hello I am wandering into your askbox with request for A Ramble :D I have been thinkin about He (Cain) because I am a longtime member of the Cain fanclub n wanted to know if you could talk about his schizophrenia a little? I remember bits and bobs from way back when but ye I just wanna hear more about it, n whether it's changed since you first created him :3 also what's his favourite colour?

Ahh Cain yeah! He’s a guy I can! For sure chatter about him. For sure. You have indeed been a long term member, and I? Think? You were? What inspired me to give him? Schizophrenia? Man that’s wild. Mm. Okay! 

Cain himself has changed a lot since I first made him (which was! Maybe? Five years ago now?), and his schizophrenia has changed alongside that. Originally, when I talked about him more, he was a computer hacker and a bundle of paranoia and fresh prison escapee. These days, he’s? Mostly? Just a guy? Aspiring penetration tester, current psychology student, darling and wonderful twin brother.

In terms of his schizophrenia, it’s… mmm. Less? There? In the main main storyline? It’s mentioned and relevant at times for sure. A snippet from when he gets possessed that brings it up, here:

(I'm writing on my phone and have been for the past few months, it's the only thing that works these days, shhh).

So like. It’s bought up. He’s aware of it and sceptical of things, including things that get in his head and starts to try to tell him to do something, buuuuuut the infection is also in his head and, as a result, also aware of it and works around it and/or with it to get what it wants. As you can see, distinguished itself as separate from other hallucinated voices very quickly, cements itself as something to be trusted and listened to and, in time, obeyed, using anything it has at its disposal. Which is primarily, control and influence over his mind. 

So like. Example. Cain is sometimes paranoid about food - where it comes from, what’s in it, and how it could harm him. It’s something he’s worked on for a while, but when possessed, he starts to go “um hey actually I should stop this very long mission across the country and eat or sleep maybe?” It’s like. Hahahahaha!!! No???? What??? No!!! Keep going!!!! And just. Flickers that old paranoia until he’s like oh yeah you’re totally right I’ll keep going nvm 

At other times, though, the infection finds his schizophrenia to be a problem! A deterrent from what it needs doing - he’s spending energy and resources and thought on these delusions or worries, he’s struggling to speak correctly, and he’s not entirely trusting it as much as he should. So it. Just. Removes the symptoms. It’s a. Balance between what is useful to it, and what is a problem to it. 

The? Infections' main goal is to get to various statues of gods across the country. Anything that detracts from that is a problem. Cain needing to eat is a problem, so it removes the need for that. Cain needing to rest is a problem, so it removes the need for that. Cain struggling to get the right words across to tell someone they need to let him pass is a problem, so it removes that. 

This acts as a red flag for Theo nd Raya, our lovely main characters, in realising something is deeply wrong with Cain after being possessed - he’s usually apathetic, very blank face a lot of the time. With this infection (it’s, uh, name is the Blight I’m just gonna say that haha), he starts to express more, which very much concerns them, because he doesn’t. He doesn’t do that???? If he’s comfortable with you he’ll just :| or >:| and be happy with that? Why is he smiling? Why is he snarling? That’s? Not? Right?????? 

I will also say that his schizophrenia is quite important to the. Backstory? Context? … Lore???? The background of Theo nd Cains's relationship. Theo, obviously, is a prophet, the last voice of the gods, seer of the past and future. All these fun things that he hates. He reports these as voices and visions he sees in his dreams and trudges through life, irked that he has to manage them. At first, Cain is. Indifferent about them. Just a thing Theo does, who cares. When he starts to hear voices, he starts to care a little more, though. Asks questions about it. Gets the details. And slowly, a delusion starts to form that - hey, your brother is a prophet. So are you. Listen to these voices, hear what the universe tells you, it’s important. 

It is made about a million times worse by the fact that, upon hearing this thought, Theo encourages it. 

He’s got this Thing that he’s been alone with for so long, to have someone - his brother, even! - Share in it? A dream come true! (Not that kind of dream). So Cain spirals a fair bit, struggles a fair bit, is finally caught for what the problem is and, to a degree, shuns his brother. Doesn’t… actively blame him, because he can recognise that he didn’t do it maliciously, but the damage was still done and he was absolutely a catalyst in it. Theo is asked to leave home. Theo leaves home. Comes back for a visit, is a day late, and - ah, Cain is mistaken for his brother, kidnapped, and possessed by the Blight in his place. And then we kick off our plot.

So like? The story is very much about the final echoes of a dead religion, the prophet sent to try and preserve it, and the inhumanity he faces as a result of what he was born as. It's very much a story of this divine infection, created for a specific purpose and then hated for fulfilling it, discarded and left to rot, and its next attempt to be noticed, to be loved. And it's very much a story about the incredible damage someone close to you can do with all good intentions, and a process of forgiveness for? Both? Brothers? Sorry I sent you away. Sorry I hurt you like that. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

That got. Long. My bad. Uh! Colour! Cain is actually fully colour-blind, so? He? Doesn't have one. During his possession, the Blight sloooooowly gives him the ability to see golds and yellows, because that's the colour it claims, so? Gold? I suppose? Is his default favourite :)?

Will Carmy become an addict?... Also, exactly what are his mental health (or other) issues?

This conversation is an offshoot of thoughts expressed here in conversation with @november-rising.

I'll start by saying I do not think Carmy is currently an addict or in recovery from an addiction. But, could Carmy become an addict like his dad (was he an addict or just a heavy abuser, we don't know) Mikey, and Donna? Maybe. Also, I hope nothing I write is offensive to anyone. If anyone thinks there is something I'm missing or misrepresenting please share and we can talk about it. I'm open to learning.

The statistic rates for people impacted by another person's addiction becoming an addict themselves is high. I myself had a drug addict mom and an alcoholic ex. I dabbled in drugs but never became an addict unless you count cigarettes and weed (no longer do either). How me and my brother didn't end up addicts despite our experimentation with hard substances is beyond me. All of the prerequisites were in place and I feel like we almost were tempting it like, come on, I know you want to take me, yet, neither of us ended up addicts.

Sometimes I felt it would make things easier. I think it was Lou Reed, maybe, who said something like addiction made life simple because then you only have one problem to deal with. I wish I only had one problem. I tried stuff as hard as coke, meth, and opium. I was a bartender and partied but never became an alcoholic. My brother went as far as trying heroin a few times. But neither of us became addicts. It's insane if you think about it.

Does that mean we didn't/do participate in fucked up self-destructive behavior? Hell no. Most of my life I have battled with trying to "be normal" all the while self sabotaging all along the way. But I never became an addict.

This is why it's so easy for me to see Carmy in all of his darkness and still see how he isn't necessarily someone doomed to become an addict. Nat didn't become one, me and my brother didn't become ones. I see a lot of us in Nat and Carmy. Carmy is way worse off than Nat, for sure. How, I dunno. And I would say I'm closer to Carmy in the melancholic creative way than my brother. So it's kind of a weird blessing that traumatized people who you would think would become addicts, don't, but it happens.

Could Carmy become one? I think if he continues to not address his issues with individual therapy, continues to blame himself, and just continues the same grind he wanted to escape, possibly. But I'm looking more to how Storer and Co. are telling the story as my signs more than Carmy's actual history. I guess I just don't see what the show would have to gain from Carmy becoming an addict. It would be a tragic ending. I'm not beyond them doing some tragic ending but I think it would just be kind of lame and what was the point if it ends with Carmy continuing the cycle and becoming an addict.

I see him and Nat as the second chance for the Berzattos. She is about to be a mom and hopefully will raise a child that doesn't have to witness any of the trauma she did. Carmy is trying to start over and I think as much as he is struggling now and it may get worse before better, I just see too many points of lightness for him to crawl towards/through. And I think this being so inspired by Storer's lived experience, I can't see him wanting it to end in doom and gloom. Chris and Coco are Carmy and Nat to me. They broke the curse. I think because of that he would want the show to reflect that.

Now, what the fuck is wrong with Carmy, in detail. I will start by saying we don't really know a diagnosis. I think common/possibly correct assumptions are a mix of anxiety, depression, and CPTSD. But I've also seen other ideas like maybe he is on the spectrum among other things. I'm not quick to say anything outside of the first three. He could be neurodivergent, but I guess what makes me not want to say that is because when people bring it up there is often this sentiment that it explains everything about him or that is takes precedent over his behavior being a reaction to his trauma. Two things can be true at the same time but I sometimes feel people apply neurodivergence in a way that dismisses how the average person would deal with a series of overlapping traumas.

The same way I see people assign Sydney as being neurodivergent and I'm like, or she could just be dealing with a lot of bullshit and trauma as a black woman? Because shit, I'm similar, does that mean I'm neurodivergent, too? Not to take away anyone who is neurodivergent and they relate to things they see in the characters. I'm just saying be careful to not dismiss common reactions to lived experience as such without more insight. Or sometimes people can be awkward or quirky without it being neurodivergence. Like sometimes it comes across as what we do know the characters have gone through isn't enough to justify what we see.

I will say I could see a case for Carmy having a learning disability. The evidence being his dislike for reading extensively and his very poor math skills. I think it was @eatandsleepwell who pointed out he only likes books with pictures. It's true. Most of his books are image heavy. And a lot of people are bad at math but he can't keep up with basic addition and subtraction (aka dyscalculia). But again, I think we are seeing evidence of this specific condition, not vague symptoms that could occur due to a number of things.

None of this is to say speculation or headcanons are not welcome. But to hard assign diagnosis is another thing.

Yo. Tell us more of your Knives Out visual language takes.

Or don't. I'm not your dad.

(Unless your dad asks you really specific questions about cinematography, in which case, uh yo, we're out of milk)

Anon I wish I could make gifs because just talking about it doesn't have the same impact. Alas.

I particularly appreciated the shots that communicated Marta's economic status as compared to the Thrombeys. My initial post was about Meg's iPhone, but that wasn't the only example. Others:

-Marta drives a semi-crappy Hyundai, in contrast to the cars the Thrombeys drive (especially Ransom's vintage BMW)

-the shot of Marta's phone with its cracked screen, and later her beat-up sneakers

Then aside from the effective communication about Marta not being wealthy, there were some other good cinematography moments:

-the halo of knives being visible behind all of the family members during their interviews, but it's always off-center with nobody standing directly in front of it, until near the end when first Benoit, then Marta, sit so their heads are right in the center (the hole in the center of the... knife... donut?)

-during Richard's interview, he says something about Marta really being part of the family, and the audio of that line is played over a clip of Richard sitting in the living room and gesturing Marta forward like he's welcoming her into the family conversation; but later when we see the full context of that scene, he's actually calling her forward so he can use her as a prop in his political discussion. The movie is a mystery story with a lot of confusion about the circumstances of Harlan's death; this type of callback shot is a really effective way of showing that the Thrombeys can and do misrepresent their experiences to make themselves look better. It's a reminder to the audience not to take anything at face value.

-really fast blink-and-you'll-miss-it thing: the OS on Harlan's laptop is Windows XP or something similarly way out of date. Very typical for an older person who got used to one OS and never wants to update to a newer one.

-an obvious one: when Marta is giving Harlan the medications, the camera pans sideways and the sheathed knife on its stand moves into frame in the foreground, passing over Harlan's throat.

-when Marta and Benoit are talking on the patio and the outdoor light shines from over Benoit's shoulder (visual metaphor for the illumination of the truth?)

-I saw a thing about how Ransom's clothes are expensive but worn, like he doesn't take care of them; but while watching the movie I interpreted it as that he's cosplaying being poor like some wealthy people do.

-with a couple of brief exceptions, every time we see the portrait of Harlan, it's in the background over Marta's shoulder or Marta is the one looking at it. I interpreted this as showing that while the family focuses on what they can get (or rather, what they stand to lose) out of Harlan's death, Marta is the only one who loved him as a friend and genuinely misses him.

BONUS! Not a cinematography thing, but an imdb-trivia type thing that inexplicably is not on the imdb trivia page: in the sequence of reading Harlan's will, all the reading of the will is done by Frank Oz's character. However, he keeps having to be prompted by a woman attorney who never speaks herself, and none of the other characters interact with her. To put it another way, Frank Oz plays a character who lacks agency and needs to be directed by a character who no one else acknowledges. One might call him a puppet.

This getting really frustrating so I'm gonna try to explain what I've been trying to say one more time and hope I can get the words right

My first post was trying to make an observation.

That's it.

It was read and treated as an opinion I hold, and met with a word wall debunking things I never tried to say

If I had been on anon, I would have left it at that, bc that's just how social media and Tumblr especially work sometimes. Things get misunderstood and misinterpreted and misrepresented bc communication via text only can be very difficult to

But, bc I wasn't on anon, that first ask, an observation I had, now comes across as an opinion I hold to anyone else who sees it.

It's putting words in my mouth I never said, making it look like I think the opposite of what I really do. Bc I agree with everything you said when you were debunking all of that!

But to anyone else it looks like I think something I don't

All of my following asks have been trying to say that. I wasn't trying to start a debate over the observation I made, and despite me trying to make that clear, you keep going back to that observation like it's an opinion I hold and am trying to defend, when I'm not.

I'm not trying to pick a fight over an interpretation of cannon we disagree about, and I wasn't trying to talk about the show at all in the asks between the first one and this one, even though you kept bringing it back to fandom discourse

All I did was try and make an observation I thought some people would find interesting, and when that was misunderstood I was trying to point out that it wasn't an opinion I held

That's all I've been trying to do

Am I finally saying it right?

Your opinion was that the criticism comes from them almost getting Akumatized in that scene, and that the show says that since Alya didn't get Akumatized it means she believed Marinette, therefore saying those who did get Akumatized don't believe her. And that they punish her by making it so she can't leave to fight Mayura.

My point was that the show does not say this at all! It does not ever say so outright nor does it imply it. Tom and Sabine do not punish her for what happened.

Now, I can agree that someone may have interpreted it otherwise. Everyone has different experiences. Someone can run with it wherever they want. That's fair.

That said:

You expressed an interpretation of that scene. I provided my own interpretation and why I came to that conclusion. This is how a conversation of interpretations of scenes work. Or should I have just agreed that yep! Tom and Sabine fell for the lies 100% and think Marinette committed theft and assault and are punishing her for it, when I very much do not believe that at all?

wi hajoon. 36. cis man. he/him. ┊┊ YOON KYUNGSEOK, better known as agent LOVESHOT has been with cerberus corp as an eo since 2012 and is LEVEL I. BEING IN A HOSTAGE SITUATION has gifted them SUPERNATURAL WEAPONS PROFICIENCY ( ARCHERY ), though NEEDING TO CREATE HIS OWN WEAPON & ARROWS  has also been noted. when they aren’t protecting the tri-state area, they are fond of (SLUTTING IT OUT) WINNING and are never seen without A GOLDEN CHAIN NECKLACE. civilians think they are BRILLIANT & CAPABLE, but some of the other agents see them as EGOTISTICAL & CONDESCENDING. cerberus corp should consider the fact that their last mission status was A COMPLETE SUCCESS when giving out the next one.

001.  GENERAL

name:  yoon kyungseok. nicknames:  n/a. age: thirty six. date of birth: 03/27/1987. zodiac: aries. place of birth  seoul, south korea. current residence: manhattan, nyc. gender: cis man. pronouns: he / him. sexuality: homosexual. occupation: level i agent.

faceclaim:  wi hajoon. height : 6ft. tattoos:  he has tattoos of an arrow on the outer side of both his pointer fingers. ( a few others that you'd just have to come and find out if you're so curious. ) piercings: double lobes. nipples. distinguishing features: dimples. scar on the underside of his chin that looks like a bullet hole.

positive traits: charming, a go-getter, strategic, capable under pressure, self-assured, a leader, doing what it takes to win. negative traits: ruthless, arrogant, believes he is always right, willing to cut losses, doing what it takes to win. likes: attention, success, art / sculpture, martial arts, films. dislikes: most people, being misrepresented, being ignored. fears:  being seen as weak. hobbies: slutting it out ; meditation ; movies ; training. he really doesn't do much else, being a hero is his entire personality. habits: talks over people ; bites his lip ; paces

002.  EXTRA ORDINARY

[ NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCE. ]

( tw. gun violence )

as the son of a rich family, you have enemies that you've never met. you've never spoken to them, you've never crossed their paths. to you, they're just a stranger. and really, to them, so are you. the difference is that know who you are. they know you're the child of someone important. someone with money.

kyungseok thought it was a shooting. a fired employee coming back to the office with a few words and a handful of lead to leave behind. by the time he put it together, the barrel of the gun was jammed in his back and a mean voice told him to walk to the window. ( in his dreams, kyungseok is chased by voices: get your father on the phone. i don't want to hurt you but i will. no one move or i shoot him where he stands. I SAID NO ONE MOVE! )

three hours and kyungseok stood there. three hours and he watched the news vans roll out, armored cars and officers all holding aim, and a hostage negotiator shouting across the street. three hours of feeling the sweat dip down his back, of feeling so weak and helpless, of just standing there as this stranger waved the gun around. if only he could reach the lamp, if only he could grab something, if only he had a weapon! if only, if only, if only.

i don't want to die! i don't want to die! i don't want to die!

something was said, something ticked him off, some fuse snapped and the gun was shoved right there up under his chin and kyungseok swore he heard the click of the hammer against the barrel. he swore he heard the gunshot. he swore he died. he swore it. ( and he has the scar to prove it. )

but in his hand was an arrow made of ... something pink stabbed deep into the chest of the armed perpetrator.

he was still alive. still gloriously, utterly alive.

[ POWER. ]

supernatural weapon proficiency ( archery ) + soul-bound weapon.

kyungseok can make a large bow out of his own 'spirit' energy. the bow is generally the size of a long bow and pink. although he could warp it to various sizes, he's mostly comfortable with the large bow. along with this, he can create arrows out of the same 'spirit' energy.

along with this, he has supernaturally accurate aiming capabilities. he can hit any target that he can see. hitting a dime, through a loop, behind his back — it doesn't matter. he'll do all three. so long as he can see it, he can hit it. please try him, he loves to show off.

[ WEAKNESS. ]

kyungseok has to maintain calm in order to keep his bow stable and solid. if he begins to get agitated, freak out, or stresses then the bow will start to deteriorate. if he is too stressed, he can't make anything at all. he practices meditation and martial arts in order to increase his abilities to be calm and handle stress but there is only so far he can push the limit.

if he is too exhausted and unable to focus, the bow will crumble.

the arrows have a limited number. once he hits the limit that he can passively create then he has to start borrowing from himself. he can convert parts of himself into energy if he needs to. for example, a particularly difficult mission required him to sacrifice his hearing in order to create an arrow. he managed to heal somewhat but he only regained partial hearing.

the more energy he expends, the more he has to sacrifice.

[ CERBERUS CORP. ]

after his powers manifested, his parents insisted he join cerberus corp. he put them off as long as he could as he learned and developed his power on his own. the actual reasoning behind kyungseok's joining is to try and repair their perception of their reputation concerning cerberus corp.

he shot up the ranks quickly. he doesn't seem particularly interested in their success, only his own.

he is really good in front of the camera and likes the attention. being a hero is truly what he was made to be. what more could he want? right?

[ CODENAME. ]

loveshot. he gets the name loveshot because the bow is pink. it was a joke when he threw out the equally joke of a name, hotshot. loveshot, unfortunately, won out in the end. ironically, hotshot is used as a shipping name between himself and agent hades.

003.  HEADCANONS.

he has a strained relationship with his brother, taejoon.

he has an interest in the arts. he enjoys sculpting and modeling for artists. it never went beyond a hobby but it gives him a good tactile sense in order to connect himself and calm his emotions. he also occasionally models for artists.

film buff, he loves movies. he had the small dream in the back of his mind to become an actor. it never went beyond a dream. he particularly loves fantasy, psychological thrillers, and crime films.

a shameless flirt, he's constantly seeing how long that button can hold those pants together.

he joined cerberus in 2012 but he wasn't made a level i agent until 2015. he is considered one of their best agents due to his track record of continued success.

he practices taekwondo as a means of control and meditation for a means of calm.

while some compare him to eros, the god of love — kyungseok feels he's more akin to apollo, the god of light and a supreme archer himself. as he puts it: "eros fucked around and got stabbed by his own arrow. as if i'd do anything that stupid."

004. CONNECTIONS.

FIND HIS ESTABLISHED CONNECTIONS HERE.

fellow level i's — kyungseok is a team player ( most of the time. ) he would want to be, if not friends, at least fairly acquainted with the level i's. ( but bring the friction. all kinds. )

enemies! — kyungseok is ruthless out on the field and if you get in his way then he will put you in your place. he sees one option and that is success. there is no plan b, there is no 'at least we tried'. we win. at all cost.

friends! — he loves to party, he's a flirt, and he likes to enjoy himself. he's akin to a god, what's better than this? too many friends, stop being nice to him.

Re: toxic solos

To everyone who wrote me to tell me about what toxic solos have been up to lately...

I just made a post yesterday talking about why it's not a good idea to dig into or stress out over what these idiots are up to. The fact that these people take information, twist and misrepresent it, and say terrible untrue things about turtles and about the idols they hate... it's not news to me, nor should it be news to you.

They are perfectly free to be wrong, they are perfectly free to be toxic, they are perfectly free to be hateful. It has absolutely nothing to do with you or I. It's about them and their own baggage. My message about this will never change:

BLOCK, IGNORE, and REPORT where appropriate.

If you see something that upsets you or pisses you off, curate it out of your news feed and move on. Any other response, whether engaging in an argument, getting worked up and stirring up other turtles about it, trying to refute the BS they're saying, etc. etc. is a waste of time and - for a lot of reasons - only adds fuel to their efforts. It's exactly the response that they want you to have.

Don't flatter yourself that you're the one person who's going to prove them wrong and show them the error of their ways. You aren't, my dear. You just aren't. All that's going to happen is you're going to end up embroiled in an hours-long or even days-long battle that makes you unhappy and gets you nowhere.

You're free to handle things however you want, but if you write me about it, expect me to tell you like it is: getting worked up over what toxics do or say is a complete waste of your time and energy, and only drags fandom down for you and everyone around you.

We have no control over what other people say, do or think. The only thing we have any control over is how we respond to what other people say, do or think. If we choose our responses wisely (block, ignore, report where appropriate), we can have an enjoyable experience of fandom, free from haters and BS.

I have talked a lot in the past about why other responses are inadvisable, and linked to many other posts related to the topic. Here's that post again, in case anyone missed it the first time.

it's so weird when people think that i'm some sort of MRA or i think misogyny is just diet oppression or something when i talk about the experiences of trans men because it's literally the exact opposite. i understand why girls say things about hating all men and why people talk about how there's fundamentally a cultural difference between "men and women"... i just think it's often an oversimplification because i am a man but i have still had to deal with all the insufferable misogynistic bullshit of nearly every hegemonic cisgender man since i popped out of the womb!!!!!

i could of course go into detail about the brutal, often fatal, misogynistic and transphobic violence we experience. or i could talk about how every single day, i talk to cis men and am reminded just how fundamentally different we are. how they nearly always default to centering themselves, putting their own needs first, never even stopping to consider the perspectives or experiences of others. (this isn't a terfy "male socialization" argument btw, transfemmes absolutely DO NOT do this in my experience, even when they've barely transitioned)

i don't want to have to choose between misgendering myself and misrepresenting my experiences!!!!!

literally any characteristic of a society that victimizes women ALSO applies to trans men- usually moreso than cis girls actually!!!

✨💖✨ here's some fun statistics (with sources) ✨💖✨

we are payed 60 cents to the average worker's dollar, as opposed to cis women who make 82 cents to the average man's dollar (note that the two gender pay gap is reported as women vs men whereas the queer one is trans men vs. all workers, so the gap between us and cis women is actually larger than that)

trans men have the highest rate of violent victimization of any gender demographic (tho the study didn't include nonbinary people as far as i can tell) 107.5 per 1000 people, as opposed to 86.1 for trans women, 23.7 for cis women, and 19.8 for cis men. that means trans men are over four times as likely as cis women to be victims of violent crime.

trans men have the highest rates of suicide attempts in the trans community, and presumably the whole queer community. (45%)

we have the highest rates of negative experiences with our doctors (misgendering, denial of gender affirming care, etc) in the trans community (42%)

transmasculine people have the highest rates of sexual assault in the trans community (58% for nonbinary people and 51% for trans men)

i'm just SICK and TIRED of putting up with cis men's catcalling and insults and lack of respect every day and then being told that i'm a gender traitor by people who should be able to sympathize with my pain! like i appreciate that you think i'm a man, but that means nothing if you don't also unpack your own transandrophobia and acknowledge my experiences of oppression as an intersection of misogyny and transphobia, rather than acting like i've gained male privilege when now i'm just seen as a dyke instead of a nice straight girl.

and just to make one thing incredibly clear: i do not think we have it worse than transfemmes. i do not think they are the enemy or the source of our oppression in the slightest. i'm frustrated at the small few online who've internalized radfem ideas and take it out on us in the most vitriolic ways possible. i'm frustrated with the nearly equal number of trans men who are so eager to be accepted that they throw themselves and the rest of us under the bus. but off tumblr? in the real world? (and on here, with nearly all of you) trans women are my biggest allies, my sisters in arms, some of the kindest most empathetic and caring and badass people i know. cis girls as well for the most part, though a lot of y'all have some transphobia, including transmisogyny, to unpack. and of course, to the trans men reading this, in case no one's told you today: i love you i love you i love you.

i doooooont get how hearts not parts is problematic, i just explained it in my post not in the ask because it's lengthy, please if you could explain it to me, i want to understand. ill tag you so it's easier to find

okay so i've explained this a bunch of times and i'm not sure how else i could explain it if the post of mine that you linked in your post didn't help, but i guess i'll try.

"its not dismissive toward gender? it says nothing about gender at all"

the dismissive attitude about gender referred to "genderblind", not "hearts not parts", as my post was about both terms.

"conflating gender and sex? again it says nothing about gender. maybe because its about sexualities it does imply something about gender, but it's dismissing the physical parts not your gender?"

the phrase is saying those who use it care about a person's heart, not their genitals, the implication being the typical type of attraction is based on genitals. attraction has come to be defined in terms of gender, not sex. hence this phrase conflating the two. (again, dismissing gender was not about this phrase.)

"'an implication that non-pan people only care about genitals' emmm, does "love between men is pure" imply that all other love is impure?"

as i explained, the implication is there in the phrase setting itself apart from everyone else through the idea that the standard type of attraction is caring only or mostly about "parts". because if that wasn't the idea the phrase is built on, there wouldn't be a need to declare that your attraction isn't like that.

"'an erasure/invalidation of aromantic people' same as the previous point, the fact that we are talking about romantic love atm, don't mean we invalidate aromantic people."

a phrase that prioritizes hearts (or romantic attraction/love) over parts (or sexual attraction/sex) can be alienating to aromantic folks who are already vilified and alienated because of how they experience attraction.

"'misrepresentation of what it means to be pan in general' what does it mean? pan x-attraction to any of the genders. what is it misrepresenting? all (ignoring the people who don't consider trans or intersex people people) sexualities are attracted to the heart (soul, being, person including their gender/lack there of) not their private parts, so if anything it could be any orientations slogan, but doesn't really sound right for one gender attracted people, that i admit. idk why. prolly bc it's been associated with bi pan omni ppl. idk."

my post specifically said what the phrase means to convey isn't the issue, and what it means to convey is attraction that isn't about gender (gender is how attraction is defined, not sex, even if the phrase uses the word "parts"). and while that intended meaning is fine for some people, not all pan folks relate to or use that definition. which is why pan is also defined simply as attraction to all genders.

and if what the phrase means to convey was the common understanding or experience of sexuality in general for everyone, it likely wouldn't exist or become the "slogan" of a specific type of attraction.

"'and an idea of superiority over other identities' not sure at all about this one. as I established no sexualities are actually attracted exclusively to parts. Hearts not parts is not implying anything about superiority or other orientations at all."

there are people whose attraction is specific to certain genders (or sexes, for those who don't believe attraction is based on gender). and there are plenty of people who feel that they are more enlightened or openminded than those people because their attraction isn't limited to any specific gender (or sex), and sometimes this phrase is how they express that.

i don't know if any of that helped you understand why people take issue with the phrase. i tend to ramble and become longwinded which doesn't always help clarity. if there's something i can explain more or better, let me know and i'll try.

but i do want to say again that what the phrase is meant to convey isn't the issue and not everyone who uses the phrase has bad intentions or is a bad person who should be yelled at or accused of being queerphobic or anything.

the point is to just spread awareness as to why pan and non-pan people alike don't particularly like the phrase or appreciate it being used as "the" understanding of pansexual and why it has seen a bit of a decline in use over the years.

16 personalities questions: 40-42

40. You rarely feel insecure 

True. I rarely feel insecure. Maybe because I'm not doing that much new stuff, but even when I do, I don’t typically feel insecure about it.  

But... it just dawned on me that there is at least one time when I feel pretty insecure: when I need to speak Italian. Partly because I've been at it for so long, and my conversation level is so bad. I think then the root of it is I feel like I ought to be better, and people have every expectation for me to be better, but I'm not. So because I'm an official Italian citizen, I feel like I ought to be better, and I ought to be able to converse. I've had enough time and experience to, but I'm not very good. So when I meet Italians, I want to speak Italian with them, but I'm so bad that I really do feel insecure about it. 

Of course if I just acknowledged that I'm terrible, and lowered my expectations, that insecurity would go away. Insecurity is basically a lack of self-confidence, so if I didn't feel like I needed to be better, then I could just accept where I am and not try to pretend I'm better than I am. 

While I'm not up in front playing music like I did, there was usually only one time when I would feel self-conscious about my skill level, and that was playing in front of professional musicians. I know they'd see right away that I'm not that good, and that would make me nervous, when in general I was not nervous playing music.  

It's funny then that it should make me nervous doing art in front of professional artists. Maybe in some contexts, I would be. If I were in a figure drawing class with a bunch of top-notch artists, I'd probably feel some insecurity. But I've kind of come to accept where I am. It's funny too because while I'm occasionally really happy with something I've done, in general, I'm not impressed with my own art. Whereas I've had plenty of other people be impressed with it. But I will be really impressed with other artists work. I'm sure this is because what other people do has a bit of mystery surrounding it, whereas nothing I do is mysterious....at least to me. The thinking is: I did it, so clearly, it's no big deal. 

I guess in most areas, I accept what I am and don't worry about what I'm not. But there are a few areas where clearly I feel I ought to be more, and in those, I'll feel insecure. 

41. You avoid making phone calls 

I can't even figure out why this is a statement worthy of a spectrum. 

I make phone calls when I need to make phone calls. I really like being able to text too and will often do that when it's available, but phone calls are nothing either way. I call people when I need to talk to them. 

42. You often spend a lot of time trying to understand views that are different from your own 

In certain areas, yes. That's the impetus behind so much of my reading and writing. I'm trying to process through where people are coming from, understanding why they think the way they do, and then trying to put it all together in a way that I can make sense of it in the world.  

Particularly in political or philosophical works, I don't just read them, I take notes, and then rewrite the sections so that I can make sure I've gotten the argument down. 

I remember from my debates with both Muslims and atheists over Christianity, how often my point would be misrepresented into a straw man. Of course you can't convince anyone to take a different viewpoint unless you accurately understand where they're coming from in the first place. You might be able to win points with a third-party, but what's the point, if later on, the other side can explain how you just misrepresented them in your argument.  

Besides, in all fairness, if you don’t agree with someone, there MUST be some reason for disagreeing with them. So take that point and explain reasonably WHY the other side is wrong about their own view, and why yours is correct. If you've truly got a good reason for the disagreement, then just state that, rather than some other fake point that doesn't correspond to reality. 

I actually wrote a bunch of stuff more, but then canned it because it was getting too far off topic. Is there a question upcoming about losing focus? 

Yes, I spend time trying to understand views different from my own. 

x

Something I need to keep in mind while writing Viktor

I hope the way I worded my thoughts is okay.

Might add stuff later on

Basically this post in general.

Post

Post concerning Viktor's personality and how we headconed him as a workaholic

Post (Please read this one)

Etiquette: Interacting with people with disabilities

Video about disability and villains

"Viktor's isolation and lack of friends as a child was not due to him being 'too smart' or 'too focused on inventing', it was due to him being disabled." "Viktor truly wants to have friends, but as a child he was given serious barriers to entry. And as an adult, his introverted habits persist due in no small part to the fact that he was looked over so much when he was little, coupled with that he does not want to burden people with his chronic health issues."

I don't want infantilize him or Sherlock-ofy him.

If writing smut keep in mind this man won't be able to do parkour with you!

While I agree that Viktor is definitely a confident man, I think it's more because of his intellect and skill rather than his body. (This is one of the biggest reasons why I relate to him so fucking much). I don't think he's necessarily insecure about/only about his disability just in general physique.

At the same time though I don't think every one-shot or smut I would write about him, should have a narrative about him being insecure about this. Like any person Viktor can be both confident and insecure depending on the day.

If you have any other ideas or tips on how to not misrepresent Viktor's character, it would be very helpful. As someone who is a able-bodied themselves, I would be very thankful to hear from disabled people and how they believe would be best to represent a disabled person in fiction: the things they find acceptable in fanfction works and things to avoid (something we able-bodied writers don't always consider).

Adding on a message from @higheverweave "Hey If you need some help from Disabillity culture perspective I can do what I can :) I mostly come from An ASD perspective But I was raised in Disabled spaces via social groups so Just lmk what you’re looking for. If I can’t answer a question directly there’s a ton of awesome folks with lived experience who talk about this stuff a lot. Main tips: • Mobility aids are counted as an extension of a persons body…. Touching a wheelchair or crutch or any medical aide without permission is like an extreme no-no. • Mostly our entire culture isn’t so much about everyone taking care of us but figuring out how to get access so we can take care of ourselves. Ex.) I have a mentor I greatly respect she’s very honest. She has Cerebral Palsy though so moving her body can be challenging. As she can’t predict what her hands will do when she is making something she has a device that she wears on her head that tracks her eye movements and she makes art uses the internet etc. using this device all still her work her thoughts her effort …. It’s just made accessible for her to enact/share. • Energy regulation is a huge thing. People with more Physical Needs and folks with Asd have a thing called spoons. It’s an odd little metaphor for burn out. But Viktor faces this on two fronts: 1) physical energy < this is going to be different for him and time in the story matters for this as well. If you watch closely you can see him lean on things…. He’s a little tired but not so tired he’s burnt out or depleted all his energy. 2) This dude I don’t know if he is 2E 2E is short for twice exceptional meaning having multiple learning accommodation needs (English second language and needing Accommodations for disability. Or on Viktor's case he is considered “gifted.” Or a “genius.” But that heavily relies on IQ which is bs because intelligence doesn’t have math it can’t be measured. IQ tests are very much a eugenics thing, so even those of us who count as gifted or geniuses know it’s a kind of BS label. There’s this price people pay in regards to twice exceptionality. The folks who are considered geniuses or smarter or whatever…. People don’t realize there’s an extreme downside to it….. if you have an idillic memory if you remember EVERYTHING you remember every insult everyone has said to you…. You remember every betrayal every fear every death every heartache intensely and it can be hard to let go. Luckily this also makes us want to try to understand others. Although most don’t understand us… The one group of people who knows how to calm us down …. Our peers with More support needs or IDD. They can see things without overthinking it and really center us back to ourselves. We need each other. A lot of that social isolation too Is also fear…. Disabled folks it used to be illegal for some of us to go out in public until 1974 re laws called Ugly laws we still get kicked out of public places sometimes if we don’t fit in or “make people uncomfortable.” So when we are trusting someone we are trusting them with the power they have over us. Automatically by default: I understand because I am autistic if somebody wanted to say i did something. I didn’t do and I denied it (They could use the idea of sanity against me to sway the argument in their favor.) To understand disability you have to understand Eugenics as a part of everyday culture. Meaning there are some people other people believe just take up space by existing… that to some leaders is a waste of money food and resources. So Their solution is how they perceive survival of the fittest. Covid is a good example when people wanted to end lockdown early there were people on the streets with signs saying sacrifice the weak. When asked about they said yeah sure it’s sad some people will die but they would die anyway so why should I sacrifice my freedom for it. People actually said this. So some of the isolation is a fear for safety as well. Hope this helps!🤍"

I think basically what gets me is like

1. Yes omitting slavery from stories like ofmd is a little bit clumsy in the way it tries to depict race in 1717

2. Yes I do think that racism and classism specifically ought to be called out more explicitly in the show

3. All historical works will to some degree ignore these issues or misrepresent them to various degrees

4. The global history of everything is based on antiblack racism and slavery as it stands in the real world and therefore we have to leave room for some clumsiness as we learn how to depict history respectfully and without exploitation

5. I think overall, the fact that it at least tries is commendable.

6. I am not a black person so I know I can't speak with much authority regarding antiblackness as there are gaps in my experiential knowledge

7. However, I don't personally think that a show that tries harder than most other shows in recent memory to give bodies of colour agency over themselves while explicitly being about self discovery and cleaving oneself from social conditioning should be entirely cancelled and excised from public consciousness

8. The fact that analyses aim to either applaud something or to cancel it is entirely toxic and counterproductive and anti-intellectual. Analyses should be about "what is it doing and how" more than it should be about "this is everything wrong with x piece of media" or "this is everything right about x piece of media"

9. It is exhausting that people still act surprised when they learn that white people in history were racist. We've been saying it for centuries can we stop acting shocked. It shouldn't need to be called out because we should be able to acknowledge it and realize when it does and doesn't serve the story. We need to as a society be able to contend with uncomfortable truths and learn which conversations require that we talk about those issues. We are thinking beings. We can know about our histories and disavow them while also not demanding every perfect depiction in media.

I want to be clear here. I'm not saying something inane like "fiction doesn't affect reality" but "since fiction does affect us and our ability to empathize with each other, we should look at the ways a piece of media is successful in this endeavour, rather than tearing it apart for moral impurity"

10. We also need to acknowledge that moving forward, the discussions we are having now will look imperfect and regressive in 10, 20 years. We have to be able to take clumsy and imperfect things and encourage the aspects that are good and criticize the parts that are bad so that the next iteration will be better. We must also contend with the contexts in which these things were produced.

This whole thing about "yeah but these pirates irl were slavers" reads intellectually and emotionally dishonest as if we are incapable of holding many truths within us at the same time. I would like to believe that we are smart enough to understand that history is ugly and sad and also that there is good in being able to humanize queer and racialized experiences of the past.

Some of yall reeeeeeally gotta stop the pretentious self victimizing around being biracial — esp when it be too easy for the ones the shoe fit to say some antiblack or misogynoir shit to insist that there's some sort of "struggle" around being mixed that black ppl somehow & all on our own make uniquely harder for yall. Esp a struggle the likes of which yall try to equate to the shit fully Black ppl (esp black women) deal w on a regular basis around colorism. Or even the shit we've been being dealt historically as a community. It's always a damn comparison match w yall.

If all day all year you can choose whether or not you identify (imagine that) as Black, you have absolutely no business invalidating the colorist life experiences Black Women go thru, or making the things we shed light on regarding our global — literally global — mistreatment out to be a union against light skinned/half black women.🙄 It ain't that deep; colorism is vast, alive & well. All over the world. Try all you want to refute it; theres still privilege attached to your ethnicity as someone mixed. This is exactly why my pinned post is cutthroat ab this. Yall always miss the point & readily jump to make colorism & its industrial & social intersectionalism out to be Black People Women just rooting against yall. Slow down. Read w the intent to understand as opposed to just being ready to argue like you've been personally attacked.

Some of yall be certified biracial & borderline white passing — yet "identify" as black & immediately get defensive or shut down when a conversation is being had ab exactly how colorism & misogynoir harms fully Black Women & benefits fair skinned half black women, racially ambiguous women & non black women in general. If you identify as a black woman, why you got all this energy to be so nasty to em or regarding them when it's time to talk ab how this world has literally never allowed them to exist w/o a prejudice reserved specifically & exclusively for us? How come its so easy for you to contribute to the toxicity that directly affects us if you identify as one of us? How come so many of yall be so deadass silent when even Black men climb up on that self-serving pedestal to make fully black women out to be less than? Where that snarky energy be at then? Yall be sounding delusional as hell lol.

The world's hatred of black women — & how other races of women have been culturally esteemed by their abuse for centuries — is not something non or half black women experience within the same quantity or quality anywhere on this planet. Don't even get me started on how common it is for yall to almost always have some sort of animosity toward dsbw or the black community in general on the looping "I wasn't black enough to them" stance. Like come on. Be consistent. Be fr. Nobody's targeting yall; nobody envies you; nobody's out to get you; your livelihood is never at risk — just bc we speak on how comfortably yall misrepresent & ostracize us anyhow.

If we're so uniquely discriminatory as a community & diaspora, how come yall don't choose to identify as anything else even when yall legitimately be a whole entire significant percentage of other ethnicities. Yall wouldn't fw blackness if it wasn't a peak trend rn stop it. Yall could definitely do a better job at listening & decentering yourselves where it really matters ijs. If this don't apply to you keep scrolling I'm not debating w nobody.

Idk if this is something you're even interested in hearing about, but for the majority of my very american white bread life, I thought that all of the stories like PJO and LO were cool and fun ways to spread greek mythos, while not really knowing myself the inaccuracies and disrespect these series both carry, not only to the values they claim to espouse such as anti-racism, spreading mental health awareness, and feminism, but just how wrong they get the Greek side of things too. I just feel/see more and more how majorily Americans refuse to believe that taking Greek culture and misrepresenting it, bastardizing it, and hollywood-izing it is a bad thing, and how it deserves some respect for the ancient culture it is beyond "hardy har zeus scum cheater man" and "uwu rick/smythe are the final opinion on greek mythos". It's become such a mainstream thing here for people to use LO and PJO as literal scholarly interpretations of myths and the entire reason Greek mythology is as popular today while simultaneously ignoring the work Greeks have done to make their culture known, and I myself don't know the half of their efforts. The entitlement to tell someone, from my own personal experience, that they have the right to retell and change myths to their own will just because greek myths happened to be taught in their history class therefore making it fair game for Americans is just... how can so many people who claim to be on the left not realize their own imperialism right there? And then, god forbid you ask them about anything about greek history or culture that isn't Alexander the Great or the Illiad. They know nothing of Greece's roll in WW2, or what the Ottomons did to them, nothing at all.

Sorry for the rant, but I felt you would have an opinion I haven't heard on it before and I'm trying to see how different people view this issue.

Aaaa oof. Okay..

One issue with "Greek myths" is that the version most ppl know now, was published by archeologists who interpreted the stories through their own lenses almost 100 years ago. Zeus wasn't the 'King of gods', that's some christian bs right there. The largest Temple ever found is the one for Hera in Samos. But still, all gods were equal. And myths are so different from place to place that I don't think you'll ever find the "original" story.

And don't talk to me about the Great Alexander, that monster. How ppl have hero worship for that prick is beyond me. Ironically his horse was called Bullhead.

So, you mentioned the Ottoman occupation.

⚠️ I'll mention violence.

We called it 600 years of enslavement by the Empire. And it was. The scars from that time are still with us today. When I say 'entire islands and cities were burned to the ground' I mean it. This year marks 200 years of liberty which is cool, but yeah I can't tell you what a kid feels when they look at their history and all they find is bloodshed.

Victims from Smyrna are still alive today. And if you read what happened there please be warned.

So Greece went from 600 years of occupation and slavery, to the Balkan Wars, to ww1, to civil war, to ww2, to more civil war, to martial law/ dictatorship in the 1970s, and now .. well, let's say, we've had democracy for 50 years. My dad was a kid during the Polytechnic Uprising where tanks ran over children in front of their parents.

I hesitate to say Greece is part of Europe or 'the Western world'. Because during each one of these tragedies the Allies watched my people burn and die. Should they have the authority to claim our history as their own? I don't know.

Anyway, I hate to leave you on a sad note so I'll just add that, during the wars Greece let women fight, look for Bubulina and Manto Mavrogenous. Those two were high ranking officers.

And for a funny (kind of) anecdote: Greeks celebrate the 28th of October as "Ochi day". And the story is that during ww2 an Italian ambassador told our prime minister "hand Greece over to us and there won't be war". Our prime minister simply told him "Ochi" which means "No." Though actually, he said "Alors, c’est la guerre." (So, it's war.) And then people ran out in the streets chanting "Oxi" cause you know... Fuck Mussolini. We actually won the battle with the Italians so sksksksk

I love this story cause it's so.. Greek. We said "Nope." And then celebrate it every year by singing very offensive songs about goofy fascists. It's great. If anyone wants to write a story in modern Greece, please know that every kid knows this song by heart.

Here are the lyrics translated, though I realize it's hard to comprehend. We have too many creative words. Macarona literally means Macaroni-man for example.

heyy! first of all i hope you're doing well. thank you for taking the time out to read and respond to this (if you choose to). this has been bothering me for a while and i'd like your opinion on it.

i read these two articles recently - the first one is about a lesbian professor of gender studies + sexuality arguing why women should be allowed to "hate men"; the second is an interview with her about the article in which she addresses some of the negative responses she got to that article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html

https://outline.com/ttKscw

i have a lot of questions about this.

firstly, i cannot tell whether this is the sort of reductionist, radfemmy, "fuck all men" feminist you've been talking about. i understand her sentiments but i disagree with her statement, and i want to get better at identifying shallow feminism. i don't think my personal opinion is credible enough (yet) to draw any conclusions right off the bat. are there any 'tells' or signs that indicate what sort of feminism someone is speaking about (in the same way that there are certain idenitifiers of TERF ideology even when it is not explicitly mentioned)? for example, in the interview, she explicitly says "Where is discrimination? Where are men being excluded? Where are men being abused? Oh, come on." as well as her implied praise of kamala harris as 'the feminist we need in office'. are those things indicators of whether her position on feminism is credible/an appropriate portrayal of how Feminism™ should function? in short, do i take this woman entirely seriously about all this?

secondly, how do you feel about gender being a social construct, as she states? does that not contradict the very real physical dysphoria that a lot of us experience? doesn't it invalidate almost all the experiences of struggle against transphobia and cissexism, as well as our identities, by painting gender identity as 'not a big deal' or 'fake' by virtue of being a social construct? also, is gender identity not influenced by biology to some extent?

thirdly, along a similar vein, how do you feel about gender abolitionism? i don't exactly have a v specific question about this one, i just want another trans person's opinion on how that sort of society would affect them. i do not wish to be stripped of my identity, and i am opposed to gender abolitionism because of that. is this sentiment a product of some misunderstanding i have?

if you have any other thoughts at all about the articles, i'd love to hear those. thank you!

Oooh, anon, these are such good questions.

Why Can’t We Hate Men? by Suzanna Walters

Follow-Up Interview with Walters

Walters does a weird sort of dance in both articles: her argument is that “hating men” is okay and even good, but she has to completely misrepresent what “hating men” is, does, and means in order to make her point align with what she actually believes is defensible.

“Hating men” is not actually about hating men, she says; she doesn’t hate men at all, in fact. She knows they’re not the problem, but rather the systems of patriarchy in place. She knows racism and other intersections make “hating men” complicated at best, and harmful at worst. She just wants men to “lean back” and understand the power they hold; to be feminists. She thinks it’s a good thing to welcome men into feminism.

So then what the hell does “hating men” actually mean, to her? Why make that the hill to die on, if nothing in her argument has anything to do with that hill?

I don’t think she really believes any of the arguments she’s making in the first place. Walters pays lipservice to racism and intersectionality in a brief comment, then never brings it up again. Her view of feminist issues is narrow and shallow, dealing mostly with “the safety of women” and the representation of women in positions of power; both of which fail to address the structural issues of the patriarchy and how it functions, and prioritize Making Women Powerful over dismantling the systems of oppression giving people power over each other in the first place. She believes that all men are universally and inherently benefiting from the patriarchy, and that men in fact are the system to be fought.

Some of this pings as TERFy, too. Walters never really argues against radical feminism. Her argument against gender-essentialism is, as you said, that gender shouldn’t exist at all- but she claims the patriarchy discriminates based on genitalia.

You caught that as well; “where are men being oppressed/abused?” she says, after her performative gesture toward intersectionality. Walters also compares the oppression of women to racism at the same time, which... holy shit.

I’d personally peg her as a mainstream liberal feminist. She’s a successful white professor who sincerely believes that her experiences as a woman are universal. Her takes are surface-level and shallow at best, and edging dangerously close to radical feminism and quiet TERFism at worst.

TL;DR: The Author

She’s a mainstream liberal feminist who makes a string of confused, contradicting arguments because she chose to die on a hill she doesn’t really understand. Her arguments stray TERFy and racist on multiple occasions.

RE: Gender questions

What gender is and where it comes from is a complicated question, and I don’t think there’s a simple answer to it. The major arguments are that it’s social, biological, or psychological; either it comes from how you’re socialized, what your genitals look like, or it’s something built into your brain chemistry (think “wrong body” trans theory).

I personally think it’s a bit of a mix, leaning toward the social and psychological, and that where gender “comes from” is a little different for each individual. Biology has a bit to do with it; we’ve had somewhat consistent ideas "man” and “woman” across various cultures.

But what gender means in each society is different, and how people conceptualize it has been different. What gender someone feels they are may be influences by their culture’s gender expectations. Some indigenous cultures even have anywhere from two to five distinct “genders”, and I can say personally that my conceptualization of my own gender relies pretty heavily on how other people perceive and treat me.

Not to mention that trans people have existed for as long as people in general have, even in societies that lack any formal gender concept for trans folks. So psychology must play a role, too.

So if we strip away all social expectations of gender, we’re still left with psychological and biological influences on gender. Which is part of why I don’t think we can abolish gender to begin with; people will always have internal understandings of gender to some extent, and they’ll always express them, and therefore there will always be a social element to gender. We can, however, work toward abolishing restrictive, binaristic, oppressive gender structures that limit and punish expressions of gender.

And as a sidenote, the whole “gender is just a social construct, but genitals are real” and “we should abolish all concept of gender” thing is extremely TERFy. There are thoughtful and trans-inclusive ways of approaching the question, but usually we’re talking about gender as part of a system of power and oppression. Walters is using the TERF framework that their “gender critical” comes from: gender isn’t real, therefore trans people aren’t real. Patriarchy is just based on biological realities and sex, and we should abolish the idea of gender (as code for abolishing trans rights and theory).

TL;DR: Gender

I personally believe that gender is a synthesis of biological, psychological, and social influences that is highly unique to every individual. There’s no real way to “abolish” it, only systems of power and oppression that rely on and enforce it. Walters’ way of discussing it is extremely TERFy, and her arguments should be heavily scrutinized.

Can you please tag mentions of dan avidan/game grumps? He isn't a pedophile but there are lots of accusations of abuse which reflect my own experiences with abuse so it's incredibly triggering to see people talk about him like he's just an innocent victim of "cancel culture" when I have PTSD from someone doing something extremely similar to me.

Idiots on twitter misrepresented the accusations and now people are ignoring what the accusations actually are and it's just absolutely horrible. Abuse isn’t suddenly fine because the victims were over 18, he still took advantage of his position of power and did real damage to a lot of people.

If you don't believe the victims or don’t want to look into it or something then I'm not going to try to get into an argument, but could you please at least tag mentions of him? Especially when you’re talking about him like he’s the victim? It's extremely triggering and can come across as victim blaming for people who went through similar things.

we will be tagging any posts mentioning him as dan avidan discourse