I need to come on here and rant holy shit I’m pissed. I don’t know how many ppl are gonna take the time to read this but if this gets 0 notes within 24 hours I’ll probably delete.

So last night I was scrolling through Facebook and I came across to a post that my friends dad was saying some pretty homophobic shit about using pronouns like they/them and how those pronouns are used for more than two things. Okay yes, that’s true, but people who are non binary are just called that because they don’t feel right about their gender identity. I mean what else would they be called? It/its? Kinda offensive imo (unless if that what they prefer to go by).

Idk man, it just pissed me off. So then I commented on his post saying that it’s not the right place to post that kind of stuff cuz ppl can find it offensive especially if you have friends on your list who are non binary or LGBTQ+ friendly or are a part of the group. And then he goes on and DELETES MY COMMENT. LIKE ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME RIGHT NOW?! That was just unbelievable to me.

So then earlier today he texted me through messenger and said that he was “not homophobic” and yada yada and that he doesn’t care. And then I responded with how I found that post offensive and that he really shouldn’t be posting that kind of stuff and really just keep all of that to himself and that I don’t tolerate anyone who’s homophobic.

And then (this shit gets real) he goes on and says that the pronouns of they/them implies to more than one and it’s proper English and that we should’ve learned this in elementary school. Yes he was right, but they/them could also just mean for one person who is gender less (I guess I can say). And then. AND FUCKING THEN

HE TELLS ME THAT HE HOPES IM IN COUNSELING AND THAT I SUPPOSEDLY “NEED IT”

LIKE WHAT THE FUCK???????

Why do I need counseling for this kind of topic??? Like I really only need counseling if I’m depressed or have anxiety issues. Or even if I’m feeling s***idal. Which in this case I’m not either any of those. Then I told him to never ever tell me to go to counseling unless if I do NEED IT and that was just rude of him to say something like that.

And I just came across to a post he posted just a little bit ago and that this generation of fucked up (which yes it is) and that if we get offended by what he says then we “need to grow up and get thicker skin.” Okay, maybe just keep your goddamn mouth shut. It’s really not that hard to shut up about your opinions on specific things. You know the saying “if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say nothing at all” Yeah, not that hard to do that buddy.

He hasn’t replied to my messages yet but I’ll keep an update for yall (if you even care abt this post). I just really hope his son (my friend) is also not homophobic because I don’t wanna lose any friends right now. And also just to clarify, they’re both rednecks 🙄 so ofc they’re gonna have an opinion about this controversial topic. Unbelievable.

But yeah I take my support on lgbtq+ pretty seriously and if you’re homophobic, don’t come near me. Don’t even come in my vicinity. Simple as that.

i was a trans man until after a lot of build up of doubting myself, i finally realized that we are putting ourselves further into boxes by not accepting that we are the biological sex that we are and we can do WHATEVER we want at the same time.

clothes and makeup and certain interests do not equal gender.

and not liking being a woman is an unfortunately natural symptom of puberty and/or experiencing society’s deeply ingrained misogyny. and everyone deserves support for those problems.

but we can all fight together against gender social constructs in a healthy way without prescribing people hormones and invasive cosmetic surgery to make them more like the sex they “should” be according to… social constructs…. and help them be comfortable in who they are

Alright. Its been like 9 fucking months that I have been staring down this ask. What better time than to give TERFs some nuance than right in the middle of a fucking hate campaign going on where people (well... singular person probably) are calling me a TERF. This wont backfire.

This post arrived in my inbox shortly after I made another post about gender, and just how fucking weird it can be, and how I genuinely believed every single person on this planet has a fascinating relationship with gender, and so much nuance and personal identity in theirs. Even cis people. Even TERFs. In the tags, I even begrudgingly encouraged TERFs to talk about their gender on that post if they wanted. I genuinely think that TERFs do have really cool relationships with gender. As I mentioned in those tags, the quickest way to explode a group of TERFs is to get them to start talking about their own relationships with gender, and see how vastly different it is, and watching them stab each other in the back over it. So I told them to ramble away about how they view gender, as long as they stayed the fuck away from the rest of the blog WHICH THIS ANON CLEARLY FUCKING IGNORED.

But... this anon does bring up another topic I want to talk about.

Detransition.

Read More

I am a huge supporter of detransitioning. This is... surprisingly... not a very common stance in the trans community, and it breaks my fucking heart. Like, I get it. I understand why. A LOT of detransitioners, like the person in this ask, end up weaponizing their feelings of gender against other trans people.

My support of transition comes from the intersection of two very central beliefs of mine:

Everyone should explore their gender without feeling a need to commit! This is a pretty common belief in the trans community! Damn near universal in fact! We even have a fun little term we use for people who decide to play around with gender, only to end up a bit closer to where they started and being perfectly happy with that: Cis+. Someone who is cis, but at least put in the work to understand the trans experience, and actually CHOOSE to remain Cis instead of just defaulting to it with societal pressure. Many trans people are much more comfortable around 'Cis+' people, because they know these are people who have taken the time and put in the work of being an ally. Self examination isn't easy, especially not publicly, and doing so is genuinely one of the strongest ways a Cis person could ever show their support.

It is never too late to transition. This is also a pretty common belief in the trans community! It is... sadly not quite as universal though. But it is something very important that needs to be said. You could be 80 years old, sitting in a retirement home, and go "You know what? I think I'd rather wear a dress and be treated like a lady. I don't want to be buried as a man." And I think every single trans person should have that freedom!

I was discussing this with @thydungeongal the other day, far more paraphrased than this post, and she said something incredible that has been knocking around in my head ever since.

"Gender is an ongoing process"

Those five words they said to me sum up my feelings far more than this entire post could. Gender IS an ongoing process. My gender has changed SO MUCH over the past three decades. From the straightjacket of assigned gender that I was once forced into; to the very stylish and still lovable finely tailored suit of femininity that grew a little too stuffy to wear constantly, even though I do still enjoy it and try it on from time to time; to the wonderful and freeing losely fitting clothing of being aegogender, finally feeling free to be myself and just act naturally and feel natural without having to keep up an appearance!

And I think, there is no length of time you can try out being trans, and trying out new genders, before eventually coming to the realization you were cis all along. Even if you started HRT. Even if you got SRS. Heck, I don't even think you should have to call yourself trans to do either of those things in the first place, why would I be upset that someone did them and then realized they weren't trans? No single moment in your life should EVER lock your gender in place into some unchanging, set in stone thing.

So I support detransitioners completely, with my entire heart. They deserve just as much support as every other 'Cis+' person out there.

So anon, while many people may hate you and lash out at you for detransitioning, I want you to know, that I am not one of them. It sounds like your detransition might have been forced by peer pressure, which is heart breaking to hear. No one should ever force their own gender expectations on another. I hope that wasn't the case. I hope you came to the decision yourself, after realizing whats right for you. I will never give you hate for your detransition.

I WILL ABSOLUTELY GIVE YOU HATE FOR BEING A FUCKING TERF THOUGH. YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE WITH GENDER DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO POLICE THE GENDER OF OTHERS, FUCK OFF. GET THE FUCK OFF MY BLOG, YOU PIECE OF SHIT!

i hope this doesn't sound like a silly or weird thing to send you, but i'm autistic and have long thought of nico and a handful of other riordanverse characters as autistic and i love your posts about why nico in particular seems intentionally autistic-coded. but i've been thinking, if rick did intend for any of his characters to be autistic, why wouldn't he say so outside of the text at least? i can't think of a good reason why not, when he goes out of his way to be explicit about so many other characters' various marginalized identities and has confirmed things like reyna being asexual outside of the original text. so it gives me this nagging sort of doubt that maybe rick just made nico come off as so extremely autistic coded by accident, somehow. if it wasn't an accident i do kind of wish he'd say so because there's next to zero explicitly stated autistic representation in, like, any media so it'd be nice to have here even if not strictly necessary. either way though, like i said, i love your posts and i agree with you 100% about autistic nico! some others i like to think are autistic are annabeth and leo.

(Most of this is gonna be kind of a tangential ramble to your point and i apologize in advance just bear with me)

This actually touches upon something I've been meaning to do a write-up on recently, which is: depending on the coding, that is our explicit statement. In most coding, actually, that's kind of the point. (Also something something Death of the Author.)

You may have noticed a recent trend across media of characters saying things directly rather than expressing them in a natural way, and often this includes incredibly stilted dialogue of characters explaining things in very politically correct, wikipedia-esque descriptions and terminology that make absolutely no sense for the characters' personalities or mannerisms. This is born out of the idea that if something is not stated in explicit terms, no amount of evidence below an outright direct exact statement will ever count - if two characters of the same gender have an explicit kiss and wedding on-screen, it doesn't matter because they never said the word "gay," etc etc.

In PJO, prior to more recent books, we get plenty of examples of characters explaining parts of their identities without direct statements. Percy never needs to say in outright terms that he has PTSD from Gabe - and it doesn't make sense that he would! He's 12! He's never been diagnosed for that. He probably doesn't even know what PTSD is really. But we, the audience, know without a doubt he has PTSD, because it is clearly expressed to us. That is coding. Tyson is coded as having down syndrome. Nico is coded as being autistic. It doesn't make sense for Nico to turn to the camera and explain that he's autistic and what that means, because he definitely never got diagnosed for it and probably doesn't know what that means cause the diagnosis literally did not exist when he was growing up - and heck, autism terminology was still kind of getting sorted out back in 2007 when TTC was published, so it's unlikely we could have feasibly gotten any exact terminology wink-wink-nudge-nudges short of something like how Percy outright mentions other students called Tyson the r-slur in Sea of Monsters. And in fact we see that same exact style of coding with Nico later on in the series. Nico never turns to the camera and says word-for-word "I am gay, I am mlm, here's me wearing my exact pride flags" (until TOA/TSATS, which... did the exact thing i mentioned about characters speaking like theyre trying to get a good grade in therapy, or giving a powerpoint presentation). But it is never unclear that HoO is telling us outright that Nico is gay. It's not just hinted at. It's there, in your face. But entirely because no one ever outright says "gay" specifically it's technically still only coding. We know he's gay, we know the characters have trauma/ptsd, etc etc. We don't need it spelled out - that's just kind of condescending. It's like if you said describing a character with "eyes like moss" means they were "green-eye coded."

Nico being autistic-coded isn't hidden. It's not a secret. It's very overt. If you know what autism looks like, well, yeah, there he is. Even if you only know very vague 2007 media presentation of autism, Nico in TTC is easily recognizable enough as autistic because that's the point. Tyson is easily recognizable as being coded as having down syndrome and it's very clearly very intentional! It's just never spoon-fed in exact terms to the reader because it's not necessary! You've already been told the information necessary to tell you what is up with this character, so just plainly going "oh they're [x] in exact terms" is very much telling-not-showing and feels redundant. And while there are places for that kind of thing, most of the time it's very unnecessary. Sometimes coding is subtle, sometimes it's obvious, and yeah there are times where writers code characters unintentionally, but the textual evidence is there, and that's the whole point.

And that's what Death of the Author is about - it doesn't matter what the author intended at the end of the day, because if it's in the text it's in the text. You can look at author intent to try and figure out what that text means, but the text is the text. A Separate Peace is a very classic example - author John Knowles denies there being homosexual subtext, and meanwhile one of the protagonists living in 1942 puts on a pink shirt while saying he doesn't mind of people think of him as gay. What the author says after the fact doesn't matter - if it's there, it's there. So Rick saying anything outside of the books is completely irrelevant. And Rick talks about this a lot - he actively tells people that his statements outside of the books are just his own thoughts, but what's in the books is what's in the books, and if the text supports it then that's all the evidence you need.

Nico specifically is a case where yeah, he's clearly autistic-coded. It's very obvious and very obviously intentional when he's younger, and as the books progress it remains a background trait of his but is still notable (except for when it gets forgotten in TOA/TSATS like everything else, including the adhd/dyslexia, but i digress). It's a clear pattern within the first few books that Rick is intentionally including. It doesn't make sense, especially for the year the book was published, for the reader to be directly told in explicit terminology that Nico is autistic, because the reader is already being told that Nico is autistic.

And yeah, Rick doesn't mention Nico being autistic-coded outside of the text, but he also doesn't mention Tyson being coded as having down syndrome. He also said one time that Percy doesn't have PTSD at all, which is very incorrect starting from book 1. Again, Death of the Author. Whatever Rick says outside of the books does not matter, because he already said it in the books. And there's plenty of other stuff in the books that Rick doesn't touch upon, particularly relating to character identity - did you know Leo is Native? Sammy mentions that the Valdez family is Native in Son of Neptune but we don't get any specifics and then it's like never brought up again anywhere. That happens all the time in the series - and outside of the series - Rick can't possibly address every single point to confirm/deny everything from the books. That's what analysis is for! And that's why my blog exists 👍

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t like how this art has turned out, but I don’t think I know how to make it better.

He doesn’t need an introduction, I guess.

if andy and leyley came out 8-10 years ago i think it'd be considered an absolute classic of "rpg maker-style indie horror games," like Ib, Off, Yume Nikki, etc., but bc of this incredibly puritanical cultural moment we're in, it's been made out to be this like, pandoras box almost.

its a well written game with very compelling (yes fucked up but compelling) characters, poor and fucked over by companies, scams, promises of better lives, but they're fucked up and they do fucked up things. the soundtrack is also very good and adds a lot to the drama and tension and dark comedy.

my only real critiques of the game are 1) some of the mechanical aspects are a bit dull (in one section for example you are just walking around a park clicking on bushes until you find the right one and its a bit tedious and sort of kills the tension that's been built up), and 2) in the very beginning of the game you /really/ get hit over the head with "the water company is EVIL and the wardens are EVIL so so EVIL and fucked up!!" to the point where its like, okay yes i get it.

i have a lot of thoughts and feelings about this game, im looking forward to the next installments

Transcript: I see people say "oooo sansest isn't problematic" IT IS. Would you fuck yourself? If an alternate version of yourself existed, would you want to sleep with them? People will say "let us have our fun!" But if you actually logically think about this for a second, it's the exact same thing as shipping sans and papyrus.

wait did you mean to say anybody can be butch not just lesbians?

yes fasdfasdf there's a deep and long history of butch & femme culture that is not exclusive to lesbians and i am not going to get into arguments abt it on tumblr.com but there are Many butches and femmes who are not lesbians for any number of reasons and that is okay

the lesbian & bisexual community have been very tightly woven together for decades and butch & femme when it began included both of those. further, ball culture which is also decades old also has its own forms of butch and femme started by black trans women & drag queens that include straight transgender women & drag queens/kings.

not to mention the huge historical overlap between butches and trans men/transmascs and how some butches who transition might still prefer the term butch while no longer identifying as a lesbian

ultimately gatekeeping these terms does no one any good and is incredibly ahistorical and i am not going to like. jump down people's throats for holding different opinions but i ask that y'all do the same in return.

May I ask about your Jason Todd idea? <3

Hm, okay so. How to lay this out sensitively since I know it might be a tad controversial...

Prefacing by saying I'm not an expert on the minutias of Jason characterization. I like him when he appears, I think the battle for the cowl/Morrison era and some parts of modern era for him are Weird and Bad, but I'm not Jason scholar (for that I'd say maybe check out @/tumblingxelian and their great video essays), I'm just trying to think of what might be an interesting step forward for him.

First, the canon facts

Jason got lobotomized and has panic disorder on steroids. By the end of Gotham War (specifically when Jason was. Flying the batplane into the asteroid. God I can't believe that's the plot) he was finding it in himself to power through said panics

In Joker: The Man Who Stopped Laughing #12, the joker gives Jason a "low dose" of joker venom, which has an ambiguous effect on Jason, allowing him to power through the fear (which joker explicitly states is still very much present, just not physically debilitating, like when Jason couldn't run over in either Catwoman #57 or #58, the one with the kid in the building) even though he'd been able to do that sans venom over in Gotham War, like I previously stated.

The effect of said joker venom seems to be lingering for now, minus the creepy grin side effect it gave Jason over in that man who stopped laughing issue, as seen in the latest batman issue (number is escaping me rn, #147??). He still has the stutter which is a shorthand for fear, he's drawn with fearful expressions by Jorge Jimenez, but he says that he's "working through it" thanks to the chemicals

This is both super interesting and kind of maddening as it doesn't completely remove the consequences of what happened in Gotham War, but is trying to sweep them under the rug and get back to business as usual. I, however, propose making said consequences front and center like a fashionable urn on a mantle piece:

Since it's never stated how exactly the joker venom works, and I think the current answer is "it works how the story needs it to" I've decided that because it's a low dose, it eventually wears off. And when it wears off, Jason's back to square one in terms of mental state. Ergo, if Jason doesn't want to live the rest of his life as quaking shivering husk of his former self...he's going to need more.

(read more for the meat of things)

So, Jason self medicates for a condition given to him by the father he has endlessly complicated feelings towards with a cure invented by a man who represents everything he hates in the world who once tried to take everything from him.

Which, insert poetic cinema gif here, I'm quite proud of myself for that one.

Anyway, there's a lot of directions you could take this. Personally I think it'd be interesting to explore Jason trying to get back into the drug trade like he did in UTRH (FULL TRANSPARENCY I HAVEN'T READ THE FULL COMIC, I KNOW BROADSTROKES BUT IM NOT GONNA TRY AND MAKE PARALLELS) as he tries to use the resources (production plants and other drug runners who can hook him up with samples of joker toxin/similar stuff you can probably find around Gotham) to manufacture his own cure that means never having to go back to the joker again. Maybe he ambushes a joker toxin chemical production plant to get his own supply, and then Jason uses this as his foothold back into that world.

This isn't necessarily me saying we should regress Jason alll the way back to UTRH, that was before his anti-hero era and I'm not willing to fully shoot him back into the past. I just think that's not how you tell good stories in a medium like comics. But it'd inherently be a little different just bc he's doing it for different, slightly more self motivated (depending on your take on villain Jason) reasons and the people around him would have a different reaction to it.

Anyway, all sorts of problems can arise! Depending on how you wanna characterize Jason (wayward son who longs to be back in the fold or black sheep who doesn't play by daddy's rules, etc) he can either a) try and hide this criminal enterprise from his giant family full of nosy detectives (good idea there jay) OR do it out in the open, trying to justify himself but still putting himself on the opposite side of the family again (not the law bc that boy hasn't been on the 'right' side of it since he died)

There's also the fact that Jason now needs to take something 24/7 in order to live his life. He essentially can't be without it, he's dependent on it, in fact he'd get sick without it despite any adverse effects it may have on him (which are guaranteed, I mean. No clinical trials)

I imagine it'd be easy to become addicted to it in some way.

And uh. This is the part where it works slightly better as a fanfic pitch than an actual comic pitch. Because as much as I think it'd be such an interesting beat for Jason's character considering his fraught history with addiction and drugs (looks away from that one urban legends story where he suggests terrorising addicts to get to the suppliers and bruce lectures him. The easiest way to make Mr "we don't sell drugs to children" sympathetic and you beefed it)

I also fully recognise that this is a sensitive topic that DC doesn't have the best track record with (although addicts aren't a monolith and feel a number of ways about addictions portrayals in comics) and that there's probably some pitfalls inherent in the premise, namely bc of Jason's background as an impoverished kid and his grey morality, and how those play into stereotypes of addicts. Addiction is already such a misunderstood and stigmatized condition that I imagine playing with it with an antihero might be enough to turn some people off. Addiction is not a moral failing and I'd hate to write it as a moral failing of Jason akin to his willingness to kill, etc.

But with all that said, I think that stereotypes are primarily harmful because of their shallowness. They inhibit understanding of groups labeled "other" by presenting them in simplistic ways that don't portray richness or complexity. And I think a truly good red hood comic could give both sympathy and complexity to Jason, even as an addict. If anything, Jason is a popular character (mostly) and there could be something nice about seeing a main character go through what you're going through, gritty details and all. YMMV (can we bring that back btw?) and it depends on execution. There's a lot of ways it could go wrong, but seeing as it just lives as a hypothetical rn, I think there's also a lot of ways it could go. I mean, not right, it's a downer story beat for Jason but it's mostly meant to be interesting and a vehicle for more stories as Jason navigates it, ya know?

Anyway, I have a lot of spiels littered in my notes app and discord DMs that elaborate on all this (how this could work as act 1 in a broader Jason story where his little operation goes to shit and he has to hit the road (jack) and maybe do some character development for better or worse. I'm a sucker and wanna say better- not squeaky clean better but. Yknow, finding himself to an extent. I recognise I'm a sap and a fool tho. Or how a new outlaws team could factor into either of those eras (since I do like Jason with an outlaws team. It gives him an excuse to exercise his compelling relationships and dynamics with other characters without having to constantly tip-toe around the elephant in the room whenever he's with the batfamily all the time. He just needs a good lineup) but that's all for another time

... though without elaborating on the vision in my head it kind of just sounds like my pitch is "Jason gets addicted to his hyper-anxiety medication" BUT I SWEAR ITS MORE THAN THAT.

It's like. If Jason has struggled as a character (and this is very subjective on my part so feel free to disagree) because he has compelling relationships with all of the batfamily, but also has compelling grey morality that makes it hard to capitalize on those relationships, without the conflict always coming to "Jason stop killing!" "Nuh uh!" OR just being ignored, and the main way writers have addressed this is via reboots instead of arcs...

Then giving Jason and the bats:

real, legitimate and fresh reason for jay to be mad at Bruce (taking their relationship of love with very little understanding to it's most dramatic conclusion)

give the family a real reason to want to bring him back into the fold (feel bad about the lobotomy and it would be pretty immoral to let Jason waste away slowly and painfully because of something Bruce did)

capitalize on all the ways Jason is sympathetic (bc the addiction is a natural lead into his backstory, which is one of his most sympathetic elements)

And the ways in which he's very out of step with the bats post-resurrection (I'd be mad asf too if i came back to life just for my dad to a) not avenge me and b) LOBOTOMIZE ME meanwhile the cunt ass clown giving me my meds is just lurking out there).

Idk it's not a sophisticated pitch as of this moment but I think a real chef (writer) could cook something w/ this

Hello! I noticed you recently used the radfem tag on a post. Being a HP author, are you aware of the message this sends considering the source content for this fandom?

I debated whether or not to answer this, as I am well aware of the hornet's nest I'm kicking—particularly on this site. However, I believe the contemporary rhetoric that assumes one's support of 'x' means they must believe 'y' to be reductive, dishonest, and particularly troubling when it comes to silencing the voices of women. It's the very same false equivalence that has led large swathes of the population into claiming that support of Palestine = antisemitism (including, ironically, JK Rowling).

I consider myself a radical feminist and I won't censor that simply because I also happen to like a magical school kid's book series written by a conservative moron. Does this mean I agree with everything every single radical feminist has ever said? No. But I believe that sex-based oppression is alive and well and can be seen most prominently in law-enforcement response to rape and domestic violence, abortion rights in many countries, access to maternity leave, research into women's health, household labour distribution and the commercial objectification of women (be that advertising or pornography).

Does this mean I think sex-based oppression is the only form of oppression? No. Does this mean I associate myself with TERFs? No. Was the radical feminist movement without flaws? Also no. Just as the socialist movement did not adequately address the disadvantages women faced in the 60s and 70s, the second-wave feminist movement failed to address the unique struggles of non-white women and queer women. There is always room to grow from the starting point of a movement created ~60 years ago. Intersectionality is critical. But we have not progressed as far as most would like to pretend (looking at you, America), and the way that women hasten to distance themselves from the 'harsh' type of feminism is partially at fault for this, in my opinion.

Without radical feminism, we would not have had the Women's Liberation Movement. Without radical feminism, we would not have abortion rights, access to credit, equal pay protections, etc. The demonisation of a branch of feminism that was so critical in fighting for the rights that modern women enjoy today is harmful and something I am very suspicious of. I mean, we're at a point where I can't even use the tag radfem without having people in my asks sending messages like this? Really? If there is something that I have reblogged or posted that you disagree with, then I am always open to a good-faith discussion, but I don't respect this style of internet discourse that strikes you down as guilty by association.

(Also, since I know that's what you're getting at — my opinion on TERFs is that they've done a great disservice to radical feminism and have gotten themselves worked up about something that is a non-issue outside of their corner of the internet. My question when people come to me IRL with anti-trans rhetoric is always, "have you ever actually met a trans person?" and the answer is always no...)

While I don't agree with everything said in it, this is an interesting article from Dr Charlotte Proudman which I recommend you read: Being a radical feminist means being a trans ally at the same time.

Okay guys.

This is where we need to have a talk….about this

People have ships and it's what a fandom does(relating to the comments on this post)

Are people THAT oblivious? Yes they can be misscharatized but- people have their own personal views on things and there’s nothing wrong with it

My headcanons tend to be - not canon as people wish a HC would be,

It pisses me off knowing I would get attacked for my views of the characters

I can have my mentally ill gay shit-🧍‍♀️

Sometimes - Read the creators posts I swear sometimes yall just want a reason to argue and hate

"Rody isn't a uwu sweet boy" no he isn't and we know that

He's a buff mentally unstable guy who's trying his hardest for a girl that isn't going to get back with him

Vince isnt a yAnDErE as a lot of people tend to say(same people as rody being a uwu boy)

He's insane. He's got MENTAL ISSUES-

The ship could work in some way But in most timelines

It won't

Bc rody is focused on Manon, and Vince would probably end up murdering rody,

But what do I do?

Headcanon TIMELINE. where eveything has its own works as a FANDOM WOULD??

Do people not know what fandoms do other than “ruin” charaters?? It’s genuinely annoying

people are going to be SUCKERS for gay shit- (as one who loves those ships myself AND a proud rodent shipper.) there’s nothing more to to, people are going to focus on what they find cool and cute, there’s still canon ish content.

Honestly. You don’t like any of the fandoms works? Get over it.

That’s a fandom, a fandom creates content for a thing they like, and it’s gonna have people who mischaracterize the charaters. And that’s how it always will be, THINK OF SANS AND PAPYRUS- sans had been dumbed down to a depressed emo for the LONGEST time and paps got seen as a cinnamon roll, as a fandoms goes on, they tend to drift toward the more canon personality,

But ofc It’s more appealing with the fandom twist, so leave them alone

Thanks for reading,have a good day.

hey if people would stop posting anti-shipping fandom discourse in the tags of my posts that would be pretty cool

Okay time for another PSA to not let your pet cats free roam outdoors ever. (If you think you don't have the space indoors for a cat to be happy or the willingness to give your cat what it needs indoors then don't have a cat. That means you can't take care of it so don't get it. Also, you clearly don't care about a cat's "natural needs" if you don't also keep it fully up to date on health check ups/vaccinations, give it enrichment and feed it only pure raw meat at home. They're obligate carnivores. Kibble is why they develop and die of kidney issues.)

They indisputably cause incredible damage to ecosystems and due to the way they became domesticated to eradicate pests, they are built to kill and maim indiscriminately and with extreme prejudice. Your pet cat does not hunt to eat when it has a safe bed and food at home. It hunts to slaughter. Because it's instincts say so, even if you think it's a chill lazy cat (what are the feather and mouse toys for but to satisfy those instincts?).

Whether or not a direct attack kills a small animal, it will most certainly still die of complications (like ruptured air sacs in birds -an incredibly painful way to go-, blood loss, disability, necrosis, cellulitis, and septicemia), countless serious infections from the cat's claws and mouth, inhalation of blood/stomach contents, or other infection from exposure to the environment. That is if it totters along on its will to survive, suffering, and manages to escape the next predator that comes along.

And if you couldn't care less about the local ecosystem and countless species that have gone extinct by cats under our very noses, you should worry about your cats' safety and the possibility of infection and parasites that they bring home to you and transmit to other pets, people, and homes they visit.

Cats will be run over or killed/injured by people, either by accident or intentionally (many people see any kind of small animal as target practice for their car or dart gun or whatever else and don't care if it's a cat. Maybe they even do it to protect their livestock, e.g. chickens, rabbits). Cats will get into fights with other animals. Cats will get eaten by coyotes. Cats will hide or shrug off injuries. Cats will meet other cats from different circumstances. Cats will carry rabies or be bitten by a vector animal and the only way to test for rabies is to take a slice of the brain (i.e., kill the animal in question). Cats will walk back into your yard and home with everything they picked up along the way, if not on their body then in their mouths after grooming and in their litterbox. Putting your cat, yourself, and others in that sort of danger is more neglectful than keeping them indoors. Letting them bring everything back to your home is negligent. Letting them infect and harm other animals is negligent ("dangerous" dogs who stay in their own yards get euthanized for less). It does not matter what part of the world you live in. Letting your pet cat outdoors is neglect and malicious behavior.

And in case you think you're not at risk from disease from your own cat or you want relevant, recent news to back this up, here's an article X , posted 07 August 2023, about a UK man contracting a completely unknown bacterium from a stray cat, initially resistant to certain antibiotics, that started to kill the infected flesh, and here's the scientific study about identifying the bacteria X

Who knows what your own cat gets up to outside or what other animals they meet?

i also just want to make a note, before i start actively posting regressed ghouls, that even though i've been regressing for a long time, im still new with the... culture? around it. so please be patient and nice with me while i learn and grow, and if you see anything that rubs you wrong let me know, i don't want to be hurtful because im coming from such a narrow scope

aight im just gonna say it. some folks really gotta stop treating nishikiryu like they’re actually related and considering anyone who’s so much as Okay with them as a pairing of being incest apologists. like. that’s a legitimately fucked up and serious thing to accuse someone of just because of your view of two factually unrelated fictional characters.

Someone: *Digs up shit from about half a decade ago that some semi-popular internet personality had said as proof that they are some flavor of bigot*

People who take longer than one second to form an opinion: “Hold on, that’s a little unfair. Is there proof that this is something they’ve done continuously/is a belief they actually hold? And why should we just trust the word of this random person?”

Some headass on Twitter: “UM, ACTUALLY the person who posted this is literally a queer teenager! You’re a homophobe who is harassing a minor and you also are the same type of bigot as this internet personality AND you condone the jackasses who are actively sending death threats to this ~Queer Teen~! ...Anyway, I’m still gonna consume this person’s content that I just called a bigot, but as I am a good internet citizen I’m gonna advertise that I don’t condone this creator’s actions <3″