#women are and being the most ahistorical person ever

[velvetvexations]

But they still use the n-word, anon. They still use the n-word. Yet you think that years and years ago they were so worried about being "challenged" on grounds of transphobia ("transmisogyny" was not in widespread use at the time) that they felt the need to change their language? Even though they still, to this day, use the n-word.

You're an idiot.

And yes, actually, GNC boys who present in a feminine matter does affect things! You can't seriously pretend that every single depiction of an AMAB person wearing women's clothing could only ever possibly be a trans woman or based on trans women. That's not only ahistorical and erases real people right in front of you, but it also gets fucking racist as hell when you start imposing that view on other countries. Did you know, for instance, that "kathoey", the term "ladyboy" is a translation of, is generally used by people who self-identify as men? Because I'm guessing the answer is "no."

Femboys are and have always been a thing, stop fucking erasing them and appropriating their language just because you desperately want the world to revolve around you.

So many young trans girls are going to come out of this traumatized from the dooming, isolated and potentially trapped in abusive relationships because they'd been indoctrinated into the belief that only other trans women will ever love and support them.

The problem is that it has "fab" in there, so they can't do it like they're trying to do with femboy because it inherently points to "TMEs."

(2/2 ana mardoll) i really dont mind when trans women genuinely criticize specific terrible shit that a trans man has actually done, and mardoll has always been a fucking loser who does all the stereotypical negative shit that people tend to act like trans men do. i just wish people would not act like its standard behavior to be like that and judge us all on the basis of the worst of our community lmao. this is behavior that goes both ways tho, trans men judge trans women like this too. idk lol

The person I've seen most accused of being a ringleader was Neon Yang, who was definitely not that even though they contributed. The one I most remember was the trans woman who said something to the effect of "yeah well it didn't sound like the author was trans so I was completely justified actually" and that drives me up a wall because the transradfem girlies are going to lose their mind when I post the first chapter of Nursed with Kerosine.

I have to answer them mostly in batches, with a few exceptions, because I get so many.

@ratbastarddotfuck

Imagine if everyone just decided to start saying a PoC who votes Republican is white.

It's going to be difficult for them to ever actually make a callout post for me because they can screenshot my takes but there will never be a single piece of evidence that I've ever harassed anyone and they know it.

It's not just about taking it seriously, but it's extremely repellent just as content and can be severely triggering, which it would have been for me if I hadn't watched it when I was a teenager before The Deeplore Trauma settled into my bones. I don't think I can even get into the later stuff now because of the association.

But fuck me gently with a chainsaw, everything else about it should be immensely cool and it sucks it's not in something that isn't weighed down by that.

Explicitly using dysphoria as a plot point like that is interesting and does sound like good fuel for a transfem headcanon.

No, it isn't, the only thing being discussed is whether he fits the criteria for "TMA" or not, and he does.

Buffalo Bill is not a stereotype of trans women, and in fact I applaud and deeply appreciate the author for making that crystal clear and treating trans people with great respect and sympathy for the time in which it was written, but he became the model for a stereotype of trans women that transphobes have taken and ran with since the day the the movie came out.

[menlove]

What do you think lesbians are attracted to in women that lesbians can’t be attracted to in men?

It can’t be anything about femininity or masculinity obviously. That’s both sexist, and cultural so can’t be what drives woman-only attraction.

It can’t be anything about stated identity because someone could lie just as easily as they could tell the truth in such a statement, and it makes no sense because homosexuality and heterosexuality exists in other species with no stated identities. It’s not like other animals without gender are all pan.

Saying idk it’s the vibes or some indescribable trait women have that men can’t but “I can’t explain” is a nonanswer.

Soooooooo what is it? Or do you think any sexuality but bi/pan is just cultural performance or an identity rather than an inborn orientation?

this is soooo not asked in good faith lol i know ur baiting babe but fine i'll go ahead and answer here <3

first of all idk where u got the idea that i think bi/pan is inborn orientation. ur mistaking me for a gender/sexuality essentialist rather than a bio essentialist and baby i am neither

second of all ur operating under the assumption that i am bi/pan and would fuck all genders and/or sexes. false! i do not care for dick i have never cared for dick i shall never care for dick and funnily enough i am capable of navigating my personal relationships on my own terms without imposing those terms on everyone else or making trans women feel like dogshit just for existing. if someone with a dick ever asked me out and i turned them down i wouldn't have to say "sorry it's because you have a yucky disgusting penis you fucking disgusting human" as so many of y'all love to do when confronted w trans humans, i would simply say "sorry, i'm not interested." and if they decided to keep pressing it or assault me that would be on them being a sexual predator, not them being transgender.

but okay. several things here. first off in the history of sexuality u have two views: essentialism and costructionism. innate vs socially created. in most cases of history, i take the constructionist point of view. with sexuality/gender it is way way more nuanced and complicated than that. i believe the Feelings we have about gender and sexuality are innate (and unique to every individual) but the labels we put on them change constantly over time. you can find this all throughout history and arguing that this isn't the case would be ahistorical and ridiculous. if you think the word "lesbian" existed 300 years ago and ppl you would deem lesbians would call themselves lesbians or conceptualize their sexualities in the same way as you do, you are dead wrong. they probably had very similar feelings, but they were framing it around their cultural frameworks they had at the time. as we are doing today.

the thing about social constructs is that they change. go back to the 1500s europe and it was widely believed that men and women shared one body type that was, essentially, sexless and the same, and that this body grew out of the body women have into the body men had. essentially, men were the more "progressed" body of humanity, but men and women shared the same sex. this... obviously was incorrect and changed. but so is our binary conception of "sex".

which brings me to ur point about animals.... heterosexuality and homosexuality as Acts certainly exist in animals but animals don't have social constructs to give them identities lmfao. and while these acts exist, they often do so in ways we as humans would consider "bisexual" although that's fucking ridiculous because they are animals. for example, often in the wild you will see "lesbian" lions that choose to mate with other female lions only and raise their young with them. wait- how's that work? their young? if animals with no social conceptions can somehow be "pure lesbians" would they not balk at the idea of procreating with a male lion? no, because that's not how it works in the animal kingdom. they procreate with the male lion and raise the young w the female lion and we slap the label "homosexual" on this or "bisexual" on it when neither is correct bc they're fucking lions, not human beings living in a society. similarly a female lion mating with a male lion is not a "heterosexual" lion, it's a fucking lion. we can't ask it "hey, miss lion, if you had the choice, would you solely prefer male lions? or do you like female lions as well? or are you just mating with this male lion for protection?" because it's a lion. ur comparison is outlandish, frankly. we are not animals in that way. the lion is not heterosexual or homosexual, it's a fucking lion that has sex.

anyway... not what you asked and i can hear u now going off abt how none of this answered ur question. ur right! before i could answer ur baiting question i had to clear up some bold assumptions you were making, define some terms and history, and debunk whatever bullshit you wanted to spew about animals for a second there

but to answer your question: sexuality and gender are unique to every single individual on this planet and structured around the society that individual lives in. sorry to tell you that, but it is. so, too, is the term lesbian. even within t//erf circles. "that's not true!" i can hear you shout, "every t//erf defines lesbian the same!" wrong! i have seen: lesbian means only liking people with vaginas but that can't be right because some trans women have vaginas, lesbian means only liking people with vaginas but that can't be right because some trans Men have vaginas and many of you would Not be attracted to them on the street bc many of them do pass as cis men indistinguishably, lesbian means only CHOOSING to date people with vaginas so this includes political lesbians who are attracted to men and bisexual or heterosexual but are politically lesbian, but wait no lesbian doesn't mean that bc i've also seen t//erfs saying any lesbian who makes a joke abt having a celebrity crush on a man is clearly a bisexual in denial sooooo that would preclude political lesbians too, oh okay so maybe lesbian means only liking people BORN with vaginas- oh shit nope that includes many intersex individuals you would not fuck and many trans men you would not fuck as they've gotten bottom surgery.... hm okay i've seen it mean you only like women BORN with a uterus/able to reproduce except oh whoops not all cis women can do that...... uh well it means anyone you can identify as a woman bc you're so good at clocking except- oh no you can't bc there are many CIS butches and CIS masculine women you all constantly mistake as trans women and harass or butches you straight up just think are men (hi! i am a butch read as a cis male in public!) and do not approach on that basis..... erm..... uh oh looks like your definitions suck too, sorry

so... what does that leave us with? if defining sexuality by sex is harder than it looks and defining it by gender is harder than it looks, what do we have?

well, like i said, it's an individual experience. most of the time, people are going to choose words and communities that resonate with them for whatever reason. for some people it might be bc they have grown up not liking penises in a world where they were expected to. for others it might mean growing up liking just Women in a world where they weren't expected to. for others it's liking non men. some others just like how "lesbian" feels on them and nothing else fits right. "lesbian" communicates something to people and it communicates a community that they feel a part of.

your conception of your sexuality and gender is not the same as anyone else on earth now or anyone in the past. and that is okay. communities and labels ARE human constructs. that doesn't mean they are unimportant and it doesn't mean humans are "innately" bi/pan (i sure as fuck am not lol i've never "innately" wanted to suck a dick and it's felt very "innately" bad when men have been interested in me). but what it does mean is that if you ask any lesbian what being lesbian means to them, you are going to get a different answer. even within your strict community where you think you have one definitive answer, you will have people that disagree with that.

there is no "indescribable trait" women have over men. but neither is there some concrete "yes THIS is the ultimate way to describe (human feeling)". human feelings are infamously hard to describe and label and we do our best with social constructs and human made terms, but we are always always going to fall short. you can do the same with race and wealth and ability and ethnicity and history and and and- something being a social construct doesn't make it not real. it just makes it complicated and messy and not so easily defined. and that is perfectly okay and if you are going to dwell on this planet with other human beings you're going to have to get used to that, sorry to say

so what is a lesbian? a lesbian is someone that tells you they're a lesbian and you say "okay" and don't ask for their life fucking story about why they call themselves a lesbian or how. it's none of your fucking business. whether they agree with you or they don't, it is way easier to just move on and keep defining yourself how YOU want and letting others define themselves how THEY want

[lemonhemlock]

So I was the anon who sent the ask about modern sensibilities and refusal to engage in the time frame and thanks so much for answering. You hit the nail on the head with this social justice warrior who refuses to engage with historicity typology, which seems to make up a majority of the fandom. This trend, and HOTD is a perfect example of this, of historical media nowadays throwing all historicity out the window to Girl Bossify and attempt to appeal to modern sensibilities is deeply annoying.

First, they take the deep religiosity including concepts of sacred oaths, duty, sacrifice, etc. of the medieval period and completely strip it away because writers are deeply cynical when it comes to religion and need to attract the Champagne Agnostics/Atheists who have a deep contempt for anything religious as being Boring and Uncool (and I say this as someone who has never been particularly religious lol, but as a student of history understands how important the concepts of religion, God, faith, oaths, duty, sacrifice, etc. were during the medieval ages). Arguably, the most important aspects of both nobles and peasants' lives during these times were their deep faith in God and devotion to their faith. Not including this religiosity in medieval dramas completely negates a lot of plot and character motivations.

Second, you have deeply ahistorical plot points that are used in a very manipulative way. I feel like now in every period drama I see you have a willful princess aka a Rhae/nyra type that gets placed in an arranged betrothal or marriage and we inevitably get a scene where she's shocked and outraged over marrying a man she doesn't know/love and being used as a BroODmArE (writers loveee this word lol) and I'm just always like ???? Are you knew? These girls have been surrounded by nothing but arranged matches from their parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, friends, etc. for their entire lives? They 100 percent expected to be marrying a man for the realm not out of love? They also saw bearing children to further their line and unite the two families as a sacred duty and a good thing? Like?? it's just so eye rollingly ahistorical I can't. I'm not saying that there have never been cases where women were violently against their arranged marriage for whatever reason. But, by and large, they did their duty and gladly, at least in public no matter their personal opinions. Yet, because of how this is framed in story the social justice media illiterate type act like these literal one percent privileged noble princesses are the most Oppressed People Ever? These literal royals have one fucking duty and that is to make a marriage that stabilizes the realm so smallfolk don't have to go fight and die in unnecessary succession wars while getting waited on hand and foot as peasants are working the field for 15 hours per day, and I'm supposed to feel bad because the Precious Princess didn't get her First Choice husband?? Are these writer's serious? It's so deeply unserious and and the history illiterate fandom eats it up.

Thanks for coming back, anon. 💖 I think there is space to critique aspects of medieval society, even if we're talking about elements chosen particularly because they are egregious to the modern eye, like arranged marriage and blind devotion to God that leads to intolerance and Church abuses etc. But most of it is done in a trite, superficial, redundant way and the critiques are in the same registry.

I agree about the topic of arranged marriage being discussed in the context of a pampered princess that is always so shocked that she has to marry for political reasons and throws a tantrum worded in a way that sounds vaguely human-rights-ish or feminist to our ears. In the case of Rhaenyra, she actually IS offered the chance to marry for love, but even that she considers a chore and squanders it. On the opposite end, I really enjoyed the movie Catherine Called Birdy because it took this trope and did something different with it, both highlighting the inherent unfairness of this practice and being refreshingly honest and human.

Ultimately, I feel like the framing is stale in many medieval or fantasy productions, with talking points that we've already seen a hundred times before. Film-makers feel the need to over-correct for the sins of the past when female characters were often sidelined, but they understand strength and character development in having them trample over everyone else instead. Rhaenyra repeatedly breaks the law, makes destabilizing political decisions and shows little interest for learning how to actually do her job, i.e. governing, but we're supposed to cheer for her because she is living her best life and is a bad bitch, so anyone who opposes her must be a shill for the patriarchy. Similarly, the framing of religious people is nuts and I say this as a staunch atheist.

[mogai-sunflowers]

I'm not trying to like... Start a fight? But it's ahistorical to say that the only reason bi sapphics left the lesbian label is because political lesbians drove them out. It's not true. There are many cases of bi sapphic and bi achillian activists who wanted to be defined by their own sexuality and not by their sex acts. It removes the autonomy of bisexuals to claim we all were so weak that lesbian separatists drove us out for feminist reasons when the political lesbians your mentioning, not by name given but it's not really needed, were a fringe group whose harm is indeed large but often over exaggerated. They wouldn't have that power to literally change all of lesbian culture and it's community and make bi sapphics leave. In my opinion, based on historical documents of both lesbian and bisexual activists and writers from the 1920 up til about the 1960s, it was just a natural shift in the community. Bisexuals wanted their own label outside of just being forced to swing between straight and gay depending who we're with and to claim they just got basically shoved out of lesbian bars and slapped with the bi label just.... Isn't true and ignores large swabs of bisexual history in trying to own our identity and the acceptance of bisexuals in mlm and wlw spaces.

I'd love to see counter evidence and I'm not opposed to the mspec lesbian label but as someone who loves and inspects bi History, this narrative that we were simply kicked out and it was the mean lesbian's fault is often used to encourage lesbophobia and simply... Isn't true. I deeply encourage you to check up on bisexual history concerning activists and the separation of the mlm and wlw communities maybe in different places than you haven't prior and how, for most of us, we left the gay and lesbian communities willingly because LGBT enforced biphobia was just as rampant back then as it is today and we wanted our own identity outside of just sex acts.(which deeply did and still dose contribute to the biphobic sediments that bisexuals are flirtatious and unloyal cheaters and liars. it wasn't just cishets calling us that stuff.)

I hope this doesn't sound passive aggressive or demeaning in anyway, that's not what I'm trying to say. I'm just tried of this take that it was mean lesbian supremacists that kicked us out without a source ever to be found and just buckets and buckets of bi activists talking about bisexuality and how they wanted a label and place of their own going completely unnoticed and unacknowledged because it doesn't fit the narrative that often underlines arguments concerning mspec lesbianism next to mono lesbianism ("bi lesbians are great and automatically unproblematic but monosexual/cis lesbians are automatically suspicious and terfy" kind of trash with no introspection into how that's blatantly lesbophobic regardless of any trans/mspec standpoint. Not just bigoted and applying your own stereotype on a fellow queer person because of terfs (also reinforces the terf sediment that terf is just the new word for lesbian) but also just patently not true.)

I fully agree with everything you’re saying, I normally talk only about the political lesbianism aspect because it was pretty violent and it’s what I know most about, I know it’s not the sole reason for what happened. so in that regard I’m sorry for misrepresenting that part of history.

however, I don’t think that pointing out the impact lesbian separatism has had on the community is in opposition to that. lesbian community used to always be about celebrating the joy of love for women, not about not being attracted to men. im not saying there’s anything wrong with being proud of not being attracted to men, or that individuals shouldn’t define themselves that way in relation to their lesbianism, but political lesbianism DEFINITELY reflected a shift that has made the general entity of the lesbian community much less about love for women, which is in my opinion a loss. it’s become more about excluding people based on an attraction quota than it has been about including people who personally resonate with the lesbian label and experience. The exclusionary part came from political lesbianism, and that’s evident in the way so many younger lesbian communities operate nowadays. Bi activism wasn’t about trying to force a rift between the two communities, but rather to acknowledge their general distinctions, so to me it’s not as relevant to the history of lesbian exclusionism. But I don’t know enough about that aspect of history to truly form an opinion on it, so I would really appreciate if you could send some of the sources you’re talking about!!

overall, I agree with you that i and others should take those aspects of queer history into account more, and I’d love to learn more about it, but I don’t think it’s any less important to acknowledge the roots of the exclusionism that so many lesbians face. i do not at all think that lesbian and terf are synonymous and I hate that people think they are, but acknowledging that the roots of radical feminism partially lie within lesbian feminism, isn’t saying that, it’s acknowledging how transphobia and biphobia have played a real part in our history. it’s not “mean lesbians” it’s bigoted people who used their lesbian identity as an excuse to promote exclusionary and reactionary queer politics /info /nm

[madtomedgar]

books read in June:

Orlando, Virginia Woolf: Third time’s the charm for actually finishing this I guess. It’s very whimsical. I had thought it was just Orlando who didn’t age, but it’s most of the characters, because, I think, they are all representatives of aspects of “the age” or a zeitgeist, and Orlando, I believe, is the English Spirit. The way Woolf treats the Tudor era as a kind of quasi-historical, quasi-legendary sandbox was very interesting, and got me thinking about how different historical periods take on a fairy-tale quality in different cultures. The one I tend to associate with that type of gilbly ahistorical playfulness is the “Medieval” period of Europe, or the “Regency” period of England, so it was interesting seeing an author from the 1920s doing this with a different period, because which period gets that treatment shifts with time. The way she writes Orlando’s gender change is both more modern than I was expecting and also very much a meditation on sexism and gender-roles first, and a story about “what if sex and gender were fluid” second. There is, however, a ton of racism, anti-Romani racism and orientalism baked into the crust of the story. Orlando’s sex change is brought on in Turkey, possibly by their marriage to a “gypsy” woman, and then the newly female Orlando spends many years wandering with some more “gypsies” who live in a mythical state of gender equality and shun wealth and art. Yeah. I did think it was interesting that the way Woolf, an English person writing in the early 20th century, described the Ottoman empire of the 1600s was as a generic orientalist fantasy, where these exotic backwards brown people a prone to dangerous and ignorant superstition and religious fervor, unlike the English people living there. This is, of course, how someone living in the late British Empire would see any culture that wasn’t theirs. It is NOT how an English person from the 1600s would have seen the Ottoman empire at all. (The Ottoman Empire in the 1600s was seen a exotic, yes, but also geopolitically dangerous, someone your country had a history of war with and who could not only hold their own, but take territory and people in “Christian” countries, a major and important trading partner with advanced goods, and religiously also very dangerous. There was a preoccupation with Ottoman women who were seen as both cloistered and loose because of the stereotypes and misconceptions around harems and also assumptions stemming from their ways of dress being different from European standards for women’s clothing.) There was also a point where you could feel Woolf wanting to take the sex change in the direction of lesbianism, but pulling back and instead having Orlando become a reluctant heterosexual. An interesting and mostly fun read, but very much a product of an English middle class late imperial author.

Sister Outsider, Audre Lorde: Easily one of the best nonfiction books I’ve ever read, and I’m kicking myself it took me that long to read it. One of the reasons I drug my feet was that I am very used to seeing Lorde’s words as pithy slogans used by other progressives in ways that shut down dialogue, and I had assumed they were using her words in the spirit in which they were written. They were not. Her commitment to accepting differences, and using those differences as a starting point for growth and for relationship was astounding and enlightening and not something I feel like I see often. I was also struck by her commitment to critique and anger as avenues for repair rather than cudgels to silence other people with. Her essays on her trips to the USSR and Grenada were also very enlightening. (I am aware that her purpose in writing was not to enlighten me, but that was the effect nonetheless). Overall, some of the most powerful clear-eyed prose I’ve ever encountered. I think there are some parts of this that have not aged the best, however. Her letter to Mary Daly, while a master-class in how to communicate with someone you are in community with who has harmed you along lines of oppressed identity who you still want to be in community with, does praise a lot of what is written in Gyn/Ecology while calling out the racism in it. There’s a non-negligible amount of talk about spiritual power and magic that I was able to parse as basic hippie and specifically Black hippie stuff with a feminist bent that I know writers who claim to be feminists but aren’t have taken as support for their divine womb weirdness. I do also think it’s necessary to look at this as a historical document. Spirituality was big on the left in the 70s. Its not surprising that many feminists in the 70s were also exploring that. Spirituality and religion had been largely on male terms up to that point. It’s not stupid that part of the explosion of feminist projects included trying to create a woman-focused and centered spirituality or try to recenter women in religious practice in a way that wasn’t just slotting women into the current system. The necessary reckoning between feminism and trans liberation hadn’t happened yet when most of these essays were being written, so there is a big blind spot there, though much of what she says is very applicable to trans liberation struggles. So, one of the best nonfiction books I have ever read, period.

Inside the Money Machine, Minnie Bruce Pratt: I’m glad I found this book (by accident, in the used section of a poetry bookshop). The poems are very approachable for someone who isn’t used to reading much poetry, and they are all portraits and explorations of the alienation and in/dignity of employment and unemployment in the USA, specifically from a working class perspective. I found every one of them struck a chord, and I think it’s a crying shame that Leslie Feinberg is a household name in specifically Queer circles, but Minnie Bruce Pratt (Leslie’s long-term partner and spouse) is not, especially among people who consider themselves champions of femmes. Anyway. “Inside the Money Machine” is amazing.”

Her Body and Other Parties, Carmen Maria Machado: Some of the stories in here were very good, and I would like to see more from this author, especially if she leans more into horror/sci-fi. Some of them did that Thing that I’ve noticed debut collections of short stories do where they write incredibly mundane things with this air of vague menace that I think is supposed to be a more intellectual or literary way of doing horror or thriller? And I’m unfortunately not a fan of that. It was cool the first few times I saw it but mostly I’m left feeling like there was all this build up and no pay off, because in these stories nothing bad actually happens, and that’s supposed to Say Something, but I never quite get what, I guess. I did think she very effectively crafted feminist horror, where the horror was men’s entitlement, or beauty standards, or the way society demands a particular type of gendered self-erasure from women. Good, but I’m not sure I get why it won the National Book Award.

Written on the Body: Jeanette Winterson: So other than Winterson deciding to take whatever she misremembered about Jewish people and create a Dickensian caricature with that (bad, don’t do this), it was a great read and exactly what I come to Winterson for, namely that extravagant interiority and rich prose. I applaud Winterson’s effort to write a narrator that could have been any gender, but personally, I don’t buy the narrator as a cis man. I don’t think that’s a flaw, just that it’s interesting that the author’s project stumbled on that wrung because of how she wrote the romance. The story is steeped in eroticism, which is especially seductive because all descriptions of sex must remain vague to support the original conceit. It forces the author to abandon any cheap shorthand of sexiness and instead find ways for everything to be erotic. It is the opposite of “everything is pornographic and nothing is erotic” and I very much enjoyed that.

[hellomynameisbisexual]

Research notes that more than half of the LGBTQ+ population identifies as bisexual. But given the alienation bi+ people—an umbrella term for those who are bisexual, polysexual, pansexual, and omnisexual—face within the community, you wouldn’t necessarily know it.

According to LGBTQ+ activist Robyn Ochs, editor of the anthology Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World and Recognize, the "B" for "bisexual" that got added to the acronym in the late '80s thanks to the hard work of bisexual activists was mostly performative. “The “B” got added, but that didn’t mean that 'LGBTQ+' suddenly became welcoming of bi+ individuals,” she says.

It's still too often the case that bi+ folks face both overt and covert biphobia within the LGBTQ+ community, which contributes to compromised mental health for bi+ people. And, as a bisexual writer and activist myself, I can personally attest that biphobia is even more devastating and isolating when it comes from within the LGBTQ+ community—my own community. “For the health of the LGBTQ+ community, we need to banish the biphobia within it,” says Ochs. Below, bi+ activists share ideas for how to eliminate biphobia in the LGBTQ+ community, which should be more inclusive of bi+ people.

5 ways to end a history of biphobia in the LGBTQ+ community

1. Quit saying that the “bi” in bisexuality reinforces the binary

One of the most damaging and widespread myths around bisexuality is that it reinforces the gender binary, or the idea that there are just two genders: men and women. That's not true, as evidenced by the 1990 Bisexuality Manifesto which reads, “Bisexuality is a whole, fluid identity. Do not assume that bisexuality is binary or duogamous in nature: that we have "two" sides or that we must be involved simultaneously with both genders to be fulfilled human beings. In fact, don't assume that there are only two genders.”

Unfortunately, this myth is one that holds steady and contributes to biphobia in the LGBTQ+ community. In my DMs just last week, someone said, “It’s messed up that you identify as bi when you’ve literally dated someone non-binary.” And another person said, “I don’t know why you would identify as bisexual when you could identify as pansexual and nod to the fact that you date non-binary people.”

What's key to remember is that bisexuality may have a slightly different definition depending on who is defining it, says Ochs. For example, many define bisexuality either as attraction to two or more genders, or as the attraction to those whose genders are similar and also dissimilar to their own. My personal favorite definition of bisexuality is one put forth by Ochs: “I call myself bisexual because I acknowledge that I have in myself the potential to be attracted—romantically and/or sexually—to people of more than one gender, not necessarily at the same time, not necessarily in the same way, and not necessarily to the same degree.”

The bottom line? “Listen to the bi+ people who say that their identity includes nonbinary people,” says Ochs.

2. Learn the real LGBTQ+ history of bisexuality

Despite what popular movies like Stonewall, How To Survive a Plague, Milk, and The Normal Heart might have you believe, it wasn’t just white gay men who have been on the frontlines of change. Bisexual, trans, and Black, Indigenous, people of color (BIPOC) are often left out of the narrative. Did you know, for instance, that self-identified drag queen, trans woman, and activist Marsha P. Johnson played a key role in the 1969 Stonewall Uprisings, which are now known as the first-ever Pride as well as a pivotal point in the fight for LGBTQ+ equality?

Ignoring the hand that bisexual people—and more specifically, transgender and Black bisexual people—have played in the LGBTQ+ movement from the start is not just biphobic, racist, and transphobic—it’s also ahistoric. Educate yourself by engaging with the content on Bi History’s Instagram, read this article about bisexuality, put out by GLAAD, and buy We Are Everywhere: Protest, Power, and Pride in the History of Queer Liberation by Matthew Riemer and Leighton Brown

3. Banish commentary that perpetuates biphobia in the LGBTQ+ community

The first step for ending biphobia in the LGBTQ+ community is acknowledging that it already exists. “Whenever I post about biphobia on my Instagram, there’s a weird skepticism from people who aren’t bi+ who follow me about whether or not it's real,” says Gabrielle Alexa Noel, bisexual advocate, founder of Bi Girls Club, and author of the forthcoming book, How To Live With the Internet and Not Let It Ruin Your Life. To be clear, it’s sadly very very real.

Next, become aware of when you’re experiencing biases against bi+ people based on myth and misconception. Don’t want to date someone bi+ because you think they’ll cheat on you? That’s biphobic. Don’t want to date someone bi+ because you think they’re more likely to give you an STI than your monosexual partners? Biphobia again. Nervous you won’t be enough for someone bi+? More biphobia.

Once you recognize when biases come up, as psychologist David Amodio, PhD, previously told Well+Good, “You [can] make sure these biases don’t influence your behavior.”

4. Stand up against biphobia

Once you’ve recognized and begun to address your own biphobia, you can begin recognizing when other people—regardless of their gender or sexual orientation—are being biphobic as well. And then, call them in. “It can’t be just out bi+ people who respond to instances of biphobia,” says Ochs.

Bisexual writer and activist Olivia Zayas Ryan agrees adding, “just as bisexual folks would go to bat for lesbian and gay people if someone said something blatantly homophobic or lesbophobic, gay and lesbian folks should be standing up against biphobia.”

In any group of people, it just takes one biphobic comment to make bi+ people feel unsafe and unwelcome—and just one person speaking out against it can make a big difference. “Publicly responding to biphobic comments tells bi+ that you're an ally, while also educating everyone about what behavior is and is not allowed in your space,” says Ochs.

5. Trust that bisexual folks are invested in the queer community

“There’s this weird, widespread assumption that if bi+ women are embraced by the LGBTQ+ community, we’re going to sully the space by bringing our cis-het male partners,” says Ryan. This is false.

For starters, not all bi+ women date men. Furthermore, it’s important to understand that bi+ people are LGBTQ+ and are equally invested in maintaining the safety and queerness of LGBTQ+ spaces. “I just wish people would trust that bi+ people don’t have any interest in ruining the vibe of LGBTQ+ spaces,” says Noel.

It sounds obvious, but “we, bi+ people, benefit from being in LGBTQ+ spaces, too,” she adds.

[opinated-user]

You have to keep in mind that Lily is a person with a ton of stalkers and harassers who have every reason to lie about her. So at least keep in mind where your sources lie. Some of that is real, like her flashing her audience, but she makes it clear her channel and tumblr is for adults. Even just based on her constant swearing, anyone old enough to have access to the internet should know she’s not making videos for kids. It’s not Lily’s responsibility to police how those kids use the internet, that’s their parent’s job. You can’t baby proof the internet.

But if you have proof, actual proof of any of the truly bad stuff she’s done, you should send her an ask. She’s shown to be very willing to discuss mistakes, like how she discussed perpetuating the firerose ship or not giving Aliana any relationships with other black women, but the thing is that most of that is not true or is exaggerated and/or taken out of context.

Also I should clarify I’m not defending her because I think she’s going to appreciate me helping her, in fact she’s actively recommended people not focus their blogs on defending her because of the potential harassment. I really don’t care if she appreciates it. I do this because she’s a person I greatly admire, and because she has so many absolutely nonsensical accusations hurled at her that need to be dispelled.

But if you have proof, actual proof of any of the truly bad stuff she’s done, you should send her an ask.

did you read when i said that she has made a smear campaign on every victim that has ever come out about what she did to them? that is exactly what bitch eating cracker video is all about. just a big smear campaign. when essenceofthought made two videos calling out LO, one on her ahistorical lies about queer and another about her involvement putting a minor on the brony fandom in danger, LO responded by calling essenceofthought a terf. the trans creator whose entire body of work is about calling transphobia is a terf because they called LO out. when abirdcalledlevi called her out for spreading rape culture apologia and then another where he calls out how she control the narrative for her own benefit, LO wasn't willing to discuss any of it and proceded to talk about levi about he was "insecure on his masculinity" and that is why he "attacked her". consider that levi is a trans man and LO was weaponizing his gender against him. when jess and zena from TGT started calling out her toxic behaviour, LO not only added jess on her bitch eating cracker videos but has continuesly lied about her, her credentials and has even gone as far as to imply that jess could be a danger for her own child, implicitingly accusing her of being a molester, a transphobic narrative that trans women particularly are more vulnerable to. levi and jess once were both fans of LO, just like you. they admired her just like you. LO was one of their major influences when it came to the type of opinions they had, just like you. but the moment they expressed any disagreement because they started to think for themselves, LO not only threw them under the bus but she has keep demonizing them even today and has never conceded to any of their points no matter how well they presented them. isomeday she'll do the same to you if you keep at her side and when that day comes, and it'll if you keep with her, hope that people will believe you or that you have enough screenshots to convince them.  LO's a predator and all predators look after their own wellbeing first and foremost. that’s not an accusation, it’s a fact based on her own actions.

[crossdressingdeath]

I know you'll probably disagree with me, but i rlly hate the Cloud recessess ending. It's just....

Those elders killed wwx. The Lans were 100% ready to murder both at Qiongqi path but also at the siege. They see him as the guy who corrupted their precious jade. They all preach righteousness, but the whole madam Lan thing is iffy at best and i do not believe that everyone there fully believes the rules. Hell, i have a special bone to pick with the " do not gossip" rule, seeing as gossip had been the main info route for women in patriarchal societies.

I just don't think that after wwx killed Lans in the siege they'd be all that willing to forgive him and take him in w open arms. The juniors and kids love him, yes, but people who saw the war....

Not to mention the whole " do not speak to WWX " rule. I've seen ppl say it's a joke but it's On The Wall. It's supposed to be followed. Even if it was intended as a joke - which i don't believe - it's very cruel for someone w rejection and trust issues.

I also hate it from a very personal perspective. I see Wwx as ND, and, as an ND myself, all those rules terrify me. From the no running and the proper posture ones, i can pretty well imagine they forbid stimming. The Lan curfew would fuck anyone with insomnia and there's smth deeply ucked up abt the " do not grieve in excess". I get that they're supossed to be a paragon of the best things at all time, and that LJY is very UnLan like, but for someone w anxiety who CAN'T follow those rules, it would be a nightmare.

...Some points:

First, the Lan elders did not kill WWX, nor did they attack him unfairly. They weren’t looking at him as the man who corrupted LWJ, either, or at least that wasn’t their primary concern (I will never forgive CQL for suggesting they were or it was); they were looking at him as a traitor to the sects who was raising an army to destroy them. Remember, that is the information the Lans had. Every source they had except for LWJ (who the people he would have gone to would have known was biased and who presumably everyone knew had recently been in close contact with WWX where he could have been manipulated or enchanted in some way), sources which included multiple sect leaders (one of whom was WWX’s brother) and LXC’s dear friend, swore up and down that WWX was a major threat, and let’s face it, WWX didn’t do much to dissuade people from thinking that! Acting like the Lans were maliciously targeting WWX is doing them something of a disservice, I’d say. They acted based on the knowledge they had available; note how the Lans are the first to offer WWX their help once they’re given reason to believe he may not be a villain! And even aside from that, saying they killed WWX (and not JGS and JGY’s manipulation or JC’s army) feels a bit like scapegoating, honestly. Of the four sects, the Lans are quite possibly the least responsible for WWX’s death. If it would hurt him to live with or around anyone who held any responsibility for his death his only option would be to live as a hermit, which would be far worse for him. And yeah, the Lans aren’t perfectly righteous all the time and some morally dubious things have been done by Lan sect members; they’re human, after all! Some of them will only be as moral as their sect leader demands they be! That doesn’t mean the sect as a whole is bad, especially with LXC, LQR and LWJ in charge. Certainly I’d say they’re still better than the other sects, all things considered. One ambiguous situation that may or may not have involved some members of the previous generation doing some fucked up shit doesn’t mean WWX would for sure be mistreated! 

As for gossip... there’s a difference between sharing information and gossiping. There’s no evidence that the Lan women are blocked from... y’know, freely communicating and sharing information between themselves. We have no reason to believe they are reliant on gossip. Also they presumably go out night hunting just like the men? Men and women are kept separate in the Cloud Recesses, but I get the sense that that’s more like... school stuff than anything else. The women aren’t exactly locked up, they can be cultivators! The society is still sexist, but that doesn’t mean they’re kept from going out and doing things. And I need to make this clear: there is a fair chance that the rule against gossip saved LWJ’s life, because it kept word of him defending WWX from the sects from spreading to people who would not be willing to let bygones be bygones. Gossip sucks! It hurts people! A lot of this story (and more to the point the suffering of the characters within the story) happens because of gossip! The Lans banning gossip is pretty clearly supposed to be a good thing, I’d say.

And yeah, maybe after WWX killed a bunch of their sect the Lans wouldn’t accept him with open arms as if nothing ever happened! And that’s fair! I can’t imagine where WWX could go where that wouldn’t be the case, unless he and LWJ chose to abandon the cultivation world forever. But you know what else the Lans won’t do? Try to execute him. Or from what we see in the extras even dwell on the past that much. No, the Lans aren’t going to immediately forgive WWX and bring him into the fold without a moment’s hesitation, but you know what? They accept his marriage to LWJ! They let him supervise the juniors on night hunts! They consider him part of their sect! Honestly, that is all WWX can really ask and far more than he’d get from any other sect. There are consequences for what WWX did, even though he wasn’t the villain or necessarily trying to hurt anyone, and frankly people not being entirely comfortable with his presence is very much reasonable.

The “do not speak to WWX” rule may not be a joke, but it’s also pretty clearly not a serious rule. No one takes it seriously. The juniors (the only people WWX really talks to anyway aside from LXC and LWJ) only pay it the minimum lip service of talking to him off the path. WWX himself sure as hell doesn’t care! He clearly finds it pretty damn funny. And I don’t think a guy who has never liked him once again proving he does not like him (in a way that is clearly temporary given how later LQR invites WWX to the Lan family banquet with... reasonable amounts of grace, thereby implicitly accepting him as LWJ’s husband and therefore his own family by marriage) counts as a rejection or a breach of WWX’s trust? Like, LQR has literally always hated WWX. He isn’t preventing WWX and LWJ from spending time together or shutting WWX out of the Cloud Recesses or even making a concentrated effort to keep people from talking to him; he’s venting his frustrations, but if he really intended to block WWX from taking part in life in the Cloud Recesses he would’ve done a hell of a lot more than just make a rule who no one WWX likes follows anyway. It’s a temper tantrum, that’s all, and clearly that’s what WWX takes it as. I mean, if nothing else you can’t ban people from talking to the sect heir’s spouse indefinitely. That’s just not sustainable.

As for the rules... banning people from running in the Cloud Recesses and demanding proper posture during lessons doesn’t suggest to me that they wouldn’t allow stimming? ‘No running’ at least is a common rule... most places. It’s distracting, and can be dangerous. And the rule about sitting properly doesn’t mean “Don’t move at all ever”; it means... well, “sit properly”. Don’t slouch or sprawl across the floor. I see no reason why that wouldn’t preclude means of stimming that wouldn’t be disruptive (and given this is in a classroom environment “not disruptive” is kind of important). I mean, those rules certainly don’t suggest that they’re any worse than other sects, and given this is the sect that has magic music for calming people’s minds if any sect would give allowances for neurodivergence it would be this one. Also I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a song to put people to sleep, or medication that can help; this is a world with magic, after all, and if there’s a song that can put spirits to rest there are probably songs for human medicine and care. And of course there’s an element of conflicting needs; maybe the rules would screw you over, but frankly firmly enforced rules keeping people from running around or sprawling out of their seats would’ve been a godsend for me in school, given how much trouble I had focusing with people making noise around me. At the end of the day, is it guaranteed that the Lans would make allowances for people with needs that conflict with the Lan rules? No. But I’d argue it’s more likely that they would than any other sect. This is ahistorical fantasy ancient China, too; you can only expect so much in the mental health department. Still, a sect that literally invented magic music for calming the mind actually seems like the best choice for people with anxiety and such. There’s a reason why there are multiple fics that essentially set the Lans up as mental health experts in the setting!

Basically, a lot of your arguments seem to be issues that WWX would have in any sect. Unless he wanted to give up on the support of a sect altogether, they’re all things that he would have to work through or come to terms with. And of course... the most important point is that WWX is happy in the Lan sect. The extras make that clear. He has a home, duties that he enjoys performing, the love of his family and the support of his sect. He’s happy. I just... I do not understand why people keep feeling the need to try to make it angsty when the novel makes it clear that he genuinely enjoys his life in Gusu, and more than that that if he ever decided he didn’t enjoy it he could leave at any time. You have to remember that: if WWX wanted to leave... he would. He and LWJ would just go, and only come back occasionally so that LWJ could visit his home. Hell, LWJ would insist on leaving for WWX’s sake. So like... the Lan sect wouldn’t suit everyone, but WWX is quite content there and doesn’t want to leave. He’s happy and free to come and go as he wishes; there really isn’t anything to be concerned about there.

[writingwithcolor]

I’m drafting a fantasy story where the main character is a native woman of color (& native tribes are present and active on the continent where the story takes place). There is a colonial kingdom who is not violent toward the natives (they usually don’t interact with each other at all) but the course of the story includes the native Mc being called upon by the gods to help out the colonial queen because the continent is being invaded by different violent colonists. (1/2)

It’s supposed to be more of an “everyone will lose magic if you don’t end up helping these people, because they’ll hurt everyone here”; I should note that the queen is also the mc’s love interest. Tl;dr the natives in the story are indifferent to a non empirical colonial kingdom they’ve coexisted with for about 30 years, & the gods tell the Mc to help save the kingdom from other colonists. If I’m writing this then I want to do it the right way, avoiding any stereotypes etc. (2/2)

Natives Helping Powerful (Colonial) Empire

Before I begin, please do not conflate “colonial” with “white.” Colonial powers are always violent, and are always an active oppressor of the people they are colonizing. It is not a word to toss around lightly. 

The reason it is used so much in modern day is because there is only one Indigenous population currently unoccupied by colonialism on the planet, and it’s on a small island. Every other Indigenous group is actively being oppressed by colonialism, and whether that violence is physical or cultural it is still violent.

If you truly mean that this is a colonial power, then I’m going to ask you please not, because Natives helping colonizers is an extremely touchy topic best left for #ownvoices. It does not matter if this colonial empire hasn’t hurt the Native populations yet (and it is “yet”; colonialism is always hungry for victims). Colonialism and our relationship to it is ours to write about.

With how America has just recently blown up a burial site for a border wall and Canada is actively invading (unceded) Wetsuweten territory for a pipeline (with full military vehicles), having any sort of colonial/Native alliance handled by an outsider would be extremely harmful and perpetuate oppression.

If, however, you meant to write “white neighbouring kingdom”…

For starters, the whole concept of “Gods called to do/be x” can be a very Christian/European pagan thing. Native spirituality is a much different beast, and each nation has different ideals and relationships to their deities. 

You’ll have to do research into how we move to action, because Native people in general have lower individualism and a higher community focus than the American ideal.

Can’t speak any more specifically than that, because each nation is different in how they relate to their spirits.

Next up, there is certain caution to be applied when you have Indigenous peoples be the most magically attuned. This tends to be dipping into the toes of Magical Native, Noble Savage, and general concepts of misconstruing our responsibility to protect the land as any sort of white person fantasy. 

I’ve talked about this at length in the Noble Savage and Magical Native tags. Tl;dr we’re also heavily scientific along with a deep spirituality, and removing our centuries of scientific advancement is a disservice to us.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, you have to be careful you don’t fall into the “Thanksgiving” kinds of narratives. Look at how nice and generous and kind Natives were, helping everyone, allowing American culture to flourish, giving away all the land America needed.

It’s a deeply, deeply weaponized narrative, and it sanitizes the active colonialism that was beginning even at the start of America’s history. Land was stolen from the start, and Thanksgiving gives thanks for massacring us.

Natives do not exist to be saviours of white people, which I think is how a lot of non-Natives view our environmental work. They see Natives as wanting to save the whole population, when we are trying to save our home. 

We are allowed to be selfish about it, and a few of us have no intention of ever working with white people from how deeply we’ve been burned. Our goal is to save our home, to save the place that gave us our lives, the place that teaches us how to live. 

Which I think, deep down, is what upsets me about the story. The whole plot (as presented here) is basically “Native person forced to save white man because I the author say they have to.” That’s how white people view us. That’s how America’s history is taught.

That is not our reality.

There’s also a ring of ahistorical to it, because Indigenous people were either at war or trading with their neighbours (and alternating between the two), so the whole “completely closed off” thing either came from the white kingdom being deeply rude to the point of basically a war/enemies declaration, or you end up painting Natives as haughty and impossible to work with. If the former, your “indifference” is wrong, and if the latter, it’s racist (based off a misconception around the Thanksgiving narrative mentioned above—they were so nice but now they’re so mean for no reason).

People were people, which meant people traded. People had wars. People got curious what was over the fence and cultural diffusion happened all the time. You can trace the trade routes Indigenous people had by tracing how corn spread across the continent, because while it’s a North American crop, it was first domesticated in the south and moved all the way up to the Great Lakes.

If you want an example of how white and Indigenous culture mixed, look up the Metis in Canada. They’re a whole nation that blends primarily Cree and French (with a dash of Scottish) culture together, thanks to intermarriage between white settler men and Native women that mutually benefited both sides for a very long while, and created a very large population of people who are all some percentage of mixed white/ Native. Whatever mix they have does not invalidate either side because they’re built off being mixed and pulling heavily from both, then making it their own.

The whole concept of “they simply coexisted without interacting” doesn’t work, not unless you create a situation that forced them to close off, and “Native person breaks code of silence to help rude-at-best white people” is starting to get back into a type of story best left in Native hands.

All in all, this story doesn’t ring true on multiple fronts. I’d go back to the drawing board based off the points I raised above, and see what a better fit for your story is.

But to reiterate: if this is truly a colonial empire, know that “non violent colonial empire” is an oxymoron, and having a Native person work with a colonizer is not your story to tell.

~ Mod Lesya

[theuntamednarrator]

Thank you @mika--82​ for the question! I’m sorry it took so long but since I really enjoyed plotting out my Cangse Sanren lives au, and I think a lot about the women in The Untamed who didn't get to see their children grow up, strap in for round two of TB Revives the Mothers of the Untamed. This week's episode: Save Mama Lan by killing Lan Qiren \^.^/

(Many thanks to @drwcn​ for letting me borrow her hc names for Mama Lan (Qui Baiti) and Papa Lan (Lan Cenrong). You can read more about them on her blog here and here.)

(Warning for an unsuccessful suicide attempt)

QBT has been isolated in the Jingshi for a decade. She only sees her sons once a month, she isn’t allowed her sword, and her spiritual power is kept sealed

But LWJ inherited his stubbornness from his mum and she's determined to escape, one way or another

LQR is walking by the Jingshi when he feels a massive surge of energy and breaks his first ever Discipline (no running in Cloud Recesses)

He wrenches the Jingshi door open and sees an array that wouldn't look out of place two decades in the future in an alternate universe in a dingy shed behind Mo Manor

LQR breaks his second Discipline in as many minutes (do not make excessive noise) when he screams for his brother before he grabs QBT and drags her out of the array

LQR didn't have time to think, let alone study what the effects of that might be, all he knew was that it was killing her, and that her death would kill the brother he loves more than anything else

The backlash strikes him and he keels over

QBT gathers him up, sobbing and asking why he did it, she wanted to die, why did you do it Lan-er-gongzi? what were you thinking? Your brother loves you

LQR meets his brother’s eyes as he appears over her shoulder, the terrified disciples flanking him a white blur

He smiles and says I know

Curtains on LQR

(alternatively, we can just kill JGS again because ngl that was real satisfying the first time around)

Now the Elders are in a pickle because this may have been an accident but QBT has now been responsible for the deaths of an Elder and Second Young Master Lan

It's decided that the only option is exile

QBT is forbidden from setting foot in Cloud Recesses and the territories of Gusu Lan for ten year and forbidden from speaking to any Lan disciple during that time

She bows, accepts back the plain sword she had yielded when she came through the gates to be married, and is gone before the dawn. LCR watches her leave and then goes to wake their sons

Now, QBT was a wandering cultivator long before she was Lan-furen and actually really enjoys returning to life on the road

I wandered once! I can do it again!

Five years later she meets XXC battling a ferocious demon snake and together they defeat it

QBT definitely doesn’t feel her heart beat a little faster at the youthful face, white robes, and elegant jade-and-silver sword

She answers XXC's graceful bow with one of her own and the two spend a week clearing out the fierce nests of demons on the mountain

The next time their wandering brings them together she is introduced to my good friend Song Lan and hides her smile in her sleeve

Meanwhile in Cloud Recesses without LQR to pick up the slack LCR is forced to step out of seclusion and actually run his sect and parent his children

He does a very good job

QBT has to fight back proud tears every time she hears Twin Jades of Lan spoken of with awe

Ten years to the day of her exile QBT is grinning as she climbs the long flights of stairs towards the gates of Cloud Recesses

Part of that might be the entertaining company she walks with

A young man clutching two bottles of Emperor's Smile and talking so fast she’s only half listening while she tries to figure out if he’s actually taken a breath since introducing himself

Talking at breakneck speed of the young master who had been so strict with him at the gates, aiya Auntie! He was so cold! you should have seen his stony face

QBT only grins harder as WWX climbs the wall, is challenged, and blades flash over tiles (it might bring back fond memories of her own youth)

She slips over the wall while they are distracted and once WWX is silenced she reaches out her hand

You handle your sword beautifully, may I?

LWJ can't even say why - it's too dark to see her face and the voice is roughened after 10 years on the road - but he hands Bichen over without a second thought

She sighs as she runs a finger over the blade and the steel glows, lighting up her face (solely because I think glowy Bichen is very sexy and we should have had more of it in the drama honestly)

Bichen suits you better than it ever suited me, ZhanZhan 

LWJ is emoting all over the place (so embarrassing)

(luckily his back is to WWX because if baby disaster bi WWX saw that smile he would've died on the spot)

WWX of course is still a troublemaking rule breaker and LWJ is still charged with overseeing his punishment

QBT and LXC are united in their LWJ should make friends agenda and LXC inherited his sense of humour and delight for teasing LWJ from QBT

Between the two of them LWJ soon has more friends than he knows what to do with

QBT and LXC co-captain the good ship Wangxian

Of course plot stuff still happens including accidental-marriage-before-a-Quest-Ghost

XXC and SL meet them in Yueyang and when LWJ introduces himself they're thrilled because hey we know your mum! she’s real cool!

They don't trust the clans and they might've heard of NMJ but they know Qui-jiejie and they trust her and so they decide XY will go to Cloud Recesses for judgement

N-wow the twin jades are really deserving of their reputations-HS insists on a Qinghe representative going too

oh me? no no Wei-xiong this has been quite enough adventure for me. Meng Yao you'll go won't you? Dage trusts you and Lan-gongzi admired your *delicate cough* capability *innocent smile*

my.blush.com/embarrassed/yearning agrees

QBT is delighted to see XXC and SL again and happily introduces them to her elder son

SL and LXC almost immediately get into a heated debate over ahistorical fantasy chinese philosophy and/or politics and are instantly bonded

QBT may or may not have instigated said debate with a well-timed quote from a well-known (re: divisive) text

Basically QBT shares my get LXC more friends agenda

SL is, again, the first person (apart from LXC and his parents) to laugh at LWJ's jokes

WWX still refuses to believe this actually happened (the joke and SL laughing) (XXC swears it’s true)

XY is locked in the back hills and eventually a) dies trying to use his hidden piece of the yin iron to break the seals OR b) is rehabilitated by the power of bunnies and become an outer disciple (reader's choice!)

XXC and SL accompany WWX and JC part of the way to Lotus Pier

Cloud Recesses is attacked, QBT and LCR send LXC and MY away with the sacred texts, MY promising he knows somewhere safe to hide

LWJ refuses to leave his parents. The losses are not as bad as in canon, the Wen are beaten back, but LCR and LWJ are both injured

No Good Very Bad Summer Camp with World's Worst Head Counselor WC

No Good Very Bad Turtle Cave of Love

WWX wakes post-rescue with LWJ still there

(Because his parents are holding Cloud Recesses and he knows LXC is safe so he doesn't need to rush off)

JZX, JC, LWJ, and WWX spend a day planning before they split up

(this is hilarious and JC says "fuck" not less than 219 times)

(WWX only almost punches JZX and it only happens twice honestly people should be grateful! he was so restrained!!)

They all return home, LWJ promising to bring reinforcements from Cloud Recesses to Lotus Pier (because it's the most obvious next target. no other reason. just. strategically it makes sense)

WQ sends WN to Lotus Pier to warn WWX when WZL's forces are on their way

When the Wen attack, they're met with a prepared force of 1) YZY and the Jiang Disciples 2) QBT, LWJ, and a contingent of Lan Disciples AND 3) JC and WWX and a gaggle of archers (seriously why tf show the Jiang being so good and then only give us two archery fight scene moments and it’s heart breaking sixth young master jiang dying and some rando ouyang disciple shooting WWX?)

Things get a little hairy but between YZY and QBT they defeat WZL and the rest of the Wen quickly surrender

JFM and JYL arrive just as the battle is ending, escorted by Madam Jin, JZX, LQY, and all the Jin Disciples who were at Cloud Recesses

(WWX: MianMian you came you must have been so worried about me! LQY, ignoring him: Lan-er-gongzi are you okay? WWX: ah Lan Zhan you MianMian really likes you! that’s lucky! LWJ, screaming internally: mn)

(JGS was furious when JZX announced he was joining the campaign but what could he possibly say in front of his battle ready wife without looking like the utter coward of a wet biscuit he is)

Once again WWX is left with a screaming sword, too much curiosity, and too much time on his hands (due to his adopted family being not-dead)

But worse he has now also access to a woman who created an array powerful enough to kill even with her spiritual power sealed

Poor WRH doesn't stand a chance, even without MY spying for the Sunshot Campaign

After the battle QBT&LCR and YZY&JFM shut JGS's bullshit power grab down real quick and JGS sulks like the baby he is (probably in a brothel) while Madam Jin and JZX take over Lanling Jin

JZX hears about MY and the way he helped LXC and NMJ sends a letter of support and JZX is already quite jealous of all these sibling bonds and welcomes Ziyao with open arms

(All of which goes slightly to waste when JZY marries out to the Lan clan slightly less than a year later but hey, at least it's a good alliance.)

WQ takes over the Wen Clan but tears down Nightless City and relocates the capital to Dafan

(WQ: have you been to Nightless City? It’s built on an active volcano. Do you know how bad sulfur ash is for open wounds? Do you know what medical herbs grow in lava slurry? None is the answer. My family are all fucking morons)

(WQ: Not you a-Ning you’re a delight and we’re thrilled you’re here)

Rumour has it a certain immortal was so impressed with the stories of the medical techniques of Dafan Wen that she paid WQ a visit

(Disciples are so reckless after all! One never knows when one might need to be capable of transplanting vital organs!)

Each year WWX and LWJ spend 3 months at Gusu, 3 months at Lotus Pier, and 6 months wandering with XXC and SL

They get "fake married" no less than four times in three years (for the investigation xiongzhang! absolutely no other reason shishu! no other reason at all!) before LXC, MY, XXC, and SL get fed up and barricade them in their room until they talk to each other dammit

(LXC is very grateful MY has gotten so handy with the silencing talismans because the 'conversation' gets uncomfortably loud real quick)

Side note to say Clarity works very well to avert a qi deviation when it's not being actively corrupted, thanks very much, and NMJ lives many, many, many years which would be entirely happy if only NHS would pick up his saber once in a while

He would tell NHS this if he could ever find him

Happy ending!³

[shotbyafool]

weird that Six begins with the statement that “All you ever hear / And read about / Is our ex and the way it ended”, presenting this in order to rebel against it, but... the entire musical is just a retelling of their relationship with Henry or other men?

No Way is a song to Henry about the breakup of their marriage. Don’t Lose Ur Head begins only when Boleyn enters a relationship with Henry (and also frames her as encouraged into that relationship by her father?). Heart of Stone is a song sung TO Henry about their relationship. Get Down is about how Cleves benefits from her divorce from Henry. All You Wanna Do presents Howard’s relationship outside of Henry... but it’s still only about the other men around her who have wronged her and how she suffered for that. I Don’t Need Your Love has Parr singing to someone who isn’t Henry and yearning for someone else... but that’s still fundamentally her singing about a man, even though it has a verse in the middle of the song about what she did. 

like, it seems strange, to me, for the musical to present itself as recontextualizing these women outside of their relationship with Henry (”That's not my story / There's so much more”) to give a premise that means they will only sing about their relationship with Henry. Parr is literally the only person who gets to really talk about what she did outside of her connection to him, but when she presents it, it’s framed as she is ONE of the six women who is reclaiming their story when in reality she’s the only one who is able to do this. we don’t KNOW what Boleyn did before Henry, how Seymour was outside of being a mother and a wife, literally any of Cleves’ backstory...

also, on the premise, it seems silly to present the musical as feminist when literally the summary is “the six wives of Henry compete to see who suffered the most, and whoever did gets to be in the lead singer in their pop band”. so... we’re pitting these women against each other for no reason, having them engage in that dangerous form of torture competition that women so often do nowadays to state that they’re stronger for going through worse circumstances? why is that the premise? 

in framing the story around that, it’s basically women competing about how LITTLE agency they had and how much THEY suffered over the others. thus it’s women trying to prove how little agency they had, which in fact is not really a feminist story at all. like, I see nothing wrong with telling stories about women who DID suffer and who DID have agency taken away from them, but Six is quite literally ahistorical in writing away Boleyn’s political interest and influence. sometimes women DID get their forces heard, and they still suffered for it. 

I think there’s a flaw in the set-up of Six vs. the story it wants to tell. Six is about these women only ever talking about men and how they were wronged by them, which is not the basis for a feminist story. they needed to find a different  reason other than “these women are going to sing and try to prove that they were the most wronged by Henry” for them to be together, and a focus on the songs that was more than “here’s how Henry’s relationship with me unfolded and how my story ended.” if they wanted to present a musical about these women, the premise should’ve been about who they were OUTSIDE of their marriages, not just how they get wronged within them.

[akallabeth-joie]

Episode 2

Spoilery thoughts, ahoy. Culminating in a lot of capslock, rants, and swearing.

*Fantine and Cosette's completely illogical and ahistoric hairstyles are driving me to distraction.

*Most awkward job interview ever. Since when is JVJ the meddling prude? Also, it felt really condescending to the audience--like they had to SPELL OUT that lovers and childen are not permitted MULTIPLE TIMES, or else we wouldn't notice that Fantine is in a precarious position within an unmerciful society. 

*Tiny Eponine, Azelma, Cosette, and Gavroche!

*Thenardier mistreating Madame Thenardier...it's disturbing, as was Hugo's characterization of their relationship, but not quite in the same way.  The "Thenardier screws people over" exposition was very blunt, but I'll grant that there was no Santa sex scene.

*JVJ Javert meeting was... heavy-handed. I think this is getting to be a theme. Or a problem. Or both. Javert is arguing for the existing social understanding of crime! JVJ argues for mercy! The subtext is...not sub. Javert already suspects JVJ, he brings up the Petit Gervais incident.

*And they’ve just made up an incident between Fantine and Madame Victunien... who’s now the supervisor of the women’s workshop.  Ok, there’s conservation of characters in live-action films, but somehow concentrating the interference and indifference of multiple M-sur-M characters into one changes the nature of Fantine’s descent. She’s not the victim of an unmerciful and indifferent society that cares more for the appearance than the practice of virtue: she’s ruined by one person being nosy and vengeful.  And, in case we didn’t dislike her already, Madame V is also made the mouthpiece to all the Montfermil people who sided with the Thenardiers and blamed Fantine.

*Slightly less tiny Marius has a wig! It’s not quite ‘scoundwell’ level of cute, but it is cute. Also, WTF with moving up this timeline? He’s supposed to be an adult. And undergo character growth as a result of understanding his father’s life and love too late.  That...sort of gets lots by making this happen when he’s just a child to be passively moved between Gillenormand and Nicolette (who doesn’t have any standing to be advocating like this). Really, this whole bit feels super contrived, and would work better by just delaying Georges’ death until (the canonical time when) Marius has grown up accepting his grandfather’s version of events, then sees the error of his ways, leading to their break--and Marius yelling about Napoleon a few times.

*WTF THEY JUST DID TO VALJEAN’S CHARACTER?! THE TRAGEDY OF FANTINE’S FALL IS THAT THE ONE PERSON WITH THE UNDERSTANDING TO SYMPATHIZE WITH HER AND POWER TO HELP HER DIDN’T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. That is is all lost and completely inverted to have him know from the start, and to sympathize with Fantine’s accusers. HE ALREADY IS FULLY COMMITTED TO DOING CRIME TO HELP CHILDREN! AND TO PEOPLE CONTRAVENING SOCIAL STANDARDS OUT OF DESPERATE POVERTY! AND TO SECOND CHANCES TO REJOIN SOCIETY! Now, he’s just throwing that all out to be a dick to Fantine, after his reformation was supposed to be complete (save the transforming power of Cosette’s love). 

*No, seriously, they didn’t need to do this. Just have Madame V fire Fantine as she wants to, and report a highly edited version to JVJ, so he doesn’t know until its too late. His guilt re: Fantine is supposed to be of omission, that he failed to help when he had the means, not of commission, that he’s a f*cking hypocritical jerk.

*Really, ‘don’t be a dick to poor children’ is the baseline of decent characters in Les Miserables. JVJ in full possession of the facts at this point knows that Fantine has very valid reasons for lying about a kid: he KNOWS he’s the highest paying employer in the area; he KNOWS how much she is paid, and he FUCKING ASKED if she had any children or lovers while clearly indicating that SHE COULD NOT HAVE THE NOT-AS-SHITTY-PAYING job if she mentioned the kid she’s supporting. Vicky Mary-Joseph-and-Jesus Hugo. WHAT IS THIS?!

*YES, SHE LIED. YOU FUCKING STOLE. REMEMBER WHEN YOU CARED ABOUT CHILDREN, JVJ?

*Seriously, this is a shitty, shitty utterly contrived and goddamned out of character reinterpretation of a pivotal interaction for the whole goddamn plot. AND IT IS AWFUL. AND UNNECESSARY.

*Like, this is the point where I stop forgiving, and appreciating the little nods to canon. THEY MISSED THE MAIN POINT SO ENTIRELY THAT I CAN’T ENJOY IT ANY MORE.

*The weirdly sped-up time lines are annoying, but not so much as UTTERLY FAILING THE CHARACTERIZATION OF YOUR MAIN CHARACTER.

*Marius is cute.  I think they’re just changing plots and timelines for the heck of it at this point, but I’ll grant the little Mariuses are a treasure, and Georges Pontmercy may be the only adult acting the least bit in character during this episode. [Ok, Madame Thenardier.] 

*The scribe just took Fantine’s landlord’s line, and it’s creepy that he seems to be trying to help rather than being unmerciful.  Then there’s the tooth-and-hair-seller in one, because we can’t have any pacing here (no sewing, no shirts, no falling standard of living as she gives up warmth and food and sleep while still trying to work...).  But, the tooth guys’s all about active consent? Which is...almost a nice touch? Also, the ‘helpful’ scribe and almost-seeing-her-old-coworkers is a poor substitute for helpful neighbor Marguerite.

* M. Bamatabois does his thing...after Fantine gets a chance to state her situation about being f*cked by society. So, yay that she gets a chance to spell it out for us apparently-really-unperceptive audience members, and Bamatabois being a dick to Fantine after learning of her desperate poverty is reasonably in-character, compared to everything else about this episode.

*Fantine’s summary of events is RIGHT, because they wrote it that way. Not because the characters have DIFFERENT INFORMATION and INTERPRETATIONS of event.

*NICE CHANGE OF HEART JVJ, YOU UTTER BASTARD. WHAT BROUGHT THIS ON? YOU CAUSED ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS, LIKE, YESTERDAY.

*Javert? Fantine hasn’t been sentenced. She’s in the process of being detained. Slight difference.

*Don’t trust him, Fantine! This is the inexplicable-jerkish JVJ!

*Sister Simplice! And a third use of Fantine’s new surname--I have to headcanon this as Fantine making one up for herself and everyone learning it as her name, BECAUSE HUGO EXPLICITLY SAID SHE HAS NO FAMILY NAME. If you want to be “most accurate to the book”, you need to actually be “accurate to the book” in some capacity.

*WTF sending Madame V for Cosette? She is highly biased against Fantine. Granted, she apparently knows the way already (does JVJ know that?), but does the mayor have no other trusted subordinates? Fuck, he has money, is there no one he can hire?

Sorry, that got long. I’m just really, really, upset. I knew this was coming due to everyone else’s reactions (@pilferingapples‘s has an excellent essay on why changing JVJ’s behavior here changes his character), but seeing it was WORSE. Ugh.

[lizzyswann-turnersuggestions]

13, 18 & 20!

OOC: 

13. What gets them flusteredAs touched on in the previous, being confronted with anything she’s not ready or willing to admit to about herself.  This is, narratively, something she has in common with Jack (”Jack Sparrow does not know what he wants! Or, do you know, but are loathe to claim it as your own?”  According to Ted and Terry on the writers’ commentary track, the recurring mention of what Jack actually wants but will not admit to, which is making his compass go screwy, is intended to be Elizabeth) - Jack’s simplified story about desire and loyalty makes him a foil to Elizabeth and Will’s more complicated arcs about those things.  

This is consistently the case in all times Elizabeth can be said to be either flustered or uncomfortable - when she’s confronted with something she did or wants and doesn’t want to want, when she’s lying to James in the deleted scene in COTBP it’s because she’s talking around what she actually wants to pretend that she wants James and a life with him when she doesn’t.  

In this RP particularly what gets her flustered is one James Norrington, who occupies a space where all of these different desires and personality traits she won’t cop to intersect: first she has to admit she wanted/wants him and Will at the same time, which she doesn’t want to do because it challenges her perception of herself as a generally good person and forces her to examine how selfish she’s willing to be. Secondly she has to admit to having been wrong about how much she wanted Will and why she didn’t want Norrington, which also highlights how little she knows herself.  And thirdly, sexual desire is funny, annoying business, lol

18. Things they’ll never admit

I wouldn’t say she’ll never admit it, but she’s struggling to admit right now that her feelings for Will might have been founded on infatuation and that her feelings for James could have been greater if she’d given him a chance (and that she likes girls entirely). It’s such a painful thing to admit because to her it feels like proof neither relationship was or could ever be serious and thus maybe she shouldn’t try to love anyone.

I have, personally - me, as the player, as a person - a lot of negative feelings about One True Love/True Love/Soul Mates as a story construction and it’s because of this.   I think that “true love” is when you find someone you have a certain rapport with, and then work to prioritize that commitment and make that person your life partner in everything.  I don’t think that the work and commitment come just because you meet the right person, and I certainly don’t think you can only feel this towards one person or you’re superficial and shallow and your love isn’t real love and your soul mate isn’t your real soul mate.  If you have that kind of deep love with one person I don’t think it’s impossible to feel it for another later - and if you do it does not mean one of those occasions simply wasn’t real!  But that’s how we narratively frame love and I think Elizabeth buys into it, and for her, feeling doubts about her commitment to Will, or having feelings that she might have loved another man if she’d just known him a little bit better than she did, really crushed her.  

In the films Elizabeth’s attraction to Will is quite clearly founded in superficial things but she ultimately finds her will (ha) to be with him is strong enough to sustain the love, even though she’s attracted to Jack too. I don’t like that being treated as “soul mates! they’re meant to be together because they know what they other is thinking exclusively during scheming and battling monsters!” and I wanted to explore where the relationship with James Norrington might have gone, which is a factor in why they ended up breaking up. 

But in the RP Elizabeth isn’t ready to accept that and I don’t know when/if she will be.  I don’t want her to go to a place where she’s like “oh James was my real love all along” because I don’t believe that or think believing it would be beneficial to her, but she has a long way to go to unlearn that mindset.

20. What Ifs/Alternative Timelines

I’m working on a fanfiction that’s an alternative timeline; in it, Will is 14 at the start of the story (which he was at some point during the scriptwriting process, before Jack became unfuckable and Will was made into the love interest) and the relationship Elizabeth has with him is more of a complex friendship.  In my plans for it, Elizabeth is still going to reject James Norrington, largely because he represents a version of her future she doesn’t want and doesn’t, only to fall for him in DMC.  

I also frequently imagine what it would look like if she did accept him at the end of COTBP, whatever Will’s age, and to be honest I think the marriage part of it would end up solid after a long, rocky, awkward start.  A man of his rank in the navy can take his wife out to sea with him and I don’t see why he wouldn’t, even though he would probably, like, balk at being asked to teach her how to use a sword or her wanting to wear men’s clothes out at sea.  However, as soon as they got boarded by pirates, Elizabeth would almost certainly pull off a big hero moment and afterward they would discover the potential for a much closer rapport, which would probably, as suggested on this RP board, prevent him from sailing into a hurricane later (Elizabeth Swann? Sail through a hurricane? To catch Jack Sparrow? Nah, son) but the timeline gets iffy again because both of them are still wanted by Cutler Beckett for Sparrow’s release.

I generally think that the story would diverge here with them arguing about whether or not following Beckett’s orders is right and, especially painfully since they finally had reached an understanding and even come to love each other, when he chooses the law over what is actually just, she’s going to steal a ship and go pirating herself.  I think at that point the story resumes like usual but who knows what becomes of their relationship?  I do not think Elizabeth could stand by idly and watch Beckett do everything he does, and an Elizabeth who’s spent the last year or more actually in the navy (albeit through marriage) is going to be especially formidable once she turns pirate.

Tbh, a lot of fandom for the Elizabeth/Norrington relationship that i’ve noticed seems to ignore this aspect of Elizabeth’s identity (that these are HER DESIRES projected onto her romance with Will, and if she had a romance with Jack or James, her desires would be the same): she’s not secretly waiting for the right man to make the restlessness and love for the sea and for freedom Go Away.  It’s not ahistorical which is the criticism of it i see flung at her the most often.  Mlle de Maupin, the historical Joan of Arc, historical actual pirates which included plenty of women, and the Garbo Queen Christina were many of the most formative reading/viewing experiences of my teen years. I am more interested in the ways in which she and James would be more compatible except from their difference in values - he nominally values justice but he favors order (including societal order, which is what he represents to her) and the law over actual ethical concerns, and Elizabeth genuinely strives for justice above other things, and repeatedly brings that out in him.  DMC is the only film in which his story does not end with that - it ends with the opposite - and I don’t think, from a Norrington-centric perspective, that it is a coincidence that James does the lawful but evil thing in the film where she swoons over two other men in front of him.  So I think a lot about timelines where she and he might have been pushed together by fate, and the different ways in which their stories and motives might have diverged even if she reciprocated his feelings.

[caithyra]

Review: The Hanover Square Affair (Captain Lacey Regency Mysteries #1) by Ashley Gardner

So, I’m binging on historical fiction and thought that maybe I’ll make a few reviews. This particular review came about because the author trained the readers to read a certain way and then did not realize the implications when the a reader would read the whole book that way and not just the scenes the author wanted them to read like that.

I am of course talking about the character of Louisa Brandon, who is, according to the summary of the fifth book in this series, Captain Lacey’s good friend even after five books, even though he should have cut her out his life years before the this book and at least have cursed her out and never talked to her again halfway through this book. Yeah.

Quick Spoiler-free Review: 4/10. First Person POV but with little interior life of the POV character beyond complaints. The mystery ended up being of secondary concern to the Louisa annoyance for me in the end. All the characters and the narrative cannot stop praising Louisa Brandon when they should hate her. The first two chapters are basically filler because the characters speak in cryptic remarks instead of like normal people... You get the idea.

But let me rant a bit about Louisa Brandon. And I will do so in a way that’ll hopefully be helpful for other writers who might make the same mistake.

SPOILERS AHOY (But not of the mystery’s conclusion, because that’s got nothing to do with it)!

Basically, we are told to read more into what the characters say/write than what they say at face value, which is a given in mystery stories, but in this particular story, doing such means understanding the solution of several parts of the mystery (a maid obviously being infatuated with her murdered master while claiming she was not; a missing girl’s letters to a friend mentioning something in a previous letter yet the previous letter does not contain it, suggesting that her friend left a letter between out to hide this something, but the friend refuses to admit it).

Now, for some backstory about Captain Gabriel Lacey, Louisa Brandon, Aloysius Brandon and Janet Clarke. This is a very abbreviated, as close to spoiler-free version, I could get:

Basically, Louisa is married to Aloysius Brandon. Aloysius, Lacey’s commander, took Lacey under his wing during the wars in the army and they became the best of friends (Lacey continually thinks about how they loved, yes, using that word, each other). Janet was the wife of a lower ranked soldier who died, and became Lacey’s lover, and they were happy. At some point, Louisa’s honor was threatened, Lacey did some calling out, Aloysius became jealous and sent Lacey on a suicide mission, Janet (some point before the suicide mission, I think, I was sort of glazing over by this time) went home to take care of a sick sister (no promises made between her and Lacey) and married Clarke (who died before the start of this book), Lacey now hates Aloysius but could not take him down without ruining Louisa as well so he now lives on half-pay and most of his thoughts are about how much everything costs and how depressed he is and how his temper gets away from him (he’s been traumatized, betrayed and discarded, basically, by the Brandons).

Also, Louisa continues to hound Lacey to forgive her husband so that everything can go back to the way it were before when Lacey loved her husband and her.

Anyway, in this book, Lacey runs into Janet, who is being courted by another former soldier from his troops, and they rekindle their relationship. Lacey is happy when he is with Janet, and he talks to Janet about everything and she cheers him up when he’s depressed and whatnot (like, sex with her literally brings him out of his melancholic spells, and she apparently always had this ability and did it back in the army days too).

Then, some chapters later, we get this scene which begins with Janet and Lacey making love and then Janet breaking up with him:

She looked down and away. “Mrs. Brandon told me what you have become. I can’t be a burden around your neck, Gabriel. I won’t. You have burdens enough of your own.”

I stilled, anger filling me. “What I have become? Dear God, what the devil did she tell you?”

“That you are hurt. That you were broken.”

And then Lacey’s anger and pride takes over and yadda, yadda and then his female neighbor (who eavesdropped) who steals from him (even when she’s come into a larger amount of money, which he arranged for her) says that Louisa Brandon was right, that Janet was just using him (hello pot, calling someone a kettle when Janet’s not a kettle) and being a burden and whatnot (even though this is never, ever shown in the text. All Janet is shown to want in the text is a happy relationship with a husband who cherishes her, which Lacey most certainly does. It’s everyone else who says that she wants something Lacey can’t give, not Janet nor her behaviour at any point in the book).

But look at that scene and read it with the knowledge that what isn’t said, but implied, is just as important as it is with the letters and maid.

So... The wife of a superior officer of Janet’s late husband/future husband/lover, who is also richer and of higher social status, basically tells Janet to abandon her lover because he’s too broken to carry the burden of Janet (who happens to be the only good woman in this entire book who unreservedly made Lacey happy).

How, may I ask, did the topic even arise to discuss between the two of them? Like, how? The only reason why anything pertaining to such a thing would come up is if they discussed Lacey and Janet hinted that she rekindled their relationship, and then Louisa went ham on breaking them up, uncaring as to what their relationship truly is (at this point, it has only been shown as positive to Lacey, with the only negative being the period they were broken up), since there’s no way Janet could (or would) tell anyone but her most intimate friend details, and Louisa is not that friend.

Louisa really, really don’t want any other woman in Lacey’s life, is what I got from that scene. And it is reinforced as instead of comforting himself with Janet and talking to Janet, Lacey then derives comfort and talks to Louisa. Who is married, and not showing any inclination to leave her husband, not even temporarily, for an affair.

And then the last scene of the book compares Louisa’s forgiveness of Lacey with God’s forgiveness as she kisses his brow (still being married and in love with the man who tried to kill Lacey in a fit of jealousy and sent Lacey into a life of half-poverty). Both by Louisa and Lacey.

And it hit me that Louisa is just like those Female Best Friends (tm) of boyfriends who are totes friends with the girlfriends, they just try to monopolize the boyfriend’s time, suggest to one or the other that they are incompatible/better/worse than the other/spread rumors in social circles and so on. Heck, Louisa might be a full blown narcissist forcing her husband and Lacey to play pick-me games (hence why she wants them to reconcile; it is easier to play them against one another if they actually interact).

Basically, by the end, I believed that Louisa Brandon loves having Lacey and her husband fight over her as an ego boost, and she doesn’t care how she must ruin Lacey’s life to keep it that way (after all, being obsessed in a one-way infatuation with her is better than being in a loving relationship with any other [lesser] woman, in Louisa’s opinion, according to my read on the situation).

I went online to read reviews to see if anyone else caught it.

And then I found out that in the fifth book’s summary, Louisa is still Lacey’s good friend.

Wat.

So, apparently I read the book wrong, then? After following the instructions in the supposed main plot of the mystery? Or this is a “slow burn romance” in which Louisa systematically depriving Lacey of options over a period of many books is considered romantic, and that I should somehow root for their relationship?

Or maybe the author just didn’t realize what she wrote, when she wrote the Janet break up scene and the comparison between Louisa and God by Louisa herself, and with Louisa coming out on top (giving the forgiveness Lacey worries God will deny him). Also, there was very little hints (if any, I don’t remember any except exclaimations) that Lacey had any religious leanings until he went to GodLouisa for forgiveness.

And that, I think, is where other writers can learn from the mistake of trying to take the expedient option (Janet referring to Louisa as an authority on what poor, broken Lacey needs), which implies things that the author never meant, instead of actually doing the work to show what was meant (showing that Janet uses Lacey, have Janet break up with Lacey in favor of her future husband because she was just having a bit of fun or something, actually have Janet tell Lacey that he can’t give her what she needs in a husband, et cetera. There are so many other options than “Louisa, who is a third-party whom we never tell our intimate details to yet somehow is an expert on you and our relationship told me to break up with you!”).

Also, the way the female characters were written (except Saint Louisa) was... Yeah, it wasn’t great.

Also, a sixteen year old street prostitute is not practically elderly in her profession, OMG! Plenty of women in their 40s and 50s walked the streets! I do not know any sex work history in which the workers that walked public streets were considered old at sixteen!

And that was one of many other iffy, ahistorical things in this book (chiefly, because it was so unnecessary, being that Janet wouldn’t tell Louisa any pertinent details to make Louisa’s meddling justified and not just a fit of possessive jealousy. Like, imagine telling your late spouse’s boss’ wife the intimate relationship you have with a former employee of her husband’s that quit after the husband abused him, and then going “alright!” when she tells you to break up with him).

[vtori73]

*me recalling a post someone shared on labels*

Okay... it's still bugging me so I'm going to just talk about it. So, a post I saw ON HERE not twitter or Instagram or anywhere else but HERE where I normally don't expect to see posts like this waa reblogged to my dash. Im not going to say it's necessarily all bad but I am still a bit surprised that I saw it & just... doesn't really, at least too me, make any good arguments and more so comes off as wanting to police identities & caring more about understandability then actually caring about LGBTIA+/ Queer people.

Instead of forcing you all to scroll through my whole post if you don't want to read my word vomit I'll add a read more (quick cw for brief mention of harrasment/assault):

Now the basic gist of the post was wanting people to change the conversation of if certain labels are "valid" to "are these labels necessary or useful" which... in my honest opinion I think both conversation either way are kind of... pointless. They just feel like they kind of take time away from actual important topics that we, the LGBTIA/Queer community, should be having. Why are we still bothering with this pointlessness of labels similar to how people are overly obsessed with flag discourse or slur discourse NONE OF THIS ACTUALLY MATTERS FOR FUCKS SAKE in the grand scheme of things.

I'm not saying some labels can't be problematic of course... well probably. Like, for example this one I heard someone bring up that was put on a wiki about "wanting to have pure bloodlines" or something like that but... I feel like I shouldn't have to explain ALL of the why's to why that one shouldn't count as a legit example. Anyway, I bring this up because this WAS brought up as a counter to the argument someone made about labels, most likely a pro-label argument I don't remember exactly what was being said though this was Twitter not Tumblr though so it was unrelated to the post I'm discussing here.

This tumblr post I saw just seems like the thinking/foundation for what I see a lot in the gate-keeping LGBTIA+/Queer community. Bi people who are Panphobic using similar arguments against each other or against the other lesser known mspec identities such as Omni or Poly. Or more recently the arguments against mspec lesbians or more specifically bi/pan-lesbians and usually the arguments I find being used against these labels make LESS sense then pro-labels people who go "labels are valid."

Anyway I bring this up because when it comes to people against labels, discussing the importance of legitimacy of labels, and similar arguments tends to sound exactly like the arguments people who do police identities and such like transmeds, terfs, homophobes, biphobes etc. Why do our labels NEED to be useful, need to be understood? We don't seem to care about straight, cis, allo people understanding so why should we care when it comes to people within as well? Being "understood" also seems kind of... what's the word... "Pointless?" No, not exactly what I was going for but... it's close enough. Even when non-queer people DO understand us and our labels it doesn't somehow automatically make them allies to us, even the self-proclaimed allies who understand can still work against our best interests so why are we putting importance in ANYONE understanding our labels?

For example purposes I will breakdown the arguments against the label.

Okay so, people who are doing what op said they wanted to see more of in the post I'm referencing here were basically saying (that's isn't just x is bad) "Bi lesbians are harmful to the Lesbian community because men will use it as an excuse bother us/it shows men were available to them. Bi lesbians are also bad because they are tearing down something Bi people worked hard for, to have their own separate community. Bi-lesbians also are bad because terfs created the term."

Alright, so for the first point this one isn't obvious to some but is for many other how messed up the argument is because it basically amounts to nothing more then victim blaming, basically "your asking to be harassed by men if you can possibly be attracted to them" which is a huge slap in the face to straight, but ESPECIALLY bi women who ARE statistically more often victims of abuse. Not to mention this argument makes less sense you you recall that lesbians often DO voice how men will continue to hit on them REGARDLESS of what they say their sexuality is so if straight men decided to use "bi-lesbians" as an excuse one day it only really proves how insidious they are and not the labels legitimacy.

For the second point this is normally made by Lesbians and... look im not saying you can't speak up for us but what made this even WORSE specifically was that Lesbians at the same time were saying that ONLY Lesbians can speak on this "bi-lesbian" discourse which just... voids any good will they may have had initially. You don't GET to speak about others identities & their histories while ALSO telling them to shut the fuck up because thats NOT how this shit works especially when you're spouting ahistorical nonsense. Which yeah, they were/are. The argument was not only bad because of the speaking over Bi people but it was also just legitimately WRONg... well, maybe at the least just glosses over some BIG details. Like, for example that, yes, Bi people DID work hard to make their own space BUT were you also aware that Bi people WERE apart of the Lesbian community with open arms for a time before political lesbianism became a thing & took power in the Lesbian community which resulted in kicking out anyone they didn't like because I feel leaving that out is kind of wrong but I guess it does make their argument look bad. Also not to mention that as a Bi person bi-lesbians don't bother me, they don't negativity effect Bi people just by existing so I have no qualms with them & a decent amount of other Bi people feel the same so... like I said before don't speak for a community you're not apart of, especially when you're also telling us to shut up at the same time!

The last point is also wrong, I'm not bringing up sources but basically the idea that terfs started is actually, you guessed it, due to terfs! Sorry.. that's probably confusing but actually terfs don't like the label so they started the misinformation that terfs(& similar) started it to get people against it which makes sense if you understand who terfs hate. Terfs, specifically the ones within the lesbian community are not much different from political lesbians & I wouldn't be all that surprised if thats what a lot them were or would have been if that was still a thing. I would say a closer equivalent would be "gold star Lesbians" or anyone who thinks it's a good term but ANYWAY the point was that a lot the Lesbians who hold one of these beliefs/identities TENDS to hold the other because they aren't all that much different so it's easy to see why they would want to destroy the term vs actually want it around.

I almost forgot one part of the argument though, and that was that the misinformation was that "terfs created it too separate trans lesbians from the lesbian label" which... Look I'm sorry but if you know terfs this honestly doesn't make all that much sense, yes terfs ARE mainly against trans people it's in the name but don't lie and tell me that plenty of terfs also haven't been found to be against queer, bi, & asexual people as well so I don't see them wanting to ever create the term "bi-lesbian" even if it is to be transphobic. But if we disregard that line of thinking the argument also falls flat when you immediately just... TALK to any Bi-lesbian and ask them why they use label because most who use it tend to be non-binary people who have fluid genders and thus have complicated relationships with their sexuality. Even then some just use it too mean they have strong connections to the Lesbian community for whatever reason! There are probably other reasons but my brains fried so that's all I'm listing but I feel like my point should have sank in by now anyway.

So, after having bare through my long example I hope my point has gotten through but if it hasn't I will summarize: not all labels in the end are going to be "helpful, useful, or needed" BUT that's doesn't make them bad just because of that fact and policing labels & identities in the end is more harmful to the community then not. Instead of caring whether a label is useful or not let's instead focus on making sure we don't allow harmful, bigoted rhetoric and thinking to continue to thrive and permeate our communities, whether online or not so we can keep them from overtaking our spaces... again. And if there really are ACTUALLY harmful labels popping up let's MAKE SURE they are actually harmful and then deal with them accordingly!

Note: if your curious as to why I wrote "LGBTIA+/Queer" I'm going to explain below:

Basically I do it because I feel its weird to put Queer in the middle of acronyms that fall under the queer umbrella. Not to mention that I think it makes more sense to have it be a separate thing considering plenty of queer people don't care for the term being used for them or with them/etc. I like to use Queer for all people who can fall under the term & are accepting/ok with it being used for them more then I like to use the acronym but the acronym is good for anyone who doesn't like to use Queer or for allies to use. I'm not saying it's perfect thinking or other people should change how they use the labels/acronym but that's just my reasoning and I don't see any actual negatives too it so I used it here but as always I'm open to being wrong!

[forsetti]

On Ignorance Of Facts and History: The Democratic Party Has Moved To the Right

Whenever I bring up or post something critical of Bernie Sanders (or more often his most ardent supporters) the Vegas over/under on how long it takes for someone to tell me the Democratic Party has moved to the right is now at under five seconds.  According to far left progressive lore, the Democratic Party was once the bastion of all the things they believe the government should be.  To this group, which is overly populated with younger, mostly white males, the Democratic Party was nearly perfect under FDR and has moved to the right ever since.  In their addle-brain notion of history, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are to the political right of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.  

I have just two words to say-”This is some ignorant, ahistorical bullshit!”  Okay, make that six words.  I have a lot of other adjectives to describe this situation I can and am willing to provide upon request.   The Democratic Party has moved farther to the left SINCE FDR, not farther to the right.  I'm old enough to remember reading about the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans in internment camps under FDR.  I also remember he met ONCE with an African-American in the White House early on in his administration and never did again.  Please recite to me all the pro-female policies he stood up for and helped get passed?  Go ahead, I'll wait.... (*sound of crickets.)

FDR has been labeled the “Lion of Liberalism” for reasons both deserved and undeserved.  He certainly deserved credit for all the policies he pushed in order to get America out of the Great Depression.  These were necessary and important for the economic survival of the country.  However, a lot of these policies were the second, third...fifth attempt.  Many of FDR's initial responses to address the Great Depression didn't do a damn thing and some made matter worse.  I give him credit for willing to learn from his mistakes and pivot to different ideas/policies.  It is important to keep in mind exactly why/how he was able to try different solutions to fix the problems-major majorities in both houses of Congress.

THE ONLY REASON FDR was able to fail, learn, and succeed was because his party held massive majorities in the House and Senate EVERY SINGLE YEAR HE WAS PRESIDENT.  It is a lot easier to fuck up and try different things when your party controls the entire government with veto-proof majorities.  If FDR would have had thin majorities or the Democratic Party had control over only one part of Congress, the outcomes from his time in office would have been very different.  If you can't understand how/why this is the case, I suggest a basic civics course or maybe watch some Schoolhouse Rock. The other factor that immensely helped FDR's policies was America's entrance into World War II.  It is one thing to tell Americans they need to come together and work for the common good.  It is another when there is an external force/situation to make this unity more likely.  What WWII did was coalesce Americans of all economic and political groups to come together around a common cause.  When the vast majority of Americans are invested in a cause, it is really easy to get them to support your policies.  The only time this has happened to some level since then was directly after 9/11 and the things America rallied around, (Dept. of Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Invasion of Iraq...) were bad ideas with even worse consequences because they came from a conservative administration. I dare anyone who tells me the Democratic Party has moved to the right to provide an example of a Democratic president who has had the Democratic majorities FDR had.  I dare them to also come up with an example of an internal or external example of something that unified the country like WWII did along with these majorities.  I could go all Rip Van Winkle and when I finally awake from my twenty-year slumber, I promise you there won't be a single factual response to my query.

Here are the real fucking political truths these “progressives” don't want to admit: 1-From civil rights, gay rights, women's rights, health care reform, immigration issues... the Democratic Party has been at the forefront moving the discussion and policy forward. 2-They've done this without the luxury of veto-proof majorities in Congress and without a lot of help from state legislatures.

3-In fact, some of this progress was made IN SPITE OF Republican control and obstruction. 4-If you fucking want FDR-like progress, you better do everything you can for FDR-like majorities in Congress. 5-If you don't give a Democratic president massive Democratic majorities in Congress and in the states, then you can eternally SHUT THE FUCK UP about how Democrats are “letting you down.”

6-Democrats in 2017 are more progressive than Democrats of FDR's time. 7-The problem isn't Democrats have moved to the right (they haven't) but Republicans have moved significantly farther to the right.  This movement along with the media's incessant “both sides are the same” gives the perception Democrats have moved to the right as well. Point #7 is really important to understand.  If the political difference between A and B is 50 points and A moves 5 points to the left but B moves 30 points to the right, the problem isn't A has moved to the right (something that is empirically false.) The problem is people look at the difference to make their opinion of the political situation. I'll See-Spot-Run this for you. If Democrats started out at -10 to the left on the political spectrum and Republicans started at +30 to the right, the difference, the median is +10 to the right.  If you use the median as your measurement, then our politics and politicians are +10 to the right. This by itself is a stupid way of viewing the situation but it is how it is reported by the media.  Our overall political landscape might be +10 to the right but that doesn't mean those on the left have moved to the right one iota. What has happened the past forty years is the Democrats have moved to -20 to the left and Republicans have moved to +80 to the right.  Objectively, Democrats have moved farther to the left than they were forty years ago. However, when the median is what is constantly discussed and reported on, it looks as if everyone has moved

+30 points to the right.  When the right moves +30 point farther to the right and the left moves -10 points farther left, the media report, is the “both sides have moved farther away from the center,”  as if starting point and how far each has moved and in what direction are irrelevant.  If you don't understand how this works, besides taking basic civics, you need to take a basic statistics course. Democrat HAVE NOT MOVED TO THE RIGHT!  Stop believing this.  Stop saying this. Stop being ignorant of history.  “But what about corporatist Dems?”  There have always been Democrats from states like New York, Delaware, etc. who have leaned more towards large corporations because large corporations and their employees make up a good chunk of their constituents.  What pisses me off more than progressives attacking Democrats from specific states catering to their constituency (you know, democracy) is when they are willing to overlook and excuse their preferred candidate of similar “sins.” If it isn't cool if Hillary Clinton casts some votes that can be viewed as being “pro-Wall Street,” then it should be as big a problem that Bernie Sanders votes in favor of private military contractor spending that will help his state. If you want to be a political purist, good luck with that but you had better be fucking logically consistent.  If you deride Hillary for saying “superpredator” then you damn well better bring as much emotional opposition to Bernie actually voting for the 1994 crime bill (you know, that bill that the then FLOTUS Hillary didn't and couldn't vote for but Bernie did.)  You better be upset Bernie advocated harsher sentences for cocaine use during the 90s.  You'd better be upset he voted against the storage of harmful nuclear waste in VT but fine him voting to strip out Paul Wellstone's amendment and sending the toxins to Sierra Blanca, a mostly minority community in Texas.  You had better be upset with his vote against the Magnitsky Act which prevents Russia from using the U.S. banking system to launder money. You had better be upset with his defiance at releasing his complete tax returns.  If you aren't equally upset with these things as you are with other Democratic candidates' histories, you are a partisan hypocrite and a huge part of the problem with today's politics.

I'm not pointing these things out so much as a criticism of Bernie but to point out the hypocritical purity of many of his followers and the far-left.  There never has been and never will be a politician who does what you want them to or believes in all the things you do.  Their job, their responsibility is not to cater to one person's beliefs but the average of their constituents.   This is how democracy works. Learn it.  Live it.  Love it.  

This brings us to modern-day progressives.  Instead of having an iota of understanding of progressive history, how government works on a basic civics level, they either conjure up Democratic lore out of whole cloth or buy whatever snake oil is being sold to them by the political Svengali du jour.  These are the so-called “progressives” who are adamant FDR was progressivism in purity distilled form.  They respond to any comment about anything or anyone other than what comes from their Svengali with “corporate Democrat,” “neo-liberalism,” and “the current Democratic Party has moved to the right.”  

Most, but not all of these “progressives” are young.  For those who are older, I have zero understanding, empathy or sympathy for their ignorance.  For those who are younger, I am willing to concede they don't have the experience to know what they are spouting is complete bullshit and give them a small pass.  If you really want to know why I have such a problem with Bernie Sanders it is because he is more than old enough to know the history of the Democratic Party, yet he intentionally mislead many younger voters to where they not only believe complete bullshit but he has taken an already jaded generation of voters and turned them into a negative horde who are unwilling to even contemplate they might be wrong.   As someone who has pushed for every progressive policy, there is for the past forty years from gay rights to women's rights to raising the minimum wage and universal health care, I've never seen anyone do more damage from the left on politics, how government works, and history than Bernie Sanders.  Ronald Reagan codified anti-government sentiment on the right in 1980 with his “government IS the problem.”  Bernie Sanders pretty much did the same on the left in 2016.  Both men were full of shit and did extensive damage to our democracy.  The only difference between the two is Reagan was able to do more damage because he was elected to the presidency. Conservatives have spent the last fifty years undermining faith in the institution of government.  We've all see the horrible consequences this has had on the country.  This same effect but from a different angle is just as horrible.  While conservatives are hell-bent on rolling back cultural progress to 1840 and economic progress to 1920, there is a faction of progressives who are more concerned with reviving and arguing for a mythological Democratic Party than making sure conservatives don't undo every single progress made the past hundred years.  While progressives are fighting like hell to stop the leaks in the progressive dam caused by conservatives, the purists are on the sidelines bitching about how the dam isn't the right construction, how a “real progressive” would stop the leaks “this way,” or insisting the best thing to do is allow the dam to completely collapse in order to build the perfect dam from utopian, progressive scratch.

In order to justify and rationalize their behaviors, the far left has to create a Democratic Party Straw Man.  This Straw Man comes in the form of “the Democratic Party has moved to the right,” “both sides are the same,” “the Democratic Party abandoned their base,” “the reason Democrats have lost elections is because they aren't progressive enough,”...  In order to maintain this Straw Man, the far left have to completely ignore history, how government works, actual fucking data, and the impacts of their own behaviors.  This Straw Man has been worshiped and referred to so many times it has become part of far-left lore.  Any mention of the Democratic Party or a Democratic candidate/leader who isn't their Svengali du jour and the shibboleths start to flow unabated.  Context doesn't matter. Logic doesn't matter.  Facts don't matter.  Nuance sure as fuck doesn't matter.  The only thing that matter is maintaining the Straw Man, maintaining the lore.

If you want a good example of this looks like, look no further than health care. The current belief among the far left is anyone who isn't for single payer is a corporatist sellout and the enemy of progress.  This simplistic ascription only works in the mythological world of progressive purity.  In the real world, anyone with two working neurons knows that single-payer is one way to universal health care but by no means the only way.  Single-payer = universal health care but universal health care ≠ single-payer.  To put this is simpler terms, All bears are mammals but not all mammals are bears.  If the goal is to deliver a mammal, you've achieved it if you bring an ocelot, lemur, opossum, hedgehog...  Right now, the far left claims that you cannot be a good progressive or for universal health care unless you are completely for single-payer.  This is not only completely ignorant of universal health care it is a stupid political strategy.  Yet, in spite of this ignorance and stupidity, the far left is hellbent on making support of single-payer a litmus test for Democratic candidates.

Meanwhile, as the far-left are creating moronic litmus tests, the right are passing voter suppression laws, rolling back civil, women's, and environmental rights.  In the addled brains of the far-left, these things are seen as equivalent.  They are not.  An imperfect health care system that has reduced the non-insured rate to historical lows is not on the same level as taking away health care from 15-30 million people.  If you think these are the same, your political and moral calculus are seriously fucked up.  The Affordable Care Act is imperfect (a fact acknowledged many times by President Obama) but it was a huge leap forward.  It moved the bar towards universal health care forward more than anything since the passage of Medicaid/Medicare and accomplished something EVERY single Democratic president since FDR tried to do but failed.  Instead of being elated when the Affordable Care Act was passed, the far-left did nothing but bitch about it.  Meanwhile, the right used the passage of the ACA to motivate their base to come out, take over the House in 2010 which led to gerrymandering, right to work laws in states like Michigan and Wisconsin, voter suppression laws... without any push back from progressives.  The most progressive law passed since the Civil Rights Act and the far-left couldn't be bothered to support and defend it. Go ahead, let this political and moral calculus sink in and then tell me why on earth anyone should listen to the far-left.

I make it a point to not listen to or take the advice of extremists. They are always a small subset of the whole and always ethically and strategically wrong.  Just because they are extremely vocal doesn't mean a damn thing other than they are loud.  That they can alter the outcome of an election, as we've seen in 2000 and 2016, doesn't mean they need to be catered to and their views completely adopted.  To think so is political suicide along the same lines as the left trying to cater to white Republican voters.  Show me one city, even the most blue, progressive city where the far left has political power.  Go ahead, I'll wait (*insert sound of crickets.)  This scenario doesn't exist.  If the far left can't control city governments in the bluest areas in the bluest states, why in the hell should we listen to them when it comes to national political strategy?  

Democrats have not moved to the right.  They've moved to the left and then some.  That they haven't moved as far to the left as the banshees on the left demand doesn't change reality.  It should be remembered that at the height of FDR's progressivism, the far left of his party was bitching about him and demanding he is primaried.  To the far left of his time, the Lion of Progressivism wasn't progressive enough.  The same is true today.  No matter how progressive someone is, the far left will find fault with them.  The problem isn't the Democratic Party or progressive candidates.  The problem is and always has been with the far left who demand political purity in an imperfect, democratic system that represents a very diverse population.

My current frustration with politics isn't that conservatives are being horrible human beings.  I fully expect nothing less from them.  My frustration is with so-called progressives who mean well but their fervor for their ideals supersedes everything including strategy, actually winning elections, preventing conservatives from retaining and solidifying power...  I will say this until it is etched into the progressive psyche-”The only thing that matters right now is keeping conservatives from winning elections!”  Everything else is 100% irrelevant and a complete distraction and detrimental to progressivism.  As long as “progressives” don't have large majorities, any purity test is complete nonsense and bullshit.  If your political strategy is focused against Democrats and not against conservatives, I think you are full of shit, shouldn't be listened to, and banished from rational political discussions.

The longer the far-left drags out this fight for their purity, the longer they focus their anger and attacks on Democrats instead of conservatives, the more the people progressives claim to defend will suffer, the longer conservatives retain power long after they should. I have no understanding or sympathy for anyone who enables this.