Do you ever think about the fact that in the minutes immediately before Alex became a victim herself, she was consumed by the first - but not the last - disillusionment about her place in the justice system? “We tell ourselves that we speak for the victims, but we don’t. We can close cases, but the victims, even if they survive, their lives are ruined. I just get so sick of it.”

what i read in aug. 2023:

(previous editions) bold = favourite

race, gender, sexuality

the blind side was always trash

he’s the trans son of an anti-trans influencer. it's his turn to speak

'the eurocentric fallacy': the myths that underpin european identity

is there a sinister side to the rise of female robots?

i call myself a spinster, but that doesn’t mean l’ll be single forever

politics & current affairs

the land beyond the drug war (usa)

how torture, deception and inaction underpin the uae’s thriving sex trafficking industry

wa mp james hayward found guilty of child sex abuse, disqualified from parliament (australia)

a north korean defector captivated us media. some question her story (usa)

history, culture, & personal essays

loneliness: coping with the gap where friends used to be

inside barbados' historic push for slavery reparations

ahead of time: on poetry and mourning

dreaming of water with tiger salamanders

i stole my neighbour's tragedy to write a short story

nuclear tech: war, power, & oppenheimer

the cautionary tale of j. robert oppenheimer

315 nuclear bombs and ongoing suffering: the shameful history of nuclear testing in australia and the pacific

revisiting hiroshima in iran (journal of international security, open access)

japan releases treated wastewater from fukushima nuclear plant into pacific ocean

spectre of maralinga hangs over aukus nuclear waste for indigenous communities (aus/us)

the dark history oppenheimer didn't show

don't let the victors define morality – hiroshima was always indefensible

if you're interested in more peer-reviewed resources on the american bombings of hiroshima/nagasaki please let me know!

For all that I'm completely willing and supportive in letting people identify however they choose, there are some contexts where you can't self-ID completely freely. The types that inspired this? Religion, ethnicity, and politics.

Religion and ethnicity are fairly straightforward; in my context, I've seen so, so many people who think that they can "declare [themselves] to be Jewish" and are flabbergasted and in denial that it's not that simple. This also goes for any closed tribal group or identity, so I think that doesn't need much explanation.

But politics, I hear you ask? How can self-ID be a problem there?

Well, let me paint you a picture.

A number of years back, before Drump's election, I was active on the BoingBoing BBS, and there was an individual who went by Max_Blanke. Max claimed to be a political moderate, insisting on it again and again and again...

But every position he took was on the political right, very often the far-right. Police shooting a black man with his hands up? "Wait for the investigation, we don't have all of the information." Black Lives Matter protestors marching? They're nothing but potential rioters and an active threat to law and order. Muslim women being harassed and assaulted? False flag operation. Trump supporters being socially ostracized? They're clearly one step away from being rounded up and put into reeducation camps. Police officer with a Nazi tattoo on his arm? Oh, that's not exactly a Nazi eagle, it's different in a few tiny details. Republicans engaging in voter suppression? Don't we all know that the real threat is voter inflation and voter fraud?

And so forth.

It got to the point that it was pretty damn obvious that he was either A) a closeted fascist in denial, or B) a troll.

But he claimed, loudly and repeatedly, that he was a moderate, and that we were just bullying him, and so long as he kept his bigotry quiet and deniable, he was able to keep from being censured by the mods.

And this is a pattern I see again and again and again. Max was just one example (admittedly one that I took a lot of pleasure in ripping to pieces, calling out his fallacies and double standards, and showing his patterns of behavior to the rest of the forum, which is why he comes easily to mind); you will have people who claim to be socialists... but who regurgitate every right-wing culture war talking point. You will find people who claim to be progressive... but the actions and rules they want implemented would make society into a totalitarian surveillance state. You will find people who claim that they are leftists... and the behavioral standards they espouse could have come from Baptist preachers. And so forth.

Of course, there's the question of "Why is this important?"

Because end goals matter. This is not a matter of "my tribe wins"; these ideas will affect real people if and when they get implemented.

I’ve noticed you criticised the barbie movie multiple times for its misogynistic portrayal of femininity and if you don’t mind I would like to understand your point of view more? I have a hard time really grasping why the movie came out as a message that traditional stereotypical femininity is the correct way of showcasing womanhood in your opinion. Yes, it’s shown through the aesthetic of barbies, but I don’t think it pushed that vision as superior? Would love to know your interpretation and the reasons for it! 🫶

Oh jeez. Are you sure you want to know lol

Disclaimer before i start bitching: I enjoyed the Barbie movie on a level of pure entertainment, the music and costuming and set design were fun, and Ryan Gosling certainly put everything he had into the role of Ken. The astronomically high budget was apparent from every angle.

However. I am extremely frustrated by its messaging and even more frustrated by how often I see otherwise progressively-minded people herald it as a feminist masterpiece. This movie was Not Feminist. Here are some reasons why I think that:

First and foremost, it is a transparent marketing venture. This is Mattel and the Barbie brand rehabilitating their image and inserting themselves back into the cultural mainstream. This movie was made primarily to profit a brand and market products. Any art or meaning that it conveys are entirely secondary.

The adherence to the idea that identity politics are liberating is clear throughout the film. Barbie is feminist because a woman is president, Congress and the Supreme Court are women. I won't get into how much of a shallow, weak fallacy this is but you can easily google it.

There is a pervasive message that womanhood=hyper-femininity. Not a single one of the Barbies is even remotely gender non-conforming. The one female character who was even slightly less feminine was Sasha, and by the end of the film she starts wearing more feminine dresses and accessories. They never had to say outright that hyper-femininity was the superior way to be a woman. There was simply no alternative in their perfect gendered utopia. This is also a standard that Barbie (the brand) has been criticized for pushing onto young girls for decades.

There is a clear message of bioessentialism. When Barbie loudly announces that she doesn't have a vagina in response to being catcalled, the joke is that she's a doll (a Barbie doll which famously do not have sex organs), not a human. At the end of the film, when Barbie decides she wants to become human, her first big step of womanhood is going to the gynecologist. Barbie's womanhood and humanity are tied to her having a vagina.

There is absolutely no room for queerness and transness in the utopia of Barbieland. Barbieland is dominated by a heavily enforced gender binary, and at no point are queer or trans people acknowledged onscreen. I've seen some people argue that Alan was the "nonbinary option," and that's fine if it's their headcanon, but I would caution against giving the producers credit for that. Let's be clear, Alan is a man -- a man that doesn't feel as served by the patriarchy as other men, but that could mean many things. If the writers wanted to make Alan nonbinary they could have easily done so. I can't imagine that with everything else going on in this movie they would've felt stifled by that creative choice. I don't need Barbie to be a queer story, but if it's going to tackle the patriarchy in its central thesis, then it feels really intentional to exclude queer and trans people.

There's an uncomfortable theme of motherhood being the peak of womanhood. In fact as I recall there's a spoken line that says "Mothers stay in place so that their daughters can look back and see how far they've come." Is the implication here that a woman stops growing as a person as soon as she becomes a mother? How is that feminist?

One of the climactic moments of the film is when Barbie gets depressed by the Kendom and gives up as soon as things get a little bit difficult, and Gloria gives her a rousing speech about the unfair expectations of women that spurs Barbie back into action. How is it feminist for the white heroine to rely on the Latina supporting character to do all the hard work and coddle her? How are we supposed to think positively of Barbie after this?

This isn't directly related to feminism but the whole portrayal of Mattel executives as clueless bumbling fools seemed really insidious. These represent real people that are not harmless or incompetent.

The whole bit about Depression Barbie struck me as shockingly ableist. It contributes to so many negative misconceptions about depression, such as like...that it's the same thing as disappointment regarding a failure (which is the thing that launches the whole bit in the first place. Barbie is "depressed" because she couldn't reverse the Kendom). Depression is blatantly reduced to some weird shabby, (literally) marketable aesthetic with this scene. Look at this haha hilarious hashtag relatable funny #bit about Depression Barbie! She has messy hair and wears sweatpants and eats ice cream and watches BBC pride and prejudice! Depression is a catastrophic, life-threatening disease. People die from it every day and it ruins the lives of countless others. This joke was horrifically ableist and disrespectful and perpetuates harmful misinformation about what depression is.

This Letterbox'd review points out many of my other criticisms and disappointments with this movie.

Honestly, overall, this movie felt like it was priming a generation for tradwife messaging. If I'm being completely tbh honest. This movie was funny but it was NOT progressive. Even the valid feminist points (like Gloria's invigorating speech) was extremely basic, surface level, white, cishet feminism. And in 2024 I really don't think that deserves any applause from progressive audiences.

hi!! i loved your post about deltarune's metafiction and its (not) escapist themes, and it got my brain jogging, like... i guess ive just been thinking "why"? like ive heard that take before and i think its valid, but also like. why ? its obvious enough to me that deltarune uses the lightner/darkner relationship as a reflection of the player/game relationship and both of these things are addressed critically, but i can't help but wonder if there's a driving force for it all, outside of deltarune. like i can accept diegetically the darkners are not, or shouldn't be, subject only to the whims of lightners, but with any good story if you break it down to its core is ultimately saying something about humanity or the world and such. i mean i seriously doubt the people who seem to think that Toby Fox intends to induce *actual* guilt into the people who fund his life's work and career by purchasing his videogames, like, it's obvious that "you are a bad person because you play this videogame" isn't the intended message, nor was it in undertale. but then, what is? what is the purpose of a story that invites us to think of toys and game characters as "real"? not to trash my beloveds but i mean, literally speaking, their lives DONT matter, they r not real. it just feels like ive seen a lot of discussion about 'what' toby is doing with the narrative but i feel like that's only half the ordeal, the other half would be the reason why. my first thought was that the implicit 3rd thing being compared to the light-dark, player-game thing is actual social hierarchy IRL in which people are oppressed by another group that doesnt see them as human, bc iirc toby talked a bit about feeling powerless and wanting to do more to change the real world on real issues in an interview in 2020ish and of course there's the snarky gag about the fedora plugboy who doesn't like politics, so he doesn't care that an evil ruler is taking over the world. im not sure if that sits right with me as what the intention is (esp because the latter is a darkner talking about another darkner) but i couldnt think of much else although i do feel like a fallacy people get themselves into a lot in the fandom is the assumption that toby fox is this Impeccable Writing Machine and not just like A Guy. people make weird or flawed art sometimes, it doesn't *have* to adhere to standards. maybe deltarune is meaningless (or the meaning IS that it's meaningless, as though to complete the metaphor of it being a "real" fictional world, because if it is 'real' then like our world there is no "answer" or "purpose", it simply *is*.) dunno! im not expecting it to boil down to a simplistic fairytale moral like "dont bully people!!" or something, mr. fox tends to write more convoluted than that, but i feel like if there's something to be gained from this particular part of the game's story then i'm not sure i see the vision. what do u think? do u think this question is even answerable with only two chapters?

respectfully, I do heavily disagree with the notion that good stories necessarily have to say anything about the world or about humanity. one of the reasons I like metafiction is that it usually says something about how stories are constructed, and that's enough for me. there's plenty of stories that have bigger themes that aren't really all that much about human nature, at least, not directly. a story can comment on one specific thing without necessarily making a broader statement about people, you know? not every story has an easily explained moral lesson.

that being said, yes, this plot element is in service of deltarune's larger themes! which are about agency, control, fate, and identity.

deltarune's fate theming and its metafiction elements are a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation given how interlocked they are, but I've found it helpful to describe deltarune as a "person vs. fate narrative that uses a metafictional lens to characterize fate." rather than the three fates of greek mythology or whatever dictating its characters' lives, it is instead the structure of the rpg their world was made to be. they are player characters. they are npcs. they play specific roles in the narrative. no one can choose who they are in this world.

control is emphasized in this story. there's the control we have over kris, of course, and in a much subtler way the control we have over the world through them. there's the darkner-lightner hierarchy, which parallels our dynamic with kris. i would argue that there are even social forces in hometown which also serve to place the lightner characters into specific roles. under this level of control, it's hard for characters to push back and determine their own identities.

all these forces combine to mean that deltarune's characters are fighting back against the narrative itself! which says stuff about people's agency, and the way rpgs are written, and how we interact with all that...

ultimately, you can apply this to real life. even if there aren't things like "fictional people who are actually real," hierarchies of control do exist in real life. narratives that erase the agency and internality of certain types of people exist in real life. it's admittedly a rather general statement, but like with any narrative about fate, seeing characters resist rules that are seemingly written into the fabric of their existence can make you feel inspired to also define your own identity! and to be transgender. don't forget to be transgender

I have a genuine question, why don't people like Bi Lesbians?

hey anon, i know this has been in my inbox for a long while—i wanted to collect my thoughts properly before replying. it think it comes down to a combination of these three things—

the allure of respectability politics: the belief that if you can distance yourself from queers with uncommon, difficult-to-understand labels, you're more likely to be accepted by mainstream society. some people want to deny association with 'weird queers' to gain acceptance with biased family, friends, employers, etc.

hurt people hurt people: queerness is stigmatized, and every pocket of our community has their own unique history of trauma. labels and descriptor-words are highly personal. people are quick to anger/defensiveness about their identities, especially online, and especially when they've had to fight for their identities to be recognized. many (classical) lesbians have faced invalidation for their lesbianism. hearing mspec lesbians say things like,

"lesbians can be attracted to men (because i'm using the label to express a highly personal experience of sexuality/attraction),"

can sound a lot like hearing every asshole they've ever met say,

"lesbians can be attracted to men (so i have the right to disrespect your boundaries/deny your experiences)."

it's similar to why the ace community faces discrimination. hearing an ace person say,

"you don't need sex and/or sexual attraction to have a fulfilling relationship (therefore, i want a relationship that operates in absence of those things),"

can sound a lot like decades of homophobes saying,

"you don't need sex and/or sexual attraction to have a fulfilling relationship (so i will pressure you into a miserable, comphet marriage)."

these things are not the same, but there's this belief that bigots will see fringe queers as validation for the harm they've caused/are causing, as if they needed that validation. the thing is, the absence of fringe queers won't convince bigots not to be bigots.

non-monolithic, conflicting needs: the queer community is not a single entity. we are separated by race, class, sexuality, gender, location, etc. some queers are looking to dismantle hetero/amato/cis-normative establishments. others are fighting for their right to marry. to have sex. to raise children. to not fucking die. my speculation is that, to some queers who are fighting to be acknowledged at all, it seems offensive/unfair that there are other queers who seem to be muddying the definitions they're trying so hard to assert. we are vast. we don't need the same things, and unfortunately those things can clash.

---

this got away from me, but mostly it comes down to this fallacy that the enemy is other queers instead of bigots. it's so easy to be angry, and defensive, and judgemental, especially in times like these. but infighting will truly get us nowhere.

if it's not clear, my stance is one of radical inclusion.

There are hundreds of millions of southern European white people with an olive (tan) complexion. It’s what happens when white folk live in warm sunny climates. Same is true in South America where tens of millions more of white/white identifying people have been living for generations. Being Hispanic or having a Spanish name doesn’t mean you automatically aren’t white or capable of being a racist.

Fascism held sway in Spain and to a lesser extent next door in Portugal for a good part of the 20th century. Fascism, usually hand in hand with racism, also has a history in South and Central America. Even if someone doesn’t identify as white doesn’t mean they can’t be racist, or xenophobic, etc. Bigotry exists outside the box that young Americans want to fit it in. Only a small percentage of Europeans are pale, blonde/red, and blue-eyed. The overwhelming majority have dark hair and brown eyes, and many more are olive. This simplistic bullshit that someone can’t be a white supremacist because they have an ethnic sounding name is ridiculous MAGA talking points that’s being bought into by Dems. Republikkkan talking points have become so pervasive and so persistent that a majority of progressives buy into them without question or even being aware of it. We’re wasting time debating the perceived identity of a killer that was radicalized for the sole purpose of murdering and intimidating us.

In point of fact the press using the term white supremacist to describe the Allen, Texas shooter is in itself fallacious. He was a staunch xenophobe (and repeated “Great Replacement Theory” tropes learned from Tucker Carlson) and billions world wide don’t like immigrants, it isn’t limited to Caucasian Americans. I’ve said this before, Republikkkans can not generate enough angry white guys so they have been recruiting heavily among “Hispanics” to bolster their numbers. 1/3 of of Hispanics are registered Republikkkans. They have also been recruiting from other groups with much less success. Stop putting people from South America into boxes, that methodical behavior is an Anglo-Saxon characteristic that was transplanted here. Decades of radicalization are bearing fruit for the far-right while we quibble over whether or not the Republikkkans are actually attacking us.

People from South America identify by national origin just like everyone else. They’re Colombians, Peruvians, etc. Terms like Hispanic, Latino, Chicano, etc are inventions of American immigration officials trying to fit people into boxes. Why are we (our media) so obsessed with this when Republikkkans are launching their decades long planned assault on our basic human rights.

MAGAts, white supremacists, Nazis, xenophobe, Aryan Brotherhood, Atom-Waffen, III%’ers, etc can and do find kindred spirits beyond national origin and outdated stereo-types based on appearances. Our enemies are evolving and branching out. We must be aware of their present and historical attempts to spin what they want us to believe. Further you need to know historical context. American racist groups admire fascist dictatorships from South and Central America and wish to emulate them, hence the “Right Wing Death Squad” logos. They admire and learn terrorist tactics from radical Islamic groups as well. Look at WWII, you’d think the “Aryan” German Nazis would have had a problem with the Asian Japanese. Just the opposite, both the Japanese and Germans at the time felt they were racially superior to their respective neighbors and bonded over being kindred spirits. It wasn’t a political expediency. They were too far apart to support each other or have any meaningful trade. They were fascist states that both wanted to impose their own unique fascism in there own sphere. We can’t let history repeat itself either here or abroad.

Not enough people in our society are taking the threat of Republikkkan fascists seriously. If you’re taking the time to read this rant then you were already in the know but the general public, both our side and theirs are not. This threat goes beyond the identity politics so en vogue with young people, not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it’s part of a much bigger war against us all. Republikkkans don’t even realize they’ve been co-opted by Nazi’s and the few that do don’t care.

I’ll keep repeating this ad nauseum but the racists, homophobes, militias, evangelicals, xenophobes, Republikkkan politicians, and even the fascists are all foot soldiers duped into waging war against the rest of us by the billionaire oligarchs and their corporations. It always comes back to money. Yes they share most of the same beliefs and each thinks they are manipulating the others. But the only ones with the power (dollars) to bring this shit storm together in a cohesive fashion are the oligarchs. The Rupert Murdochs, Elon Musks, Koch, Walton, etc are coordinating and funding everything for power and profit. Meanwhile we are fighting a Hydra of Nazis, Confederates, Klansmen, evangelists, and armed militias.

In 2020 we took to the streets to protest the George Floyd execution but that quickly morphed into a widespread national protest of Trump. We can’t only begin massive protests when one of our African-American allies is killed unjustly. We should be doing this for every major issue of the day; abortion rights, disenfranchisement of black voters, gun control, trans-persecution, preservation of Medicare/Social Security, migrant rights, union rights, and all basic human rights that the corporate/Christo/fascist/Republikkkans are taking away from us. They are no longer content to persecute people of color and are coming for us all, at once.

This isn’t an intellectual exercise anymore, we have become a de facto fascist state under the yoke of an oppressive and hostile Republikkkan Party. They aren’t even pretending to disguise it anymore. Their leaders and political spokesmen are openly telling us they are going to strip our rights and begin sending us to death camps. They’re past the concentration camps already and we barely even protested those on the border. Between their control of the state legislatures and the Supreme Court they are doing as they please and will begin overturning election results in 2024. A few more takeovers of state legislatures and they will hold a Constitutional Convention to write a MAGA/Republikkkan Constitution.

Now is the time to fight. Resisting didn’t work and a tidal wave of GQP laws and SCOTUS decisions prove that every day. You can not take the high road with Nazis or anyone who is literally trying to kill you.

Rant concluded. Please bear in mind this is food for thought and not an incitement to violence. Remember John Lewis and his “good trouble.” Also try to refrain from violent comments about Republikkkans in comments, notes, and reblogs. We certainly don’t want any of us to be de-platformed by admins.

✌️

Idk if you know anything about Ice from dc, but I believe she is also a Romani character? Since you’ve shared thoughts on Dick Grayson and Zatanna, I was wondering if you had any on her.

I do have thoughts, and they're not kind. With DC Comics, it seems like Romani identity is something that is only ever applied retroactively to validate a character's exoticness, mysticism, or sexualization-- sometimes a combination of all three. I'm not going to say that Marvel is necessarily better, but their inclusion of Romani characters is definitely founded on a better understanding of our realities, particularly in the Silver and Bronze Age. When you look at characters like the Maximoffs or von Dooms, you get a sympathetic portrait of European Romani history that actually makes valid and helpful points, in spite of the problematic imagery. Characters like Ice, Zatanna, and Nightwing generally only make shallow references to a gypsy heritage that confirms certain stereotypes about their upbringing, but has no bearing on their adult lives.

DC also has a stronger tendency to portray portray Romani groups as organized crime families, as we see in Ice's revised backstory, first told in Justice League: Generation Lost #12. In my mind, this is a much more dangerous stereotype than the usual witches and fortunetellers. Romani communities are heavily impacted by racial profiling and over-policing, in Europe and in America. It's one thing for media to present gypsies as a fictional race of fairy-tale spellcasters; it's quite another thing to validate very real state violence against a very real people by parroting racist propaganda.

Anyways, Tora Olafsdotter, formerly known as "Icemaiden", now known as simply "Ice," was originally depicted as a member of a reclusive tribe of magic wielders from Norway. I don't know how overt this is in the original material, but I would hazard that she is actually based on stereotypes about the Sámi people. "Fixing" this backstory by making her Romani-- just in time to maker her family into overt villains-- is very similar to what happened with Magneto in the 90s.

The Romanifolket are a real Romani group, based primarily in Norway and Sweden. DC gets points for naming an actual vitsa-- most Romani characters don't have one at all, or if they do, it's fictional, like Doom's "Zefiro clan." The name "Is Bygd" is made-up, though, as are the clan politics of Tora's family. DC loses what little credibility they'd earned by representing the Romanifolket as an extensive crime ring who uphold scamming and thievery as a cultural practice. That's completely fallacious, and extremely harmful.

In her revised origin, Tora is a metahuman, meaning her powers are a genetic quirk, similar to that of X-Men's mutants. Her fanatical forebears believe that she is a reincarnated goddess, and they wish to use her powers to, you guessed it, do more crimes. This reinforces the narrative that Romani people are ruled by their arcane superstitions and pagan beliefs, as well as the pervasive notion that we abuse children and force them into early labor and/or marriage for profit. Sound familiar? Everyone's favorite X-Factor writer loves that one. [x]

Ultimately, Tora denounces her entire community as "very bad people." Generation Lost frames her Romani upbringing as a traumatic experience Tora wishes to distance herself from, and Romani culture as an inherent evil for which she seeks redemption. In that regard, she's not unlike Marvel's Amanda Sefton, but unlike Amanda, Tora's story is told without an ounce of nuance, and it was written recently. In the age of digital research, there's no excuse for this level of ignorance. The story of Ice is probably the worst Romani narrative I have ever witnessed in a superhero comic.

"This article intends to highlight the ways in which political reactionaries have used identities within the therian community as a method to simultaneously pathologise 2SLGBQTIA+ people, diminish the needs of the disabled and neurodivergent, and maintain white, Western cultural hegemony."

[...]

"The therianphobia weaponised to undermine indigeneity and queerness is also advantageous for targeting the disabled and neurodivergent. Disability rights obligatorily acknowledge the moral neutrality of difference, whilst encouraging communalism, the need for the State-sponsored aid, and the recognition that free-market competition is inherently exploitative and unjust.

When sensationalising an incontrovertibly false narrative around therian’s needs, other identities’ needs are minimised. A slippery slope fallacy ensues, whereupon requests for reasonable accommodations for those with different abilities and perceptions are not only seen as unnecessary but as dangerous to non-disabled students.

It is no coincidence that neoliberal politicians’ newest scapegoats are over five times more likely to be diagnosed with autism."

Not all gender norms are as easily smashed.

Some slip through the net of public compassion, and none more so than the antiquated stereotype that ‘men cannot be victims of domestic abuse’, and that ‘women cannot be violent’.

Yes, it’s true...

Women can be breadwinners and career animals, CEOs and political leaders, high fliers, and business moguls, every bit as successful, smart, and innovative as their male peers.

And the outdated ideas of womanhood, that disallowed such things, are the stereotypes we all love to smash, stomp down, and kick into the dirt.

As we should.

But what about women’s capacity - not for roaring Fortune500 success - but their capacity for violence, and abuse?

And what about men’s capacity to be the victim of such things?

But dare utter the idea of violent women.

And there it is… Silence.

Nothing.

Where have all the whoops and cheers, the grandstanding, and pats on the back gone?

And where are our noble champions of women’s autonomy?

Why has the feminist movement, that lead the vanguard of fighting gender norms, been so reluctant to confront this one?

Or worse, why do so many of these people protect such stereotypes themselves?

In time, people have finally come to accept that men can be abused by women, but often with the caveat that these men are ‘not often injured’, or ‘they don’t fear abuse as women do’.

But yet again, the most recent data exposes these ideas as yet more harmful gender norms – the norms that most of society are too gutless, or disinterested, to confront.

So I ask you, why are we so reluctant to discuss violent women, and vulnerable men?

And who pays the price for our unwillingness to talk about them?

--

ONS Data: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/partnerabuseindetailappendixtables

Deborah Powney debunks others myths: https://tinyurl.com/yuf4s3xs

==

For the online keyboard warrior who doesn't get paid, the dishonesty is much easier to explain. They've built an entire edifice of claims - and their entire personality around those claims - based on a specific model of how the world works. When the world doesn't just not work according to that model, but runs directly counter to that model, the entire model falls into disrepute. And that puts the person's entire identity, built on sand, at risk.

This is not unlike how when Xians admit that Genesis is not literally true, the rest of the bible quickly collapses. The resuit, in both cases, is post hoc rescues, rationalisations, contradictions, fallacies and outright lies (e.g. "there's no evidence for evolution," or "all female violence is self-defence").

The model must be protected at all costs, no matter how bogus, in order to protect the adherent's identity.

Half a year ago, I got myself involved in a thread which compared trans rights to gay rights and tried to make a case that, in terms of arguments for each, the issues are not as directly comparable as a lot of people seem to think. A lot of my perspective comes from a sort of an empathy I feel with the non- religiously conservative, non- radical feminist motivations for doubting some of what this social movement is pushing for, particularly with regard to its disconnect with how more traditional people view identity categories.

This portion of a recent interview on the YouTube channel Nonzero (see until 47:43) is a stunningly crystal-clear illustration of the attitude and motivation I was trying to describe at the time, so much so that I think it's instructive and kind of fascinating to watch, even if it's almost so extreme and ridiculous as to come across as parody. (Warning: a certain kind of non-conservative, non-TERFy transphobia, which I'll quote bits of below.)

The interviewee, Norman Finkelstein, feels violently averse to using "they/them" pronouns purely because it would be implicitly affirming what in his mind is an untruth. (Presumably he would not want to refer to a male-presenting student as "she" or a female-presenting student as "he", for a similar reason, but this doesn't directly come up.) He appears to have no other motive, but the motive of not liking to "play along" with someone else's factual untruth is plenty for him. There is no particular social conservatism evident in him; he states plainly that he's fine with androgyny, of people dressing/presenting any way they wish, and that stuff doesn't bother him in the slightest, because that doesn't involve saying things that are untrue. Politically and philosophically he is obviously left-leaning, pro-science, and non/anti-religious in most areas: he repeatedly likens affirming someone's gender identity to affirming that the world is flat or that climate change isn't real or "all the craziness you attribute to the Trump base". Not pronouncing things that imply a factual untruth or deny objective reality is sacred to him as a professor and an intellectual, is what he is saying.

Also, this:

I'm not insulting anyone. If I'm calling you a "he", it's not like I'm calling you the N word or I'm calling you a c*** or something. It's just a relatively stable identifier.

Notice how completely uncomprehending Finkelstein is of the notion that not affirming someone's claimed identity (on the basis of what he believes to be objective reality or established definitions of words) could possibly be an insult or convey lack of respect or qualify as dehumanizing treatment of someone else. That a refusal to affirm someone's claimed identity (on the basis that it denies objective reality) is somehow a form of dehumanization is a completely unfathomable concept to many.

Now I find Finkelstein's perspective flawed on at least half a dozen counts, and fallacious on a particular fundamental level in conflating different types of "objective facts" (something that Robert Wright, who takes a much more reasonable, kind, and open-minded agnostic view on all of this, gently tried to push back on him about). I do think Finkelstein had some good points later in the excerpt about not forcing jarring changes in language down everyone's throats -- this is how I feel about artificial and ugly terms like Latinx, for instance, and I would have had some issues with xie/xir and the like becoming widespread nonbinary pronouns -- but in my opinion these points can't be applied well to using singular "they" for nonbinary people. Moreover, Finkelstein comes across as hardly more than a crusty, curmudgeonly jackass throughout, one who proudly and stubbornly adheres to a disagreeable absolutist view and refuses to open his mind to where his defense of that view might be flawed.

(More minor point: in arguing that mispronouning someone isn't a form of insult, he compares it to factually saying someone's hair is white or that their muscular dystrophy will prevent them from running a 4-minute mile. But, while maybe "insult" or "dehumanization" wouldn't be the best way to describe these things, they are certainly rude in certain contexts: you probably shouldn't call attention to someone's hair being white if they are sensitive about aging, for instance. Similarly, calling a nonbinary but male-presenting person "he" is pretty unkind if they don't want to present as male and are sensitive about it. But Finkelstein clearly isn't the kind of person to prioritize others' feelings over his duty towards "objective reality" in this way.)

But I contend that this is simply an extreme and rather dickish version of how tons and tons of people think, because in terms of the history of social justice and civil rights movements, it is brand new for a movement to be so heavily based in the objective truth of internally-felt identities and accusing people of fundamental dehumanization when they refuse to affirm them. And yet, activist rhetoric sounds as if this is simply part of how identities always worked and what dehumanization always meant, rather than something that appeared on the scene just yesterday.

There is certainly still a major constituency of conservatively religious people who believe that everyone should only do with their bodies what their bodies were "created to do" or whatever, but conservative Christianity is very weakened in our culture since it lost the last major culture war, and I think a lot of people in that camp still also fall into the category of finding it incomprehensible nonsense to say that an identity category is whatever each of us says it is and that it's dehumanizing ever to imply otherwise. I believe it's simply a misconception to assume that the pushback against trans activism is comprised mainly of fundamentalists and TERFs. Norman Finkelstein is an (albeit extreme) example of someone who appears to be neither, and my perception at least in the US is that most people are neither, but that a great many Americans, if not a majority, don't really get the "identity is whatever you say it is" concept and at best are bemusedly humoring it as long as it doesn't get too much into their faces.

(On each day of this past weekend, I was in a different public place -- a bar restaurant and a coffee shop -- and overheard part of a conversation about how "the people in such-and-such social group over there all ask about and share pronouns and a bunch of them go by 'they'", and in context this wasn't being attacked in any way, but it was being treated as bemusing and only semi-comprehensible.)

As Tumblr user Bambamramfan once said, people (particularly scientific-minded, non-faith-y people) really don't like to assert things they don't actually believe (don't have time to look up the post right now; the way they phrased it was something like "Americans don't like to lie about what they believe" and it was in the context of lesser-of-two-evils voting, a topic on which I emphatically disagreed with Bambambramfan, but I consider that particular point to be wise). I wish this were more recognized in social justice activism communities in general, and both that more rhetoric were crafted and ideological assumptions were more carefully examined with it in mind.

I'll end by saying, as I've probably said before, that I'm not claiming just because certain ideological assumptions in trans right activism are fundamentally brand new, that they are wrong or shouldn't become adopted by the wider community. Lots of fundamental ideological assumptions that we are obviously better off for making the default, such as "people owning other people is a gross moral evil", were once brand new at least on a society-wide scale. What I complain about is activists completely refusing to acknowledge or even be aware of this novelty, and so refusing to critically examine it, to defend it on its own merits, or to meet others where they're at.

ARE YOU A TERF? ARE YOU HERE TO BOTHER ME ABOUT THE ABORTION POST FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME? WELL DON'T YOU HURT YOU FRAGILE LITTLE FEMININE HANDS BANGING ON THAT KEYBOARD BECAUSE HERE COMES THE 1-IN-ALL COMPREHENSIVE EXPLANATION YOU'VE BEEN ASKING FOR!

NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP AND LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE!

TERF stands for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism. It is radical feminism, meaning it places opression of women at the root of all forms of oppression, and it is trans exclusionary, meaning it excludes trans people from belonging in their own gender.

TERFism opposes the blurring of the sexes, and is in favor of strict segregation in many parts of life, including sports, bathrooms, shelters, and doctor offices. A recurring TERF talking point is opposition to the use of gender-neutral language in medicine, particularly when it comes to reproductive care.

The purpose of gender neutral language is to include trans people. The emphasis is sometimes put on "making trans people feel included", and while that's part of the picture, there is also a legal component to this. That is to say, the gender neutral language is there to ensure that trans people will not be denied care for their identity. If a procedure is listed as female only, a trans man who needs it can be turned away, or have insurance coverage denied.

A common counter-argument is that this cannot happen. Doctors can always tell what genitals you have at a glance and will provide you with appropriate care regardless of what your papers say. This is a silly concept that betrays an overabundance of faith in the medical establishment. Cases like this have already happened, and have been happening since Robert Eads died of ovarian cancer that doctors refused to treat.

Another counter-argument is that the trans men who find themselves in this predicament had it coming. They put themselves in this situation by transitioning, and only have themselves to blame for being unable to receive medical care. This argument is ghoulish, and betrays a willingness to use access to healthcare as a bargaining chip to force trans men into detransition or desistance.

A third is that this is unfortunate, but TERFism offers the solution: forcibly detransitioning all trans men into their proper sex . This is genocidal. I am not willing to debate this point, same as i am not willing to debate whether homophobia could be solved by conversion therapy.

"no abortions for trans men" is not an official TERF stance. It is, however, a byproduct of their rhetoric and their activism. Collateral damage, if you will. The only on-topic responses i have received so far fell under one of the three counterarguments discussed.

EDIT: NEW COUNTER-ARGUMENT EVERYBODY! "that's not what radical feminists believe at all, read what we actually say". That's just the No True Scotsman fallacy, combined with a pretty obvious recruitment attempt. Maybe you have constructed a version of radical feminism that's compatible with abortion rights, but that's not the version with actual political power. That version is the version of JK Rowling and Posie Parker, the version that gladly allies with anti-abortion orgs and neonazis. And you're helping defend it with this rhetorical switcheroo, by derailing criticism of it with "uhhh but what about my version where it's good and cool" well you're more mad at people pointing out the nazi infiltration of your movement that at the nazis, and more mad about trans people existing than either of those, so it already doesn't bode well for you. Not interested in reading your transphobic screeds, bye

Jumping off that point, what do you think is the best (formerly) radical feminist belief, and what's the worst?

Easy.

The best is the criticism of the porn industry. While in 2023 ethical porn can certainly exist, in the 1970's it was considerably more rare because the producers of it... just didn't give a shit. And even today there's an argument that if there is a financial incentive to do it, that is inherently coercive. Now you could say this about any industry, but the porn industry does target women in a very specific way and the fact that some people are VERY AGAINST talking about that is all the more reason TO talk about it. And its coercive nature is still very prevalent, and something you should always be aware of.

In a world where the "cost of living" is still a concept people have to live with, nothing can be truly said to be 100% your own choice.

Where the theory tends to split is on what you do about it. Some people argue pornography should be banned entirely (the punitive argument) and some think that industries and companies should be broken up and everything should be worker owned (the socialist argument). And it's the latter argument most people are completely on board with, hence why it's no longer considered radical. Indeed most feminists who want to ban porn often section off those things and redefine it as "erotica" so really both ends of the argument want the same thing they just define it differently.

You see where having "your own definition" of things ruins language?

Remember, this is criticism of the industry, not the concept. And in the 70's, the industry and concept were inherently linked. Regardless of how you feel about porn today, most people would argue that if Hustler Magazine or PornHub was completely nuked from existence tomorrow, nothing of value would be lost.

Sure you might lose the more extreme content if everything shifted to OnlyFans and similar platforms but... eh, who cares?

The worst is Radical Lesbianism. This is without a doubt the dumbest crock of shit in the world. A 'radical lesbian' is someone who is a lesbian not because they love women, but because they think it is the ultimate 'fuck you' to the patriarchy. It argues that heterosexual woman are inherently slaves to misogyny, and wraps up their sexual identity into their politics completely.

Given that feminism is about dismantling the patriarchy, radical lesbianism is a concept that cannot survive past that point. It relies on the existence of oppression to rebel against, unlike most lesbians who would flourish without patriarchal garbage weighing them down.

Furthermore, it's deeply misogynistic. There is something deeply wrong about a woman defining her love of other women entirely by her relationship to men. That is literally a homophobic statement men make: "Oh you're only gay because you hate men!"

It's the same fallacy as the Q-slur, where someone says something nasty to you and you go "Why yes, sir! You're absolutely right!" and you think won some kind of battle of wits.

It's no surprise radical lesbians also tend to be deeply biphobic, transphobic, and even misogynistic against women who still hold attraction to men in some way. The whole concept is completely noxious at every level. Being a lesbian is about loving women. And radical lesbians... don't. At all.

There is one OVA where Sasuke dreams of Itachi making him an egg and Itachi makes two eggs, one with Uchiha symbol and one with Uzumaki symbol. Then Sasuke sees Naruto come get him. The latter scene looked like from one of Emi Rankai's (Narusasu artist) doujinshi. I do think at least someone in the staff had read Emi's doujinshi.

Perhaps. SNS is so blatantly obvious in the story, I can bet many people in the staff, who make a career out of storytelling, can see it. Look at the ops and eds. It's so blatant. I am at a point where I can't help but laugh when people deny it. Like lol. Seriously, it's funny. People in this fandom would chop their hair and slash their jugular before they would admit Sasuke and Naruto are gay and in love. Like it's so ridiculous how absolutely prejudiced people are but haven't realized it. Take Sasuke stans who are anti SNS. They think Kishi cannot have written a gay love story because he is Japanese and from a different generation. Like in all honesty, they were one Google search away from finding out about it. Just one simple click. Hell, I don't even step out of my house without googling the weather. And these lovely stans are so confident about saying something as ignorant as this on an international platform without even doing a simple cursory search. Male homosexuality is entrenched in Japanese culture. Accounts of homosexuality can be found in the most famous Japanese dance art form Kabuki, so much so that, it shaped Kabuki's socio cultural evolution. Here's more. And this is just one of many examples.

Seriously, that they can say something as ignorant and poorly informed is shocking. Despite having such easy access to all sorts of information. Like wow, way to out yourself as a total moron and a precious bigot. But again, people can and will go to quite an extent to enforce the narrative they build for themselves and do everything in their power to fortify it to the exclusion of everything else, including evidence and reason. Echo chambers is one of their fortifications. It's also how political propagandas work.

People in fandoms love their little cliques and groups that follow everything together. Discuss and believe everything together. They talk the same language, utter the same words, have identical takes, the more delusional one is, the more members they will have in their echo chambers. Because when inner conviction is scarce, external validation comes to their rescue and becomes crucial for them to hold on to their fallacious takes. Other factors also strengthen and validate their beliefs. The need to belong. The need to have supporters and friends. Need to be in a group. Need to conform. The need to have a safety net. Security. Who doesn't want that? How long can you believe in something that has no real foundation in itself? How long can you lie to yourself in the face of a much evident truth? You can. As long as you have others who speak the same language as you and believe in the same things as you. It's psychological. It's human. It's how social groups form. Shared interests and goals. Whether it be real life or the internet.

There are of course other fans who don't feel the need to do any of that because they are secure in their understanding. Because they know how to separate the wheat from the chaff. They are rational, experienced and prefer honesty over conformity because they value themselves. Who value knowledge over cheap and trivial self gratification.

Artists like Emi and others who are so inspired by the story can tell what the story was about because they were honest. They appreciate storytelling and just....stories. So it's not a surprise to me that they drew Naruto and Sasuke so close to their actual representation. You gotta have an honest and sensitive soul to understand their story.

Antis can slander SNS how much ever they want, but I simply feel sorry for them. Because people who actually get this story have an invaluable treasure that others don't. A sensitive and honest heart, a keen mind, an open and empathetic soul. A kind soul. Which in the long run, is much more worth than all the delusions and ignorant bliss combined.

"Transgender is the same thing as being trans race, trans abled or trans age," says the anti-trans activist.

This is another inane point often popularly circulated in transphobic circles. I shouldn't have to explain that it's racist, ableist and that its use in transphobic arguments against accommodating the existence of trans people does more to legitimize pedophilia than the simple existence of trans people ever has and ever will.

It's important to note that the only people I ever hear making these arguments in transphobic spaces are white and able-bodied. Because there is a deep asymmetry between being trans gender and being trans race or trans abled or trans age, and black and brown and disabled people understand this.

Ultimately, in making these analogies, the transphobe is trying to avoid having moral discussions about power, group identity in our society, and the legitimacy of the characteristics we create for inclusion into a group. They're trying to avoid having a discussion on the social, political, and economic practices and institutions which shape the bounds of each group. They are attempting to equivocate their definition of "material reality" with that of our definition of "material reality."

For the transphobe, groups are constructed with reference to an essential or reductive attribute. This is, more-or-less, essentialism. Essentialists typically insist that there is a single, fixed trait that always has and will determine someone's group membership in society. Sex essentialists, for example, typically insist that this single, fixed trait is biological sex, and that it always has and will determine someone's sex caste in society. In contrast, the intersectional, queer, or decolonial feminist holds that groups are defined by material conditions within culture.

Trans race. I've found that this argument is used more-so to either set a trap for the trans individual or ally to catch them trying to justify racism, or to catch them eventually arguing in favor of the idea that some rules are fixed and maybe naturally determined, thus exposing an "ideological" inconsistency as well as their racism. I think properly addressing these fallacious analogies first requires admitting that the rules of gender and race are always changing. These rules are not fixed as they are socially constructed. The question we need to be asking isn't whether someone is, in fact, considered a certain race or gender based on some supposedly fixed rules, but whether they should be included in the group. And that is, ultimately, a question about power as well as identity. Who has the power to decide who should be included in a group and why? Why are they included or excluded? This question is especially important given that these group experience overlap from trans people to mixed race people to intersex people to white passing people. You would be hard pressed to find a single biological trait that all members of the group share in common.

It has always been the white supremacist power structure and the material conditions it has created which have defined the bounds of race and the qualifications for "white." Why people are included or excluded in certain racial categories has to do with the preservation of white supremacy and generating support for the white supremacist power structure.

The question we should be asking is "should we change our socially constructed group classifications?" Some examples of this changing in regards to race include the inclusion of certain Arab and Asian nationalities under the "white" umbrella. Should we change our socially constructed group classifications to expand the meaning of white? What consequences would there be if we did? How does this affect the power structure? Does this do anything to challenge white supremacy? Does this further erase pluralistic and individual identities? Lots of compelling arguments have been made that inclusion into "whiteness" is meant to erase national and ethnic identities as well as lend support to the white supremacist power structure. I would argue that this move would do nothing to dismantle or challenge the current white supremacist power structure. There are far more effective ways to challenge racism than defining a lot more people as "white." Revising these classifications would have a negative sociopolitical impact.

Essentially, it's necessary to analyze the population-level and sociopolitical effects of revising classifications for a group. In doing this and in accepting that the bounds of a group are defined by material conditions within culture, we can conclude that trans race is not comparable to trans gender. We need to look at the material conditions within society which have been created by such institutions as slavery, colonization, reservations, boarding schools, deportation, forced relocation, foster care, Jim Crow, immigration exclusion, and labor exploitation, to name a few.

"Yes, but things like a woman's lack of access to capital for hundreds and hundreds of years created poverty!" This is true. Denying women access to education or capitol affected individual women for generations. Their dependence on men for financial security was, objectively, a bad thing. Their ability to have credit and own property objectively improved the lot of some women by ensuring they did not face abject poverty should they not get married or should they divorce (women who divorce in Western countries still make less than their partner after divorce and their financial situation tends to be worse off after divorce, so we should address the financial burden of divorce that women face). But we need to understand something very crucial: "a slight expansion of college-educated women’s access to venture capital or mentoring opportunities was never a meaningful change to begin with, or an avenue via which meaningful change might be achieved." When "women" gained the right to an education, only white women gained this right. When "women" gained the right to vote, only white women gained this right. When "women" gained access to venture capital and expanded access to the workplace, only white women gained this right. Many white families had a 400-year head-start on black and brown families to build wealth, often on the backs of black and brown labor and land. When women fought for access to property and capitol and expanded employment and won, they gained access to white generational wealth. Black and brown women gained access to empty promises.

Trans abled. Now, I think it's first important to say that a third person party is by no means an authority to determine if someone is disabled based on the way they look or behave. No able-bodied person gets to determine if they think someone is "really" disabled. Every disability looks different, and some disabilities appear invisible, especially to able bodied individuals.

My argument against trans abled and trans gender being analogous matches that of the argument above. The question we should be asking is, "should we change our socially constructed group classifications?" Who has the power to decide who should be included in a group and why? Why are they included or excluded? Should we change our socially constructed group classifications to expand the meaning of disabled? Does this do anything to challenge ableism? What are the population-level and sociopolitical effects of revising classifications for this group? We need to look at the material conditions within society which have been created by such institutions as force hospitalization and forced poverty and marriage inequality and sub-minimum wages and structural inaccessibility, to name a few. After analyzing the population-level and sociopolitical effects of revising classifications for a group and accepting that the bounds of a group are defined by material conditions within culture, we can conclude that we would benefit from normalizing disability and expanding the classifications we've set for being disabled. Does this mean that people can be trans-abled? No. This means that more people would be included under the umbrella of "disability." Does the expansion of the definition of "disability" alone attack such things as the sub-minimum wage, forced poverty, involuntary hospitalization, and the abuse and exploitation of disabled people? Also no. Are there socio-political ableist ideas that would be challenged by the expansion of the classifications we've set for being disabled? Yes. Would more people be able to access the care and assistance they need because of an expansion? Yes.

Trans age. When dismissing the validity of this analogy, it is important to understand that no trans person is denying the basic building blocks of our corporeality. They aren't denying the existence of sperm or ovum. They are transgender, and they and trans allies question the way we have constructed our sex polarity, sex differentiation, and the classifications for male v. female; man v. woman. We all question how our classifications reinforce patriarchal ideas regarding genetic variation and overlap and how if someone is assigned male -> they must be masculine, and this is how we define a "man." This is not denying corporeality. Trans people and their allies recognize that certain people require certain care and have certain organs which contribute to certain medical conditions.

But the argument people often put forth to argue that trans age and trans gender are the same is that time is also a social construct. And while, yes, the 24- or 12- hour clock, days, months, and years are socially constructed, aging is not.

So, let's analyze this just the same as the other analogies. Should we change our socially constructed ideas around age (like age requirements for decisions)? Does this sufficiently challenge our less productive social ideas around time? Who has the power to decide who should be included in a group and why? Why are they included or excluded? Should we change our socially constructed group classifications to allow people to identify with whatever age they so choose? What are the population-level and sociopolitical effects of revising classifications for age groups? We need to look at the social, political, or legal conditions within society which have been created because of age like school requirements, contracting, drinking, voting, Social Security, Medicare, the draft, and consent and marriage laws. After analyzing the population-level and sociopolitical effects of revising classifications for a group, we can conclude that this analogy is bullshit.

Besides being one of the most prolific talking points among transphobes on the far-right of the political spectrum, the primary aim of this talking point is to equivocate trans people with pedophiles. This analogy is also a piss-poor attempt at equivocating the trans position on gender and sex differentiation with a denial of corporeality. The analogy also suggests there's an inherent biological process to gender, so it makes little sense that someone like- say- a "gender-crit" who believes gender is not real would propose this as a valid analogy. It ignores the actual corporeality to age, like the development of one's frontal lobe. It also ignores that we still don't declare that there is a single, fixed trait that is applicable to all people aged 62 even though we recognize the corporeality of age.

Now, is the age at which we determine that certain things are "okay now" still relatively arbitrary? Could they benefit from revision? Sure. If we were to analyze the social implications of certain age-related policies, like the ability to drink, we'd likely conclude that people would be better served if they started drinking *after* the full development of their frontal lobe. Another example would be: what's the maturity and mental difference between someone who is 17 and 364 days and someone who is 18? Nothing. That's how we can determine that it is morally wrong and inappropriate for a 33 y/o man to date an 18 y/o. Does any of this mean that we don't age? No.

We would seriously need to consider the social implications of "trans age" and how such a concept would destroy much of the positive aspects of our moral framework. Like a 15 y/o declaring themselves 21 for the day so they could drink. Or a 13 y/o declaring themselves 18 so they can drive without parental permission and don't have to get a permit. Or an 8 y/o declaring themselves old enough to drop out of school. Or maybe a 5 y/o sees their parents vote on election day and decides, "I want to vote today too!" Or... a 33 y/o man declaring himself 16 so he can get out of charges of statutory rape.

Legitimizing "trans age" would do a lot of harm to a lot of people. Legitimizing trans gender does little to no harm to people.

______________________________________________________________

Now, some might be wondering what "trans gender" positively challenges about our existing institutions? In the coming weeks, I will be posting essays that will discuss many of the ways that trans feminists challenge the patriarchal idea of sex polarity, the patriarchally defined Platonic ideals of male v. female, and the essentialization of sex and gender, but I first want to leave you with this quote from Emi Koyama:

"‘...I can assure you that womyn-born-womyn have nothing to fear from MtF transsexuals,’ wrote one woman. But it is time that we stop pretending that transsexual women are ‘just like’ other women or that their open inclusion will not threaten anybody or anything. The very existence of transsexual people, whether or not they are politically inclined, is highly threatening in a world that essentializes, polarizes and dichotomizes genders..."

Dq is bae huh? You watched one movie and act like you are some diehard kinda fan lmao. If SitaRamam didn't push the hindutva agenda but had a Muslim lead and Hindu princess I am sure you would be crying love jihad. You are telugu so ofc you are gonna act like its normal. Yall are the most gullible lot of the dravidian lands. I am glad that madness hasn't reached Kerala atleast. How many malayalam movies of dq have you watched even? I see none on your blog. Selective fangirling is real pathetic lmao. Also if you were gonna lie atleast make it believable. How does an Indian have pakistani teachers lol? You bringing up nfak is like how white people say "I cant be racist, I listen to black singers all the time"

Yes, dulquer salmaan is bae. You can't be more wrong, I have watched too many dq movies to count, I won't waste time listing them all here. I dont post everything I watch. Suit yourself with the assumptions.

Anon I can laugh off most of your ignorance but Sita Ramam slander is not tolerated on my blog. Tell me you didn't understand the movie without telling me you didn't understand the movie. No I wouldn't have cried love jihad if the movie with the Muslim lead and the Hindu princess followed the exact same storyline EXACT SAME. In that case I would have loved Fatima and Ali the same as I loved Sita and Ram.

I am not Telugu, funny you would assume that although I can see why. If you scroll through my blog though you will find Hindi, Bengali, Marathi, Tamil, Telugu, possibly one Kashmiri post and more. And none of the languages I mentioned are my mother tongues. So keep guessing.

Also, you hating on two entire states and a whole community? The blatant superiority complex and hate towards telugu people radiating in your sentence is so low. To be comfortable in your own skin and not compromise on your way of life isn't madness anon. Decolonise your mind. Kerala is a beautiful state and so is Andhra and Telangana. A lot of Telugu people live in Kerala and many Malyalis live in the telugu heartlands. Both of those linguistic families are a pride for the country so stop with your political divide. I don't even understand why you are bringing such random energy on my blog cuz I have never posted any proper political commentaries on my blog.

I can choose what to fangirl over. If I wanna obsess over dq for a month I will do it. You are probably new. My mutuals know how I post about the one same thing on a stretch for a while and then find something new and keep posting that instead. Selective fangirling isn't pathetic anon, you are.

I did not lie. I don't need to prove anything. Maybe consider that some Indians probably live in neutral countries where they interact with the rest of the world. Hence the pakistani teachers.

Fallacies bestie, all your fallacies are laughable. My point was, I appreciate all things good while taking pride in my own identity. I can post about Krishna and Dulquer salmaan in the same blog.

Your rant was very useless but I wanted to answer it anyways. There's more anons from you but i won't be answering anymore. I will just delete them.

@shut-up-rabert ye lo bhoi, maze le lo