considered traditionally feminine, but I think that was because I hated that people used those to associate me with being a girl. Now, I often enjoy wearing clothing or activities that fit feminine gender roles. My point is, my dysphoria and my experience of gender is almost entirely based on how I feel most aligned with the gender designation of man, and not at all aligned with the gender designation of woman - rather than what aspects of those gender roles I wanted to participate in.

I don't think there's one simple explanation as to what it means to feel like a woman or a man or any form of gender that does not fit within the binary. I personally believe that we all have unique experiences of gender, and most people's match up with how they are perceived by society, but others make them feel dysphoric. I honestly agree with the idea of gender abolition - as long as we don't divide people by sex either. It would be great if we could all just exist as people without these arbitrary categories acting as defining characteristics of who we are.

I can't answer if, in that hypothetical society where we don't have genders, I would still experience the dysphoria I've felt about my body. I don't know - I'm sorry. I get that there are a lot of confusing things in play when it comes to gender and trans people, and I think it's great that people like you want to understand, and I get that it can seem suspicious when there are some things that we can't answer.

But I don't think that those areas where there's a lack of clarity need to push you away from supporting trans people. We are not claiming to be trans for some manipulative agenda, or just very swept up in internalized misogyny. Most of us are people who suffered a lot trying to exist as the gender that society ascribed to our sex, and now that we've found another way to exist, we feel freer. I feel like a man because I don't feel wrong when I exist as a man. I don't feel like a woman because I felt wrong when I existed as a woman. I don't see what in that is a threat.

Thank you if you bothered to read all of this! Have a lovely evening.

Hi ^^ good morning, I just read this and I'm going to try to make my point as linear as possible. I want to start off by giving you a definition of sex and gender (just so that there's no confusion over what I'm talking about) I've simply taken the definitions from The World Health Organisation as I find those exhausting and agreeable enough:

Sex is defined as the different biological and physiological characteristics of males and females, such as reproductive organs, chromosomes, hormones, etc

Gender is defined as the (of course variable based on place, culture, and historical period) socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men.

I want to start by addressing what you said at the very beginning of your argument: you said that people perceiving you as a girl distressed you even to the point of physical sickness, whereas getting gendered as a man made you feel seen as your true self. First, I want to say that your "true self" can't be the social classification of characteristics attributed to either sex. Gender is, by definition, purely constructed, therefore any identification with either gender comes from a personal sympathization with its elements and not from an innate connection to a system that is man-made and cannot therefore borne any biological bond. Secondly, I don't want to make a diagnosis out of your experience, but that simply sounds like an extreme result of growing up as a female. With the way girls are treated in every society it's no wonder that the passage from childhood to girlhood is burdensome. When a male child grows up he becomes a person, whereas a female grows to be a woman. Very trivially, the reason why I used to identify as non-binary when I was around 13-14 was that I felt too complex to fit into something as shallow and one-dimensional as womanhood. Of course I'm not saying that's why you specifically feel this way, as there could very well be another reason personal to you that has shaped your mind and put you in a psychological condition where you feel alienated from your body. But even in that case, the argument of transgenderism still doesn't hold up. Gender is not biological, so of course anyone can identify themselves in and out of it as they please, but that doesn't change two things:

1) the structure of it remains the same

2) a female who identifies as a man is still female and vice versa

You also go on and say that your experience with gender comes from feeling aligned to the “gender designation of men – rather than what aspects of those gender roles (you) want to participate in„

I find this definition quite feeble, as the "gender designation of men" is exactly equivalent to the gender roles linked to it, and nothing more. Again, I can't help but get the idea that the motive of your discomfort with femaleness stems from an underlying uneasiness with the poor way women are treated in a misogynistic society rather than an abstract and impractical affinity with the male sex.

Now, toward the end of your argument you hypothesized a world where gender has been erased, leaving sex as the only undeniable distinction between people, and you said:

"I can't answer if, in that hypothetical

society where we don't have

genders, I would still experience the

dysphoria l've felt about my body"

And, although I don't know you personally, I'm quite confident that the answer would be no. Feeling discontent over your body is not innate, it's learned (subconsciously or otherwise) through socialization. If you feel envy towards the male body and hatred towards your female body it is not because there's something inherently wrong with it, but rather because you aspire to the male gender class. Without sex discrimination & gender existing in the first place, there would be nothing that would make you resent your female body.

However, we clearly don't live in a word free of gender, so does that mean that we should endorse transgenderism for the sake of those people who suffer from dysphoria? The answer is no. Dysphoria is a direct result of gender, therefore the solution is to question the very construct of gender, and not to go through medical procedures to change one's sexual characteristics in order to "be your true self". Just like anorexia can't be cured by starving, but only by deconstructing the underlying fixation with thinness and body image. Not to mention the idea that gender is actually real is harmful to feminism. It does not only solidify gender stereotypes, and promote the definition of certain behaviors as either masculine or feminine, it also strips words away of their meaning, making the fight for female liberation a nebulous movement that stands up for the rights of – who exactly? Females? Anyone who identifies as female? Men who say they are women?

I'm genuinely sorry that there are people who suffer to the point that they want to be the opposite sex, but I refuse to advocate for the idea that you can be born into the wrong body. Believing that your body is wrong is a fucking miserable way to live, and it's also simply not true.

Let me know if you want to ask me anything else, have a good day

[literatureaesthetic]

the second sex ; simone de beauvoir | part one

‘the second sex’ is a treatise on female autonomy. widely regarded as the blueprint for the second wave of feminism, this 900-page body of theory remains one of the most influential texts for women all over the globe. its impact is infinite, and beauvoir’s theory is masterfully cogent. 

there’s a lot in here to reflect on and absorb. i’ve been tackling this absolute brick of a book by consuming 10 pages a day and allowing myself to really ruminate and sit with what beauvoir is putting out there. taking this book in small increments was definitely the way to go

simone de beauvoir begins by grappling with the question, ‘what is a woman?’ - an impossible question. woman is an ideal. a social reality and confinement the man constructs that pitches women in opposition to him as “the other”. womanhood is the condition in which a woman finds herself confirming a regulated hierarchy. however, beauvoir begins by answering this question through the biological. woman is a ‘womb, an ovary’. man reduces women to nature; they are mothers and reproductive catalysts. like the spider, she castrates and cannibalises; she consumes and eats men. beauvoir deconstructs the biological and the ways in which man has attributed inferiority to the natural biological difference between sexes.

biology, however, is not the foundation for womanhood. although it informs feminine existence, it isn’t the basis of gendered alterity and power disparity. beauvoir acknowledges biological subjugation while simultaneously stating that it is not reason enough for why women are the Other.

the question of ‘what is a woman?’ morphs into ‘what has humanity made of the human female?’ we must examine woman as a complete body, not in parts.

the concept of woman is examined from various schools of thought. from psychoanalysis - which is quickly proven insufficient due to freud’s misogynistic and male-oriented examination of sexual development, which is then generalised to women - to historical materialism and the role that economic value plays in female existence. beauvoir discusses engels - though classism is deeply connected to the disparity between sexes, it is not the origin of patriarchal oppression. female subordination pre-exists class divides. where the proletariat desires to erase class divisions, women do not want to be erased. we simply want to be registered in all forms. although the abolition of private property and class divisions is desirable, it will not ensure female liberation. and so, engels and marxism fail women.

this leads to a deconstruction of human history and the ways in which women were sacrificed on man’s journey for fulfilment and nourishment. as man went to hunt and build tools, women were frequently resigned to motherhood. as man conquer the world, women are left to watch from the sidelines. by dominating nature, man triumphs over woman. women become possessions like land. he is order and accomplishment; she is mystery and chaos.

as the socio-political landscape alters, the female condition continues to deteriorate. women face extreme abuse within the workforce, all for minuscule pay (and gender wage gaps DO still exist). this worsens with religion. simone de beauvoir delves into an array of theological beliefs - christianity, islam, and judaism being central focuses - and highlights the ways that each religion fails women. she also accounts for various cultural practises across the globe (from india to the mediterranean). this is very much a body of text that registers various different cultures and the nuances of each, respectively. i wish it reflected more on the nuances of non-white women’s existence within the western world, however. 

i’ll end today’s overview with the most impactful line from this section for me - ‘women’s entire history has been written by men’. the problem of women has always been the problem of men. ‘it is not women’s inferiority that has determined their historical insignificance: it is their historical insignificance that has doomed them to inferiority’.

with man lies the onus for female suffering.

[compacflt]

I was wondering if you had thoughts about how Ice and Mav's politics don't fully align with their actions? There was a post where you said Ice's politics are more socially liberal than Mav's but Mav is also the one who goes out to La Jolla to hit on guys before Ice, and later again when he's broken up with Ice, but Ice only goes out with women out of fear for his honor or whatever. Same with their respective thoughts on feminism, with Mav's mild respect for Charlie (telling Ice not all women fit the stereotype) but later Ice is the one who sends Juno to Mav's Top Gun class without telling him she's a woman and Ice has a respectful friendship with Juno. I think you said Ice is vaguely on the ace-aro spectrum (demi-homoromantic) which is a sort of fascinating irony that he doesn't have the words for it whereas Mav is the one with the theories about Ice's sexuality. Though with their hypocrisies and inconsistencies this all just feeds into their characterizations of the fact that they keep divorcing their actions from their spoken words from their identities.

okay going to take this point by point

1. yes i have addressed their politics in relation to their actions before, so maybe read this post and this post before you read this one, just to see where my other thoughts line up

2. gay republicans and conservatives do exist (at the very least certainly republicans and conservatives who have gay sex in secret)

3. before maverick is a political actor he is a human being, and the characterization that we are primarily given for him is that he is impulsive and reckless and doesn’t think through his actions. As ive written about many times before—from a story construction standpoint, his thoughtlessness is his number one most important character trait. He is both thoughtlessly dangerous (his hero’s “fatal flaw;” he can’t stop himself from making bad decisions) and thoughtlessly brilliant (the navy’s best and most daring and heroic pilot). He does what he wants without thinking about it; and he makes excuses and hollow promises whenever that plan doesn’t work out (“I know better than that. It will never ever happen again;” [it happens again] “I’m not gonna let you down. I promise.” [goose dies shortly thereafter]). His thoughtless impulsiveness overrides everything else. Maybe the act of having gay sex (to address your “he gets fucked in La Jolla before ice” point) is politically subversive, but for Maverick’s thoughtless character that we are shown in Top Gun, the most subversive possible thing would be to LABEL the gay sex and think through the consequences of it. To call a spade a spade and call himself gay or bi or queer or whatever. That would be the most subversive (and with mav, entirely unbelievable imo) possible thing. That takes conscious effort of thought, something maverick is near-incapable of doing. As long as he can get away with it without thinking about it, he’s politically in the clear, with regards to his character & character arc. If that makes sense. “Don’t think. Just do.” That’s literally his motto lmfao. He represents thoughtless action as an archetype; his politics come secondary to his desires

4. Their “respective thoughts on feminism” are divided into two camps: 1. “Professional as required by the law” and 2. “Sex pest mode.” They’re naval officers in the 1980s. Whether republican or democrat, that’s kind of par for the course. How men treat women can be a performance to other men. Any respect i made them show towards women had broader, more metatextual “need to move the conversation/story from A to B” reasoning behind it. See the first post I linked for much more on that.

5. i never said ice was on the ace/aro spectrum, or if i did i DEFINITELY meant it sarcastically. That could not be further from what i believe. This isn’t something I’ve ever discussed on this blog before, but a MASSIVE part of the philosophical discussion I’ve been trying to moderate within this project over the last year is the question— “do labels even work with characters under these very specific and extraordinarily extreme conditions and societal pressures?” It’s a question I took from my time studying early American history—the contexts of certain environments, and I would definitely count the elite officer ranks of the navy in the 90s and 2000s as one of these certain environments, simply Are Not Conducive to the easier (path of least resistance maybe) ways we civilians handle sexuality and friendship and trauma. There are so many variables and external and internal pressures within an environment like the upper ranks of career navy officers that sexual orientation labels lose all nuance and accuracy. I don’t think Ice (as i have written him) is gay. I don’t think he’s straight. I don’t think he’s bi. I think he’s an unlabelable product of too many variables for labels to have any effect on how he is perceived. Which, in our society built around labels and categories, is admittedly difficult to wrestle with. But doesn’t make it any less worth wrestling with.

6. Yes, ice and mav’s hypocrisy is the linchpin of the entire story.

They’re both trying to have their cake (“honor” and moral superiority based on the harmful traditional subjective morals arbitrated by elite navy officership) and eat it too (a fulfilling relationship with the love of their lives). & the point is that they cant. they have to settle for one.

[mxmaneater]

How do you see Gortash as queer coded?

Oh, it would be my genuine delight to explain.

Alright, so I have several lines of reasoning, so I’ll start with the low-hanging fruit first.  

Gortash’s obsession with his appearance

Okay, so we all know about Gortash’s eccentricities when it comes to the way he looks.  He wears an ostentatious villain coat, bedecked with golden bits and bobs, matching pants, and a matching shirt (that he wears provocatively low and can’t seem to ever lace properly).  He also clearly styles his hair, which given its length, takes a non-significant amount of time each morning. 

Now.  Am I saying these things on their own make him queer?  No, of course not.  The assumption that gay men take more care with their appearance is a stereotype, though I would argue that there is a subset of people for which this is true.  However, stereotypes also form the context for which we interpret characters and situations, and that social context is very real (even in cases when a stereotype is not), which is why I don’t discount these details either.  

Additionally, when it comes to the Netherstone, Gortash could have easily stuck it in the middle of a suit of armor like Ketheric and called it a day.  But as a politician (and someone who likely doesn’t see a lot of combat), I get that a suit of armor wouldn’t be his first choice.  Nonetheless, the option he goes with (and presumably takes the time and effort to craft and construct himself) is the pair of gauntlets, which are essentially ornate jewelry.  Jewelry that’s functional and dangerous, yes - but also needlessly beautiful.  And he really only needed one of them, but - again - his attention to detail with appearances drove him to build a matching set to become part of his Signature Look. 

Cool.  So let’s move on to:

Gortash’s political career

Alright, so I like to view Faerun as a fairly equitable place in terms of gender distribution in positions of power (at least compared to reality).  From what I can find on forgotten realms sources, it seems like the Council of Four was composed of 2 men and 2 women (at least until Stelmane is murdered); therefore, I think it’s not a stretch to assume that power is pretty evenly divided.  Great - love that for Baldur’s Gate.  Which it was true out here as well.

Even still, that means that 50% of the high-ranking government officials and patriars that Gortash is charming and manipulating as part of his rise to power are men.  As a devout follower of the God of Tyranny, I find it hard to believe that he would just pass up on the opportunity to use sex as a form of manipulation with men, when we have canon evidence that he uses this tactic to gain power with women (hello Lady Jannath).  Why would he - someone who views ascending in power as a holy mission - suddenly be squeamish when it comes to seducing (both literally and metaphorically) the other 50% of his targets?  

Also, like I mentioned earlier, although Faerun may be a veritable gender utopia, the social contexts that influence us in reality don’t suddenly go away when we boot up bg3.  The writers of the game as well as the consumers - us - are very much bound by the social contexts within which we operate, meaning that certain character traits can be queer-coded for us, even if they wouldn’t necessarily look that way to someone who lives in the world of the game (if they suddenly became sentient and engaged in discourse).  

What does that mean?  Okay, so we live in a society that is highly patriarchal and run by men (read: politicians as well as all other highly influential positions of power).  Within these circles, men are forced into “compulsory relationships” with other men (because remember, women don’t hold the clout they desire, and therefore don’t matter) in order to exert and obtain power; relationships such as “male friendship, mentorship, admiring identification, bureaucratic subordination, and heterosexual rivalry” (Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet) characterize these spaces.  Now, as Sedgwick - one of the mainstays of queer literary theory - explains, men enter into these “male homosocial” relationships because they must if they wish to gain power and ascend the ranks; however, the very necessity of these close, male relationships (to the exclusion of, or in superiority to relationships with women) also puts men in the dangerous social position of making it easy to become too close with other men and therefore jeopardizing their access to the very power they sought.  This is the foundation of her argument about forces that keep men in the proverbial “closet.” 

Okay.  So back to Gortash.  Gortash is not driven by fear of stepping over that line - he seems utterly unbothered by professing his connections to whoever he views as influential, regardless of gender (see: default Durge, which I’ll get to later).  He is not scared of stepping beyond this larger, societal “closet” that most men get defensive about in order to protect their relative power.  Sure Faerun is less homophobic than our reality, but again, the coding of these characters doesn’t change drastically based on the in-game setting, because it is ultimately people in our reality who are interpreting and interacting with the game and its characters.  

Also, I make a distinction between Gortash being “queer-coded” and not “gay-coded”; if anything, examples from the game would have me characterize Gortash as bisexual - if he even conceives of sex as an identity factor and not just a means of gaining power over someone, which is a big assumption.  I definitely view him as someone who thinks more along the lines of the latter - and wouldn’t it benefit him, in that case, to be an equal-opportunity manipulator?

This is getting long, so I’ll jump to my final point: 

Gortash’s devotion to the Dark Urge

Whether you read the past relationship between Gortash and the Dark Urge as sexual/romantic or purely a business dealing, the fact remains that Durge is the one character Gortash views as his equal.  And yes, you can customize Durge’s appearance and gender, etc, but the default origin character is male, so a certain amount of “canon”, I believe, can assume at least the possibility of a male Durge.  Gortash - the Chosen of Bane, who loves nothing more than domineering over others - wants to willingly share his Empire with Durge, once he’s conquered the city; that is not a level of devotion that you could expect Gortash to hold for anyone but his “nearest and dearest.”  

And from the letters you can find, it’s apparent that Gortash specifically sought Durge out - tempting him with information about Bhaalist artifacts that had been “stolen” and displayed in a museum in order to form a connection.  This, combined with his desperation to regain Durge as a partner in Act 3 (to the point he’s weirdly forgiving of insult and refusal), offer queer subtext, if not text-text, confirming his particular interest in Durge as a person.  After all, he only “tolerates” Orin, who, despite her own eccentricities, is only trying to accomplish the will of Bhaal, just like Durge presumably was as well.  In fact, most of the characters dismiss Orin as just some “crazy bitch”, which I find hard to believe isn’t rooted, at least partially, in sexism - especially since people forgive Durge very easily for similar crimes.  (I could write my own dissertation about Orin, but I’ll save that for another time).  

In conclusion, there is enough queer-coding between Gortash’s appearance, habits, career, known manipulation tactics, and special relationship with the Dark Urge to at least make the case that he isn’t super straight.  Even without the letter in which he wrote his penpal Franc that he loved him for bringing “wet, slithering malice” into the world.

[degenderates]

What would almost-terf talking points look like? Genuinely curious because I never see stuff like that, though I may just not be aware of it. Thank you in advance ❤️

hey! no worries, it takes a lot of being on the internet (unfortunately lol) to notice the patterns of how online terfs talk about gender and make their stuff palatable for the masses, so here are a few pointers. keep in mind that people who post this kind of rhetoric aren't always terfs and you should be skeptical of ANYBODY who tells you that there are a complete set of "rules" you must follow or subjects you must avoid. think for yourself, but also be careful. with that being said, here are some things i've noticed after being on the trans internet for a few years:

1- "radfem"/"radfem-safe"/"radblr"/etc. usually they're a terf they just dont want to add the te- to the acronym. funny thing is they're not all that radical lol.

2- gender essentialism. this is one of the most insidious i think, because it's so well disguised, or simply poised as common sense. this can include anything about men and women being inherently different, whether this is about sexual violence, sexuality in general (including types of queerness), love, understanding/intuition/empathy, certain skills, whatever. sometimes it's just a joke but be careful because humor is a form of persuasion as well, just easily able to avoid blame. the reason why gender essentialism is terfy is because it posits that gender is immutable. ie. can't change. women are inherently like this, so someone who identifies as a man now will never get it, even if they end up being trans later. though some of these takes might have an addendum of, "trans women are women" or something like that, supposedly being inclusive of trans ppl, they don't account for people who aren't secretly eggs their whole lives. sure, a transfem who always knew she was a girl might be "included," but not a trans person who lived as their agab for their first 20, 30, or even 40 years. etc. tldr: this kind of rhetoric reveals how people truly feel about gender difference regardless of what they claim to support.

3- "male/female socialization." this one's tricky because yes we as humans in a society are socialized and yes that includes gender (which is a social construct in and of itself), but the vast majority of times i've seen this phrasing used is by terfs, so much so that if trans people want to talk about gender socialization, we have to use other terminology. the problem here is that folks' "current" gender is considered null and void due to how they were raised. this one is sort of the opposite of the phenomenon of "including" trans people in gender essentialism--it blocks us out from our actual gender in favor of seeing us as what we once were.

4- a weird fascination with militant genetalia. urls or bios that include stuff about vaginas and cunts killing people or whatever...i'm not against this, but most people who have this on their blog are terfs lol. aside from the jokes, people who see phallic imagery as something inherently violent or the penis as a body part as violent instead of like, the person as violent (if they are) is a big one. i guess the militant vagina is like reclaiming this somehow. i'm not sure. but it's a thing.

5- gatekeeping queerness. people who try to limit queerness to being lesbian/gay/bisexual, acephobes, arophobes, people who have this very basic understanding of queerness as same-sex attraction. sometimes they hate the word "queer." people who don't understand queerness as a culture and a way to play with gender and identity and presentation as well as sexuality, or as a political entity. queerness isn't just about being gay or straight. now not all acephobes are terfs, but because terfs have admitted to using acephobia to induct people into being radfems, and most terfs are acephobic....well. that's just one example, of course, but the point stands. anyone attempting to divide the queer community is inherently sus to me.

and finally, 6- if you download shinigami eyes, people marked as terfs show up in red. be careful because sometimes people mark others as red out of malintent, but if the person is showing other signs of being a terf and is red, they probably are one, lol. hope this helps, and other people feel free to add on! as always, take my post as just the observations of one individual, as a grain of salt!

[pinene]

Sometimes I feel like so much of the discourse around transgenderism, especially trans kids, is so fixated on figuring out how and why individuals dislike their gender, what implications they have, why they’d want to change genders, or not conform to the one they have. And we make a grave mistake when we meet these anxieties where they’re at— when we also take on the assumption that male and female are real, coherent categories of humanity. We then have to play defense and cherry-pick bullshit like male/female brains, transmedicalism, the born in the wrong body narrative, and other such reductive explanations. But what if we just open this discussion up, and contemplate, for a second, that maybe the WEIRD thing here is not the child who wants to “be a different gender”, but the very act of gendering this child, or anything. Perhaps what is contrived and socially contagious is the idea that you can cleanly divide 8 billion human souls into two categories. Perhaps when children “reject” their gender, it’s because we had no right to put them in a random box for reasons they can’t understand in the first place.

in my opinion, gender is constructed as an ancient blurring of how the most average sexes acted and operated. So it’s easy to basically maintain, because the bulk of the population will effortlessly get the gist.. but there’s plenty of people that fall outside of the middle of the bell curve! And treating these glorified astrological signs as absolute fact is such a fucking nightmare.

[boreal-sea]

What is genuinely so frustrating about "gender critical" / gender abolitionist / radfems vs trans folks is that like...

We agree on a lot of things. I think there are a lot of gender critical people who genuinely do want for sex and gender stereotypes to go away. So do lots of trans people!

Are there people on both sides who want to reinforce gender roles and sex stereotypes etc? Yeah. I was literally just talking to someone who wanted to rigidly define "woman" as "female" and force pronouns on people based on birth sex. That is not abolishing gender, that is reinforcing it.

Like, I talk a lot about how this manifests on the side of the radfems. But there are a few trans people who do this too: transmeds and their ilk very much do believe that sex and gender are binary and that there is a "wrong way" to be trans; that the only REAL trans people are binary trans people who want to fully and completely transition to the "opposite sex" in every way possible.

Bioessentialism and gender/sex stereotypes exist on both sides of this issue. But from personal experience, this seems far more common coming from the gender critical crowd.

"I feel like a woman" "I have a man's mind" etc - these phrases often get thrown around as evidence that trans people are trying to reinforce gender stereotypes. The fact is that these phrases are an attempt to explain an expansive, indescribable experience with limited human language. I have said many times that there is in fact no such thing as a "universal experience of womanhood". No two people "feel" the same. No two people "think" the same. Science goes back and forth on this, but there are plenty of studies that show there is no difference between male and female brains. And I think these phrases are an attempt at trying to describe how someone feels using the framework of gender, which is itself a social construct. So inherently, it's going to be clunky.

I just want a world where we don't have gender or sex stereotypes, you know? But I can't see that happening if we reinforce women as female and force pronouns on people based on birth sex. I just can't see us eliminating gender and sex stereotypes if we create a world firmly divided and labelled based on birth sex.

As far as biology goes, I am in the camp of believing that the differences between the sexes are far smaller than we believe. And factually, sex differences are bimodal, not binary. You can identify averages, yes, but there's a continuous spectrum between those two averages and beyond them into extremes. There are super tall women! There are super short men! And this applies to every single marker of sex. And yes, science proves you can in fact change a person's body so they exhibit different secondary sex characteristics. That's just a fact, it's not deniable. I just don't see the logic of saying "sex is the only thing that matters and we should divide people based on sex" when sex isn't binary, and we can cross that divide extremely easily.

I don't want to live in a world where I have to "pass" as a binary gender OR sex - because "passing" is based on sex and gender stereotypes. Linking pronouns to sex and gender stereotypes reinforces those stereotypes. I don't want to live in a world divided based on birth sex, either! That sounds like this world, because that's how things work right now.

I want to live in a world where man/woman doesn't matter (and where we have more choices like agender and nonbinary) AND I also want to live in a world where sex doesn't matter either.

But as far as I can tell, that's where the gender critical/abolitionists separate from me. Because a lot of them tell me that sex is VERY important, and we MUST divide the world on sex, and that sex differences are HUGE. To actually create equality between the sexes, yes, of course we have to acknowledge that sexes exist. But we can do that while also acknowledging that the perceived gulf between male and female is actually not there - and that, personally, will help with equality far far more than insisting that males and females are super different and unalike in every way.

[nerdicorntheshipper]

tell me about time lord genders. i WILL read it

Okay, so I don’t think time-lords have a concept of gender the way modern human society does. I think it’s obvious to anyone with an awareness that gender is a social construct that regeneration would fuck with a society’s perception of gender, but I truly believe that time-lords have almost no concept of it.

From what we see in cannon, a time-lord’s (perceived) gender is based entirely on the sex of their current regeneration. I think the obvious doylist explanation for this is that the writers were unconsciously bioessentialist, and didn’t think of trans people when creating this system.

I think though, that if regeneration were introduced to modern humans, this is not how it would work. I think that if a cis human were to regenerate into a sex that didn’t match their gender identity, they would have dysphoria and transition (or possibly be closeted, but I think it’s safe to assume that in having access to all of time and space, time-lords understand trans people). So, I think that if time-lords had a similar concept of gender, most time-lords would have a consistent gender, with about half of their regenerations being trans. There would also be some genderqueer time-lords who have a more complex relationship with gender and regeneration, but they would be a minority. This is just not what we see in cannon.

There is also the possibility that they have a strong concept of gender, but their gender identity changes upon regeneration, but not only does this feel intuitively wrong to me, we would still expect about 1% of regenerations to be trans, which we don’t see. Even ignoring that, there is tons of evidence that time-lords don’t care too much about gender.

From the Doctor’s comments about “petty human obsessions with gender” and her reaction to regenerating into a woman, I think it’s safe to say that the Doctor, at least, is apathetic to the whole concept. In addition, when we see Galifrey in the show, there is a complete lack of gender roles. We don’t see any gender specific clothing, or groups divided by gender, even gendered language is kept to a minimum. (I think it’s even stated that time-lord being a gendered term is a translation error)

But, you may ask, what about Missy? She performed the fuck out of femininity. The Master is definitely the time-lord who cares the most about gender, and I think it’s just because it amuses them. Most other time-lords seem vaguely uninterested in gender, so the Master is the outlier here.

Overall, I think that time-lords don’t have a concept of gender, instead they just go along with it when it is imposed on them.

[intersex-questions]

For example the brain has sex characteristics. Those are very much physical and not just "a choice". Otherwise conversion therapies would work. And I am not gonna debate this, that is my lived reality. I also have a lot of bodily physical shit going on but I don't have access to doctors, and I am at a point where a doctor's opinion doesn't matter anymore, I am just valid, full stop. Doesn't matter that I don't know what exactly is going on and what it's called. I personally see all that as a part of my non-binary identity.

What I am not understanding is why people are excluded from an UMBRELLA TERM that they fall under definitionally?

Where I live, there's only one word for sex&gender and I can tell you that the divorce that has happened in the English language is not helpful. If gender was only used to describe the imposed social constructs, that would be one thing, but since people use it to describe their own identity, it is deeply tied to sex.

And what we consider intersex is inherently tied to social constructs. Who do you think decides how much of a hormone is "to much" for a certain sex, who decides what sex characteristics are "too big" or "too small". That's all made up.

Maybe I am clashing with a community that has medicalised themselves to much idk. I am genuinely trying to understand why some sex characteristics are considered "physical enough" and others aren't.

And if there was an umbrella term for just ALL physical sex variance, doctor approved or not, I would instantly use it instead, because that's the term I am really looking for, but that term doesn't seem to exist. Intersex definitionally works but only if there was no gatekeeping. Idk. I am just trying to find a word so I can express that everything that's going on IS physical.

I am not trying to step on any toes, I am specifically asking so I can be educated if I missed something or am misunderstanding something.

I think I'm still definitely confused by what you are saying and disagree with some of what you say (however I will respect your belief and I want to do my best to help you rather than be argumentative) but I understand a little bit better.

Intersex as a word/concept does exist because of the social construct of sex/gender. In my opinion, in an ideal world, intersex as a word wouldn't exist because there wouldn't be a divide between sex/gender in the first place.

I think intersex as a word IS necessary as of right now because sex currently IS a binary (in many predominant cultures) so it refers to those who do not fall into that binary.

And to clarify to you, intersex includes both primary and secondary sex characteristics, and there is no way of being "not intersex enough" in my opinion. Maybe you have been exposed to a lot of intersex areas that are very gatekeep-y, but many (and most, in my personal experience) intersex people are very welcoming to the broad range of possible diversity in being intersex.

Intersex is a word that is for all physical sex variance and intersex as a word isn't doctor approved and used by the people who are that. Many doctors don't acknowledge intersex exists or refuse to see it as a thing or use the word "hermaphrodite" or just refuse to see a patient has natural sex variance and tries to correct it.

I think intersex does work for you, but, unfortunately, as with any community, there is gatekeeping. You in no way need a doctor to diagnose you as intersex or consider you it. Intersex in general isn't really a diagnosis one can get. You can potentially get diagnosed with certain variations that fall under being intersex (if your doctor isn't intersexist) but that's unlikely for many people.

I feel like you are misunderstanding. Intersexuality is meant to specifically be DEmedicalized. It is not meant to be forcing people to rigidly fit into another box. It is supposed to be a very very broad term to describe anyone whose natural sex experiences (and I say natural because if you go on HRT for trans+ reasons that's different) deviate from what is normal. And yes there are gatekeepers, but I and many other intersex people are very inclusive and believe anyone who has variances should be free to use the term. You do not need a diagnosis to use the term. You do not need validation from other intersex people or gatekeepers to use it. You are free to use it.

If people are excluded from the umbrella term, that is because of exclusionists who do not represent the intersex community and our beliefs as a whole. I do not agree with those people. If you feel your experience with your sex deviates from the typical sex binary in a way that isn't related to trans+ HRT like I said then I see no reason as to why you cannot use the term.

Also, if it helps at all, I have a post about the term altersex, which is a broader umbrella term used to describe people who either do have or want sex characteristics that fall outside of the normal binary, whether they were born that way (note that intersex people usually don't use this term), want to become that way, or have become that way due to HRT for trans+ reasons.

I hope this cleared some stuff up? To me it mostly just sounds like maybe you have had experiences with exclusionist sides of the intersex community who in no way represent the beliefs of many intersex people. Intersex is an inclusive term and in many ways an umbrella term and I believe in it being broad so people can feel less alone and feel solidarity in their bodies not being "wrong" or something that needs to be fixed.

[evwritesgames]

The Telenemites appear as large, bulky, “rock women” according to humans. They are really a hyper-dense mineral lattice “core” that accumulates a body over hundreds of years. The core is the life form and they represent one of the most unusual forms of life yet encountered. 

They are as individualistic and subjective as humans but organize into a rigid caste system that has existed for eons. Effectively, this makes Telenemites a “monoculture”. This system divides “high” cores and “low” cores with a range of specific roles, categories, and obligations. This is based on lineage, with all Telenemites tracing their origins across a specific type of core. It also has a secondary social layer based on shape, the most important aesthetic category for their species.

For hundreds of thousands of years, the Telenemites were a spacefaring empire that focused primarily on the cultivation of barren, mineral-rich worlds. They occasionally encountered desirable elements on planets already occupied with life forms, even intelligent ones. In the past, Telenemites had a “manifest destiny” style policy of colonization which ALTO classifies as genocide. A revolution shortly, by their standards, before first contact with ALTO, demolished the old imperial system but their civilization is still finding its footing, a process that may take eons. Many believe that belonging to an interspecies, pan-galactic community will give their people a new purpose and new vision. One of the more contentious issues is the caste system, with many younger Telenemites advocating for its abolition. 

Telenemites can survive the total destruction of their outer bodies so long as their cores survive. Damage to the core manifests as physical and mental disability and is often incurable. Telenemites can regrow new bodies, much faster than the initial accumulation that represents their maturation, and often do so with a greater degree of control over the final outcome. Most come back a little different than before and, depending on circumstances, the renewal of a Telenemite body can be a happy event celebrated similarly to a birthday.

Telenemite do not require two genetic lineages to procreate and any Telenemite can have a child if they want to. The child will always be the same core which has some implications for appearance and personality that are analogous to human genetics but they are not clones, contrary to a common misunderstanding about them. 

Children are created in “mineral pools” in special nursery creches that cut down the time it takes them to grow, though some parents prefer natural growth rates (or are stuck with them) and will forego this part of the process. Telenemites spend many years as little more than a gemstone immersed in sludge. When they emerge, their bodies are tiny and nearly featurless. As they mature, they gain better control over the growth process and begin to shape themselves, usually in keeping with broad norms and aesthetic standards. No two Telenemites, even relatives and even from the same caste, tend to look much alike (though exceptions exist here too). Different types of cores have different mass tolerances and a Telenemite will stop growing when she’s reached hers. 

Telenemites may appear feminine to humans but they have no biological sex or social gender. In languages that have them, however, they typically use feminine pronouns though exceptions exist, especially among Telenemites that learn about gender constructs from other civilizations.

Telenemites are, perhaps surprisingly to some, deeply emotional beings and experience feelings humans would call love, affection, and even a form of sexual desire. These kinds of feelings have a history of repression in their culture as they were long considered an aberration from “purpose”, which is often the single most important value to a Telenemite. A Telenemite without purpose is like a ghost, according to their customs, and cannot truly live until they’ve either regained the loss or found a new purpose. Because of this, exile is one of their most enduring and severe punishments. In exile, a Telenemite has no purpose but their own survival, which is considered base and pitiable. More recently, many Telenemites have come to consider the repression of empathy and emotion to be the result of social engineering, meant to keep individual Telenemites from bucking the caste system or protesting policy decisions about other living things in the universe.

Telenemites harvest and consume minerals, rock, and crystal. They have special rules about this because most mines are also farms and this dual industry, as far as they’re concerned, is the most important one and subject to the most scrutiny and regulation. Telenemite miners are highly sought after as they can save a lot on, for example, prospecting equipment. Telenemites consider asteroids to be fair game in all respects, placing special significance on planets and moons, and Telenemite spaceship technology is primarily based on hollowing out asteroids and sticking engines on them. Their ships and stationary orbitals tend to be huge, weird, and slow but very difficult to destroy.

Fun fact: during planning, we referred to them as "the real crystal gems". They are a direct reference to SU based on the "what if CGs but not so anthropomorphic?"

[newsboys-of-1899]

hiii ! hope you're doing well :)

this question isn't exactly newsies, but i want to know about social classes in the late 1800s for a story but i'm kind of struggling with finding exact definitions. so could you give examples of some of the characters and what social class they would be in?

ik the newsies would be working/lower class and pulitzer and hearst would be upper class, but what about characters like medda, snyder, kloppman and the judge?

Hello! Thank you for the question!

Coming up with exact definitions of social classes is difficult because class is a social construct. If we put every person in the world in a line from richest to poorest, where would we divide it to say someone is upper class or not? Class is far more complex than that and is also determined by education, race, citizenship, languages spoken, and so much more. That said, let’s talk about newsies characters and class. I’m also going to add a couple people to your list that I think are interesting cases.

Medda is a burlesque performer, but she also owns the theatre where she works. This puts her a bit higher than most burlesque performers, but still very much within their world. Burlesque performers were considered akin to sex workers at the time, so she would likely have been looked down on by many, but still have enough personal wealth to get by on her own.

Snyder is a jail warden - a respectable job but not a particularly fancy one. He definitely has status over the working class people who make up most of his prisoners, but he is still very much a working man. In the novelization, he is seen to be totally in awe of being in a room with the mayor and Pulitzer in the scene where he’s asking to arrest Jack, as he is significantly below both of them.

Kloppman works for a non-profit group: the Children’s Aid Society. He and his family live in private quarters within the lodging house, so he doesn’t own property but he also doesn’t have to worry about making rent. He would be an upstanding member of society, but not wealthy.

The judge is a judge. Obviously. He is definitely educated and has a high-status job. He does work for his money, as opposed to Pulitzer and Hearst who hire other people to work for them, but the money he makes for that work would likely be pretty good.

Denton works for a newspaper. He has steady employment that is not manual labour, which puts him a step above most of the newsies’ families, but he is still very much a working man living in small rented quarters.

Katherine is an heiress. She chooses to work, but if she wanted to quit she would very much be able to. She would fit in with high society if she wanted to but people who don’t know who she is would likely assume she’s about on par with Denton.

Finally, Seitz is a business manager. He is above almost every other worker at the World, and WELL above the newsies. He is still a working man, but in a well-paying high-class job. Not a CEO, but upper management in a very powerful company.

Hope that clears some things up. If not please feel free to ask more questions!

[manuscripts-dontburn]

Hardy Women: Mother, Sisters, Wives, Muses

Author: Paula Byrne

First published: 2024

Rating:  ★★★★☆

A biography of a great writer but told through the women in his life, both real and fictional. I liked that idea a lot and Paula Byrne does a good job gathering information, pointing out connections, and for once showing that even iconic artists are dependent for much of their eventual fame on those around them. It is a big book but the chapters are quite short, which makes it easy to go read without being fatigued. Naturally, Hardy's works are explored with quite a lot of detail, so if you do not want to be spoiled for certain books, read those first.

Love in the Time of Cholera

Author: Gabriel García Márquez

First published: 1985

Rating: ★★★☆☆

Was this beautiful, rather captivating, well-constructed? Absolutely. I had a hard time putting this book down, in fact. It offers a brilliant insight into how people perceive themselves in time and how it feels to grow old. But there are also elements involved and glossed over which I found too disturbing to now say I loved this book. Rape and paedophilia are both included as something completely normal (even desirable) and the "love" of the main character is really just stalker-is obsession. I hope to read more by Marquez, preferably something with the same quality of writing and less disturbing sex stuff.

The Diary of a Provincial Lady

Author: E.M. Delafield

First published: 1930

Rating: ★★★☆☆

Loved the breezily sarcastic tone in which the entries are written, describing the everyday chores and tasks and social obligations in a quite funny way. On the other hand, there really isn´t a story in there. I would also wish that publishers would include translations from French instead of assuming everybody still speaks it as if we lived at the 1885 Russian Imperial Court.

Herc

Author: Phoenicia Rogerson

First published: 2023

Rating: ★☆☆☆☆

Modern language, modern mindset, modern world views, modern and "cool everything... there is nothing that would even remotely feel like a Greek myth.

Luck of the Titanic

Author: Stacy Lee

First published: 2021

Rating: ★★★☆☆

Unfortunately, it would seem, that no fictional book about the Titanic can weave a story without completely denying the near impossibilities of the class divide. The first half of the book, where disbelief had to be employed at all times, was simply OK, but the last 70-or-so pages, dealing with the sinking, I found thrilling and eventually quite moving. A good book for younger readers.

Decameron

Author: Giovanni Boccaccio

First published: 1349

Rating: ★★★☆☆

Do not enter this book with the notion you can breeze through it. You cannot and you should not, because quite frankly, reading more than a few of the 100 stories gets tiring and tedious very quickly. However, if you settle yourself comfortably with an almost full-cast audiobook and measure out the stories wisely, this can is not bad at all. If nothing else, it stands as an interesting mirror of its time and mindset. Also, gives you a great idea of what medieval people did instead of watching porn and reading raunchy novels. Some stories are quite funny, some totally bonkers.

An Education in Malice

Author: S.T. Gibson

First published: 2024

Rating: ★☆☆☆☆

Perhaps my rating is pretty harsh, but I read this book very quickly and still, when I reached the end, I felt like it had been a waste of time.

The Foundling

Author: Stacey Halls

First published: 2020

Rating: ★★★☆☆

This was a pretty solid piece of historical fiction. I simply wish it was a little more complicated, a little longer to really sink into the characters.

The Familiar

Author: Leigh Bardugo

First published: 2024

Rating: ★★★☆☆

Seemingly perfect in the choice of set up and the setting, the book teethers on the brink of being simply boring due to an incredibly slow start. It does get better, but I never truly warmed up to the main character and all in all felt underwhelmed after I had enjoyed other works by the same author. Not bad, not great.

The Meaning of Mary Magdalene: Discovering the Woman at the Heart of Christianity

Author: Cynthia Bourgeault

First published: 2010

Rating: ★★★★☆

Only slowly I gather all of my thoughts on this (quite slim) volume and frankly, other reviewers have summed up many of my own feelings better than I could. I have always felt a pull by the character of Mary Magdalene and I found the author´s research and conclusion fascinating, if not always easy to grasp at once, I did question some of her assumptions as more of wishful thinking than historical probability. At some points, it also smelled a bit too strongly of eastern esoterism for my liking. I have never felt a need to insert "feminine energy" into Christ´s ministry, I could feel those women who followed Him quite well, but it is true that for aeons the organized church (both catholic and protestant), chose to ignore them. So it is good and necessary to remind them about the importance of women generally and Mary Magdalene specifically. Even if you do not agree with all that the author suggests (never forcibly pushes), I found this book a valuable reminder of the fact that the gospels and the story of Jesus are living things still, ready to offer new views and new thoughts, if you care to look. I also appreciated that even though focused on Mary Magdalene, this is a book written with a profound love for Christianity and hope for its renewal and survival in the future.

Ana María and the Fox

Author: Liana De la Rosa

First published: 2024

Rating: ★★★☆☆

A decent palate cleanser, but I guess I was not as charmed as I had wished to be. Would not mind reading the next instalment.

Eleanor Oliphant Is Completely Fine

Author: Gail Honeyman

First published: 2017

Rating: ★★★★☆

I went into this thinking it was a feel-good thing. Boy, was I wrong. This is, in fact, a very painful book about trauma and loneliness, and though it does have the proverbial silver lining, it disturbed me a lot. One of those good books I shall never read again.

[gayhenrycreel]

i have got to do an analysis of beastars and how it uses cannibalism as a metaphor for sex. here it is:

note that currently the anime is not complete, so theres spoilers for the manga here, because the ending is very important.

the world of beastars quickly establishes that it is divided by 2 main classes; carnivores and herbivores. gender also plays a role but i think this is largely used to strengthen the allegory.

herbivores live in fear of being eaten. they are raised to be afraid of every carnivore. Haru is a small rabbit with no way to defend herself, so is particularly vulnerable.

Haru's fear is strengthened when a fellow student is eaten. Legoshi, a wolf, is careful not to frighten herbivores. he wants to know who ate the student (whos name i always forget).

while wandering the school grounds at night, Legoshi smells a herbivore. his first instinct is to grab them. he resists eating them and is now scared of himself.

eventually he mets Haru, and realises that she is the herbivore he nearly ate. over time, Legoshi and Haru befome friends, but he cant tell if he loves her or just wants to eat her.

its clear that there are strict laws to prevent cannibalism, but the entire city knows about the black market, where herbivores are sold, either as meat or still alive. some herbivores even work as strippers.

the mayor is a lion, implying that carnivores have the upper hand. he knows about the black market but does nothing. he benefits from the exploitation of herbivores, so he lets it happen.

Legoshi finds a panda while at the black market, who helps him train himself to restrain from eating herbivores.

after he discovers who the culprit behind the murder is, Legoshi finds that he is too weak to fight. the only way he can get stronger is by eating meat.

Loui, a deer who was rescued from the black market and is obsessed with getting eaten, lets Legoshi eat his leg.

this is intimate for both of them and was the gayest thing ive ever seen. since Loui consented, they are still friends.

in the manga, it is revealed that herbivores and carnivores once lived together peacefully. the threat of cannibalism was just a social construct. every carnivore was raised to consider herbivores prey. the government hides this former peace.

we can apply this to the real world too: we live in a world where the threat of rape is constant, but men are not inherently dangerous. society tells men that women are prey, so of course some will believe it. but this is not true of humanity. it is only true in a society where maleness is superior, and in a position of predator.

beastars shows that sexual violence is not inevitable, but instead a result of the lies of historical rulers. respecting consent is key. sex does not have to be violent. is does not need to be a weapon. it has the potential to bring people closer together.