#I'll post a picture when I'm done | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

justanotherwriter140 · 2 months

Text

Kung Fu Panda 4 - The Movie

The last really, really long discussion post (for now).

Major spoilers ahead!

This review is full of spoilers, so please refrain from reading through it until you've watched KFP4. I would highly suggest doing so, as I want everyone to form their own opinions without my influence. The movie has its flaws (some of which admittedly being a bit distracting), but it's a fun film that has things to offer.

Kung Fu Panda 4 is a fun movie (take that as you will) that takes its audience on an action-packed, surprisingly funny, yet relatively contained adventure on which Po doesn't really do much. It's an inconsequential, safe sequel that doesn't really hurt the franchise but adds close to nothing.

I had a good time watching the movie. It was obviously produced with its theater experience in mind and the action scenes especially reflected that priority. The humor was actually funny sometimes and I enjoyed Po and Zhen's dynamic. During the film, I was able to put most (most!) of my grievances aside and take the movie for what it is. I've discovered that the best way to watch KFP4 is with low expectations and an open mind.

I have a lot of things to say about KFP4, both complaints and compliments (though the former might be taking the forefront in this review), and I hope this review can help those of you who have seen the movie organize your thoughts. I've been having a lot of trouble with that specific aspect of things myself. Those who get it get it.

With that said, let's get into my full review of KFP4! I've been waiting for nearly 2 years to write this and I'm so excited to share every single thought.

I'm going to follow the format of my first discussion post and curate a bulleted list of my thoughts, followed by an analysis of each of these points. Keep in mind that everything I say is IMO and this is more of a rant post than anything else.

Here are my main points:

The Furious Five's role is comically minuscule in the context of the film. Their actions are inconsequential and add nothing to the plot (a confirmed last-minute add), and they have 30~ seconds of screen time. Shifu is also largely irrelevant.

Mr. Ping and Li's presence has little to no effect on the movie (though I won't complain too much because they were pretty fun to watch and this movie has bigger problems). In almost any scenario, I am adamantly against having characters present that don't add anything to the narrative; however, Mr. Ping is an exception. I love Mr. Ping. James Hong is a gem.

Zhen's screen time is not utilized well and her character is underdeveloped. She definitely wasn't annoying, but I didn't find her either compelling or funny enough to warrant the screen time she was given, especially considering it wasn't used to establish a backstory/strong motives. This makes me feel bad for the character because the movie kind of screwed her out of any substantial development.

The Chameleon, while complimented greatly by Viola Davis, is an underwhelming villain. Viola Davis is amazing in this film and I would suggest watching it for her performance if for nothing else, but the Chameleon is underwhelming considering the super cool concept behind the character.

The film feels very rushed. Apologies to those who disagree, but I think the pacing is atrocious and the final fight is anticlimactic. The movie felt like a word-vomit with no discernible intermissions that stops abruptly when the film ends.

I felt as though Po didn't change/grow as a person and the audience never had a chance to either bond with or relate to his character. His internal struggle is kept to a minimum and we don't spend a moment alone with him as an audience, which is disorienting and distracting. Watching the film felt like running into an old friend at the store who's too in a rush to have a real conversation.

The action scenes were strong with few exceptions. Creative art direction was utilized and I thought the martial arts choreography was entertaining and dynamic. I love the color palette of the film and many scenes were very impressive visually.

With my main points established, I do believe it's ranting time. Strap in, folks.

Let's start strong with the Furious Five: I'm gutted. Chagrined, despondent, crestfallen, etc.

The lack of the Furious Five negatively affects KFP4 so much, because not only does their absence hurt the atmospheric integrity of KFP as a franchise, it also forces KFP4 to bring in a slew of different characters—all while still noncommittally including the FF at the very end because I believe the marketing team required it—that clog up the cast a bit. It all goes to show how important strong, established side characters are.

The Furious Five are side characters, but the role of "side character" does not equate to being irrelevant, expendable, or exchangeable. I recognize that the Furious Five aren't super developed as characters beyond a handful of lines that allude to traits sprinkled sparingly among the members; however, I believe that the tiny bits of development we have been given have proved impactful in the past. Tigress's development in KFP2 is a prime example of how much narratively conscious changes (however small they may be) can positively affect these movies.

Because of limited runtimes, the Furious Five often operate as more of a singular unit than five individuals. Even so, I don't think discarding them is valid. They're so important to the KFP universe (to Po's universe!) and not having them with him feels so wrong. The Furious Five are fully integral to the heart of Kung Fu Panda, which is why I believe a lot of those who have seen the new movie have expressed something feeling "off" or something being missing.

I agree with this sentiment. To me, KFP4 didn't feel like a KFP movie. I don't need a Furious Five spin-off movie and I can be fully content with a KFP5 centered around Po's journey as an individual as was intended from the beginning, but he can't carry an entire movie on his back. As strong as he is in every sense of the word, he is only one character. He's the centerpiece of the franchise, but a centerpiece can only go so far without the rest of the design, so to speak.

For me, the Furious Five's absence is one of this film's biggest faults. It's huge and glaring. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way, either, because the friends with whom I saw the film refused to talk about any other aspect of the movie after seeing it. Seeing them at the end was better than nothing, of course, but it was a disappointing culmination after eight years of waiting.

That all is to say I feel robbed. Despite all of this, though, I understand that there were reasons why the Furious Five weren't included in the movie. I don't believe the production team would exclude the Furious Five unless they weren't given a choice.

Shifu and Po's dynamic continues to be thoroughly delightful but their interactions are short and simplified. I would have loved to see more of them in this film, especially considering the extreme relevance of teacher-student relationships in KFP4. I (somewhat) digress, though, because the idea of Shifu having to live at the Jade Palace with only Po for an extended period of time is hilarious enough on its own. Maybe that's what the short film is about!

The comedy is odd but has some jokes that stand out. Po maintains a healthy relationship with his inner sass, which I think makes him more fun to watch and kind of eradicates the man-child verdict. Some jokes don't land, of course, but I genuinely thought KFP4 had some funny moments. Mr. Ping was consistently awesome and Po had some good lines sprinkled throughout the film.

As for Mr. Ping, he and Li Shan are the subjects of the film's B-plot as they follow Po to Juniper City out of shared concern for their son's safety. In my mind, they don't add anything to the story that couldn't have been brought about by other characters, but they had their moments of being entertaining. I enjoyed their silliness and thought they had a cute dynamic if nothing else.

Speaking of other characters, I want to discuss KFP4's deuteragonist and why I genuinely feel bad about the way her character was treated.

I want to let it be known that I'm still not on board with Po passing the Dragon Warrior torch to another character. While I agree that his arc is now calling for him to have a student, I disagree with the notion of him retiring from his DW role.

As I stated in my first discussion post:

Didn’t the initial significance and nuance of the title come from the fact that there is only one person who can be the Dragon Warrior, because the concept of the “Dragon Warrior” isn’t so much a title as it is Po himself? The universe (Oogway) must choose the Dragon Warrior because they are a singular being of legend. It is one person, and that person is Po. Wasn’t the point of the first film that the title ultimately doesn’t really matter because there is no “secret ingredient,” so to speak? The title doesn’t actually give Po anything. “It’s just you,” Po says, and that was the resolution.

When it comes to Zhen as a character, contrary to what I predicted I would think of her, I thought she was okay. While I was still a bit distracted by how out-of-place her design looks, I wasn't truly annoyed by her at any point and she and Po had some cute moments. Even so, I think their relationship could have been a bit more refined and developed.

While it's evident that Po and Zhen are meant to have a teacher-student/mentor-apprentice dynamic, I think their relationship feels half-baked. There were parallels that contradicted one another and ended up being confusing come the film's conclusion, and the nature of their relationship seems to vacillate depending on the scene. Additionally, the strength of their bond goes from zero to one hundred within thirty-ish minutes and left me with a bit of whiplash.

We're shown that Po and Zhen care about one another, but we're never shown why. They have a brief conversation during which they bond over being orphans, and Zhen says at one point, "You're actually a good guy," but that's it. This obvious lack of development is a bit disorienting because we're later led to believe that Zhen and Po care very deeply for one another when there's almost nothing to back it up.

A scene that sticks out to me when discussing this is when Zhen attack-hugs Po in a way that explicitly mirrors Tigress's hug from KFP2. This happens around the beginning of the third act, and while it had the potential to be an endearing moment, I think it fell flat.

The impact of Tigress's hug was brought on by her character's hardcore nature and reputation of being heartless, further strengthened with the knowledge that she was hugging Po (which was obviously way outside her comfort zone) as a show of companionship and fundamental understanding. Tigress hugged Po because he needed someone to recognize his strive for closure.

Zhen's hug had little to no impact because she had no reason to do it and it didn't indicate growth. She hugs Po because she's sorry for betraying him and doesn't want him to be killed by the Chameleon, but neither of these things are newly-established via this hug; we have already gathered by now that Zhen regrets betraying Po and doesn't want him to get hurt.

The hug is far from the movie's weakest point, but I think it's unnecessary given the context. I'm big on hugs in movies (an underutilized form of platonic affection, in my opinion), but it didn't fit here. I don't hate it, and I see it as an honest effort to bring emotionality to Po and Zhen's relationship, but it seems arbitrary.

Zhen and Po's relationship has a lot of potential and I'd be open to seeing more of them in the future, but I think some more thoughtful development needs to occur before I can humor it further. Even so, I can see myself featuring Zhen in some future post-KFP4 one-shots—sparingly, of course, because we have a lot of Furious Five content to compensate for.

Overall, they had a cute dynamic and some sweet moments but I'm not attached. I'm on board with Po having a student but I think their relationship needs a lot more development, something that this film unfortunately didn't give them time to either accomplish or earn.

Now, onto the Chameleon!

The concept of the Chameleon's character is admittedly super interesting. She's the deuteragonist's fastidious mother figure who feels that Zhen owes her a debt and as a result holds her to an impossible standard. That dynamic had the potential to be so interesting but I didn't think it was explored at all. There is no indication of Zhen having any internal conflict about fighting the Chameleon, no emotional complexity between them at all; it's disappointing because I think it would've added a bit of earnestness to the film.

Additionally, the idea of a shape-shifting villain is versatile. A shape-shifting villain gives those telling the story a lot of room to experiment with the protagonist and different ways in which the main character can be challenged and tested. It's yet another good idea utilized poorly. Just one idea: the Chameleon could have disguised herself as one (or several) of Po's family, friends, etc. and brought to fruition a new arc with his character (seeing as he arguably doesn't have one in this film), but she only disguises herself as Zhen very briefly in the movie.

Furthermore, the Chameleon completely relies on the powers of previous villains to pose any sort of threat to the main characters. She summons Po's former nemeses from the Spirit Realm (despite there being little logic in doing so considering Kai's literal evisceration) and takes their kung fu abilities for herself.

An excerpt from my first KFP4 discussion post that I think is relevant to the point I'm trying to make:

I don’t think it would be in the best interest of anyone if the past villains were to come back in any way that’s not a flashback (even then, I’m not sure I’d see the point). In all honesty, I thought that the whole point of the villains was that they died and stayed dead. They were defeated by Po once and for all as a testament to the idea of establishing Po's character growth and journey as a person through the bad things he’s able to overcome. It’d be highly contradictory to the messages of the other films if these villains were to suddenly come back.

While there was an honest effort made to portray the Chameleon as intimidating, I never felt as though any of the characters were endangered by either her or her army of lizard henchman. She's a visually appealing character (aside from her eyes, which I thought more resembled those of a gecko than a chameleon) and I greatly enjoyed Davis's performance, but overall I don't see the Chameleon as a notable villain.

The return of Tai Lung (had he been on his own) had the makings to be an excellent story, especially considering the importance of teacher-student dynamics in KFP4. To see him interacting with Shifu would have been incredible and could have led to further closure on Tai Lung's end (because I think that's kind of what the team was going for anyway), but it didn't happen.

It was nice to see Ian McShane reprise his role, but I wish Tai Lung's characterization had been more reminiscent of the way he was in the first film and more complimentary of his overall character arc. Tai Lung isn't a one-dimensional villain with a singular goal and motivation, and I couldn't help but feel as though the complexity of his character was simplified for the sake of KFP4's narrative.

Tai Lung's presence in KFP4 may be odd, but Shen and Kai's appearances are even more so. Kai, if I remember correctly, was fully obliterated by Po, reduced to literal particles on screen (which is kind of wild now that I think about it). Shen being in the Spirit Realm makes sense all things considered; however, Po and Li had no visible reaction to his presence, which seemed a bit unlikely considering Shen's deeds. This plot hole can likely be attributed to the fact that Shen and Kai's cameos (to my knowledge) were last-minute additions to the movie.

I have to talk about the pacing. I have to. I'm sorry, bear with me.

To me, the film's pacing is erratic and disconcerting. While I can appreciate a quick-moving narrative that doesn't dawdle on storylines that aren't interesting/important, KFP4 kind of flings itself too far in the opposite direction and ends up being frighteningly fast-paced. Once the credits began, I felt like I had been holding my breath for the entire movie.

KFP4 is confusing because while the runtime is standard for a KFP movie, it feels incredibly short. At the same time, the film's story moves at a breakneck speed and leaves little time for heart and development. These things culminate into a barreling boulder of a movie that simply doesn't have time to let its characters, story, or audience take a breath.

A fast pace is not inherently negative, but I don't think it worked in the favor of KFP4. The KFP franchise has always been very emotionally grounded (and just very grounded in general), so to see a film in which emotion/heart takes an aggressive backseat in comparison to action and comedy is jarring. While I think it's unreasonable for fans to expect the same emotional integrity as the original films to be present in the current and upcoming ones, I still think there's room for Po to grow and I felt as though the notion of him developing further was brushed aside in this film.

As for Po's growth, I felt it was nearly nonexistent. The previous trilogy wrapped up his character's journey beautifully and I know that KFP4 was bound to struggle with this particular aspect of making another KFP film; however, just because the strongest pillars of Po's character are established doesn't serve as a valid excuse to reverse his development and repeat what he learned in KFP3.

In KFP3, Po learned firsthand that he is capable of spreading wisdom and teaching kung fu. He also learns that he is constantly growing and that change is inevitable; there is always something more to learn.

"If you only do what you can do, you will never be more than you are now."

"I don't want to be anything more, I like who I am!"

In KFP4, Po pushes against this narrative despite fully accepting it in KFP3, actively reversing crucial parts of his character development achieved in the latter. KFP3 was non-ambiguously about learning to cope with change and responsibility, and I can't help but feel like KFP4 is simply copying this message while not adding anything to it.

Additionally, I felt that KFP4's Po generally felt less personal than he has in the past. In every KFP movie up to the franchise's most recent addition, I felt very connected to Po as an audience member. I felt like I was truly seeing the world of KFP through his eyes. I consider this to be one of the franchise's most impressive feats; it's incredibly difficult to build a universe around a character without making the audience feel limited to one perspective and one part of the world.

With KFP4, I felt both limited and disconnected. The world didn't feel as vast and all-encompassing as it has in the past and Po didn't seem fully like himself. This could be me nitpicking (as I'm prone to do), but I can't recall a single moment in the movie in which Po was alone on screen. Scenes like these are crucial for me because I see them as a meet-cute between the character and the audience, a moment for us to cross the bridge into their world in a way that's silent and intuitive. These little bonding moments are absolutely integral to feeling connected to a character.

Po's dream sequence in the first KFP movie is one of the best examples of this. It presents his aspirations, alludes to his way of life up to the point of the movie, and showcases his personality. During Po's dream sequence, the audience is quite literally inside Po's mind; we're there with him, seeing what he sees, subsequently feeling what he feels. Po is a dreamer at heart and makes the audience feel like dreamers, too.

In KFP4, I felt like I little to no point of reference when it comes to how Po was feeling. I didn't feel immersed in him and his world.

I know I've been very "doom and gloom" throughout this post, which is an exhausting mindset for everyone involved. I want to end my critique with something positive because I think some praise is deserved. Let's just say the movie could have been a lot worse, the details of which I'm sure you're all well aware.

The color palette of the movie is beautiful and somewhat reminiscent of the first film. While the animation style of KFP4 is far more simplistic than its predecessors, I was very impressed with its use of shadow and light. Po's many faces were also hysterical, props to those who helped make him as expressive as he is.

Additionally, the movie's action sequences were clearly thought out and discussed in great detail. The experimentation with camera angles was really fun to watch and I enjoyed the majority of the film's fight scenes. They were fun, bouncy, and entertaining, and quite likely reinstated audiences's love of watching a cuddly panda kick butt.

Congratulations, you've reached the end! Thank you so much to all of you who took the time to read this unnecessarily long and detailed review. As long as I help someone translate their conflicted feelings into coherent thoughts, I'll call it a win.

I want to reiterate that I don't hate Kung Fu Panda 4 and I had fun while watching the film. It has its flaws and there are a lot of aspects that I dislike, but the effort of the crew is obvious and I greatly admire and respect the hard work put into the film by those who worked on it. This does not at all excuse my issues with the movie, but it's worth saying.

As for the future of the series, I only hope that the next installment is more considerate of the franchise's origins and why Po's story is being told in the first place. I fully believe that another sequel could be good given a strong, passionate crew with a great understanding of the characters and world (and I wouldn't be averse to some previous directors returning, just to put it out there).

Thanks again to those who took the time to read this crazy excuse for a movie review. Feel free to either disagree with me or add things in the replies/reblogs, I'm always looking for more thoughts to think.

Until next time!

#kung fu panda 4 #kung fu panda #dreamworks animation #kfp #kfp 4 #movie review #i'll add the actual picture of the furious five's cameo when i can get ahold of one of decent quality #my time has come #it wasn't THAT bad #i didn't love it #but it is what it is #it's a tentative 6/10 all things considered #free the five #perhaps i treated kfp3 too harshly #don't get me wrong the movie had good qualities and i can tell a lot of work went into it #a lot of missed potential imo #a lot of characters done dirty #i didn't even mention the score but i thought it was just okay #i wasn't wowed #i know close to nothing about composing though so i should probably just not even go there #credits were the best part both cinematically and musically #i feel mean but i'm not going to be dishonest #bc obviously you all simply must know how i feel about the silly panda movie #a more detailed version of the grievances i have w the dragon warrior plot can be found in my og discussion post if anyone's interested #as well as my thoughts on bringing back old villains #might make some edits to this in the future but this is all i have to say for now

103 notes · View notes

detransdamnation · 1 year

Note

Maybe i am in a bit of a blind spot now but stumbling upon your blog and a few of your last answers made me question - if gender roles were nonexistent in society so the sex a person has wouldnt dictate how they are treated - how could someone develop an unease about something truly neutral? I know there are sex differences in humans and thats what we talk about when we speak of transsexual people - the desire to change sex based on a terrifyingly strong discomfort with the one one has. But i am at a loss when it comes to understanding where would that discomfort even start/be influenced by (again as long as the sex you are would make everything neutral) because i always assumed that its that dichotomy of how society views females and males is what later translates into the literal base of where it comes from which is one’s sex. Then - Would the dysphoria grow out of purely desiring something that one doesnt have along the lines the grass is greener on the other side? Getting to experience sex the way it feels like as the other sex (especially in case of not heterosexual people)? Or only An aesthetic pursue? If the only thing that differentiated us in society would be the biological abilities of our bodies and the appearance of it…why do you think would someone still come up with an idea of desiring the other?

After reading especially the last answer it made me think that after all there must be some truly transsexual people who are just born being transsexual. Thats why i decided to send it because i think you established somewhere that you believe there are no trans people who are trans ”just because”, just because they have a brain of the opposite sex trapped in the wrong body etc.

I hope this makes some sense, its not an attack on anything you said more of a big wonder and desire to understand better and i really hope it comes off this way.

You make total sense. Your message doesn't come off as an attack at all.

Anon, I'll be real with you. I reread my answer on whether or not I believe gender abolition would also abolish dysphoria. I did rush in writing that response, greatly so, so the way I phrased my thoughts was particularly subpar; however, as I was trying to tie everything together in this response to you, I realized that the viewpoint I argued didn't really make sense when I held it up to my other beliefs. So, this is a humble admittance that I was, frankly, talking out of my ass. I'm going to use this as an opportunity to reassess my beliefs on this topic and will be re-answering that question once I have done so.

In the meantime, one of the best ways to assess your beliefs is to argue something you disagree with or are unsure of, so I'm going to double down and continue the argument as if I'm completely confident that it's the truth, if only to hopefully better explain where I was coming from when I wrote my previous response. So, proposed argument: Gender abolition will not necessarily abolish sex dysphoria.

First of all, what causes dysphoria and how does gender fit into that framework? I talked about this at length here [AL] and here [AL]. I specifically want to zero in on something I said in the former link:

I [...] do not personally believe that there is a “main reason” on as to why dysphoria may develop in a young person in all cases. I suppose my own “main reason” would be that I fell into the trans community because I never thought seriously about transitioning prior to that time—but the thing is, even if I hadn’t, I would still be dealing with everything else that influenced my getting to this point. [...] If I were to take the trans community out of that equation, it would just be the influence of the trans community missing.

Let’s replace the influence of the trans community with the construct of gender and let’s fast forward to this hypothetical dream society where gender is not an existent thing. We can apply what I said above. We’ve taken away gender and its influences—but we still have everything else. There are numerous factors that could cause a person to develop sex dysphoria; in a genderless society, we have only taken away one. In order to shut down any possibility of dysphoria developing, we would need to get rid of every single possible factor and influence and that is just not a possible feat. Homophobia is a significant factor in many cases of dysphoria and will remain so in a genderless society unless efforts have been previously made to abolish it. No amount of social change will ever eradicate abuse, which can be a trigger in dysphoria in that (especially long-term) abuse victims are prone to redirecting emotional pain to certain aspects of themselves, especially in an effort to regain control, even though they may not “make sense.” It is also impossible for us to eradicate, for instance, natural aspects of our biology that are just plain inconvenient or uncomfortable, which may become objects of fixation (especially in puberty) and cause a person to develop sex dysphoria thereafter. These are just a few examples off of the top of the head—but they and more may all continue on as potential factors because these things, in and of themselves, do not have anything to do with what we have abolished. They do not cease to be potential precursors to mental illness, such as dysphoria, just because we have taken one precursor away.

But why dysphoria? Why would someone develop sex dysphoria in a genderless society if sexes were seen as entirely neutral? Well, let’s turn our attention to another mental illness that is perhaps most reflective of dysphoria (so reflective, in fact, that some people believe them to be one and the same): body dysmorphic disorder. Body dysmorphia is “a mental disorder characterized by the obsessive idea that some aspect of one's own body part or appearance is severely flawed and therefore warrants exceptional measures to hide or fix it.” One’s “flaws” cause significant distress, even to the point of seeking out cosmetic procedures in an aim to “fix” them. Anything can be a trigger in body dysmorphia, although some of the most common include facial features, hair, skin complexion, and coincidentally, sex characteristics such as breasts, facial hair, or genitals—which are all inherently neutral features. No physical feature is objectively “wrong” or “bad,” “good” or “right,” “pretty” or “ugly.” They just are.

So, then, we could ask the same question: Why would people with this disorder fixate on these features and develop an unease with them if they are truly neutral? We could argue the societal pressure of beauty ideals, and certainly, that is a factor in a lot of cases—but if body dysmorphia were truly an issue of how certain features are seen and treated, exclusively, then by all means and purposes, people who are considered to be conventionally attractive should not also be seen developing the disorder. Marilyn Monroe could be an example of this: considered one of the most beautiful women in the world in her time and years after and yet (was believed to have) struggled with body dysmorphia until the day that she died.

Things don’t have to be “not neutral” in order for someone to not like them. Things can be neutral and still cause one discomfort. Things can be seen and treated as indifferent by the collective and yet still be hated by the individual. Why do non-dysphoric people have insecurities at all? A lot of the time, they don’t have specific reasons. I don’t feel they need to have reasons. Just like I don’t feel dysphoric people need to have an ultimate reason on as to why we would develop sex dysphoria when we could have fixated on any other physical trait.

I think where people tend to get tripped up in these discussions is, they try to apply what they know to be reasonable to mental illnesses and how they present in order to rationalize, to themselves, what we are feeling and experiencing—but in doing so, I feel we easily lose sight of the fact that, even without mental illness, the brain does not need a logical reason to fixate on something, to hate something, to want to get rid of something. Marilyn Monroe having been an icon of beauty did not change the fact that she didn’t like her face—and my not believing in gender does not change the fact that I don’t like my sex and desire to be the opposite. Marilyn continued to feel the way she did because she had body dysmorphic disorder. I continue to feel the way I do because I have dysphoria. Both disorders alter how we perceive reality and cause us to believe things about ourselves that are not objectively true. We desire what we do not have because that is a symptom of the inherently nonsensical disorders that we have. That is all there is to it. That is our “why.”

And I am content just leaving it at that. It is my own personal stance that we cannot chase the logistics behind something that is not logical to begin with. At the end of the day, there is no ultimate reason for mental illness. Mental illness does not need to make sense. Mental illness only needs humanity. It will continue to exist no matter how humanity progresses.

So, under this argument, there are a few different points to be had, main ones being that gender abolition will not necessarily abolish sex dysphoria because gender and sex are not one and the same; to take away gender is to take away only one possible factor in one’s dysphoria; and although outside factors can (and do) influence dysphoria and would continue to do so in a genderless society on account of the previous two points, there’s ultimately no “reason” on as to why dysphoric people would continue to cling on to their sex in this society where the two sexes are seen and treated as the exact same—simply because dysphoria, being a mental illness, does not exist on a plane that is rational.

Considering these viewpoints and assuming that they all coexist in this genderless society, then, it may be easy to conclude, like you did, that some people are just born transgender. I do understand how you may have come to that conclusion after reading my response and even I, looking back, feel like that is what I insinuated, even though I did not mean to and was not coming from that position. To clarify, as I have stated before, I do not believe in the idea of “true trans,” and seeing as this is a belief that I actually hold very true to and have for a long time, I’d like to explain why. This is no longer me proposing an argument that I am merely “considering.” This is me demonstrating what I believe.

There are a few different things to consider in the statement, “People are born transgender,” starting with the implications of what it means to be transgender and specifically the dysphoric aspect of it. To suggest that someone could be born transgender is also to insinuate that someone could be born dysphoric, that someone could be born already set to hate their bodies as they grow older.

Of course, we could be less technical here. You may not be born with mental illness in the literal sense—but you can develop mental illness extremely early on in life. So, under the argument that dysphoria is a mental illness, dysphoria can develop from a very young age, and therefore the child, express (what may be interpreted as) a transgender identity. Okay, fair enough. What I have never received closure on is, if a young child exhibits hatred of any other part of their body for any other reason, it is universally considered abnormal, a red flag, something to treat—but as soon as gender or sex comes into the picture, this self-hatred becomes something to validate.

Let’s say that a young child tells you that they do not like their body. Without any other context, what would your first reaction be? Chances are, you would assume that someone or something in this child’s life has taught or influenced them to think this way, even if only inadvertently, and hopefully, you would rush to tell this child that there is nothing wrong with their body, that they are perfect just the way they are. But let’s say, after probing a little further, this young child tells you that they don’t “feel like” their sex, or that they want to be the opposite (in little kid terms). Would you then change your tune and decide that they were “born that way,” that they hate their body because they were just meant to be the opposite sex instead? If your answer is yes, or your no follows hesitancy, I have to wonder what, specifically, would change your mind. What is it about dysphoria that is so different from any other form of self-hatred? Moreover, what implications do you think there are in a child telling someone they presumably trust that they are uncomfortable in their body—and that trusted adult telling them that they are uncomfortable in their body because they were, indeed, born “wrong?”

This leads to an essential question that we, ironically, so often overlook. We have a dysphoric child in front of us. What would make them transgender? The most likely definition of a trans person that everyone could agree on would be someone who is dysphoric, likely someone who has been dysphoric since early childhood—but even that is not a perfect or even accurate definition because not all people with dysphoria go on to transition, not even people with long-term or “treatment-resistant” dysphoria. If dysphoria does not make a transgender person, what does?

Let’s say we have one-thousand dysphoric people in front of us and one person in the group—say, the young child in this analogy, now an adult—is transgender. The only thing that distinguishes this person from the rest of the group is the very act of transition. If this person had never transitioned, there would be no difference between them and the rest of the group. We would have a solid group of cisgender dysphoric people. The transgender person is distinguished only through action, self-identity and personal experience in attempts to accommodate that self-identity. “Brain sex” has been proven to be a myth, so we know there are no biological differences to point to them having “needed” to transition—and even under the possibility that there do exist biological markers in dysphoria that we have not discovered yet, that does not prove that people can be born transgender. At most, these markers could stand as predispositions, similar to how people can be carriers for certain diseases or have “bad genes” that make them more likely to suffer from certain ailments—but none of these things equate to destiny, and in fact, in the case of dysphoria, would only prove that a supportive environment could prevent it—and transgender identity—from coming into the picture at all.

The suggestion that some people are just “made” to go through with any action, including transition, is an insinuation of fate—and I do not believe in fate. I believe in free will to some extent, although that would open us up to the more philosophical question of whether free will is truly free, seeing as we are reflections of our environment and cannot completely separate ourselves from it. In either case, we have seen and established that we can both influence one to develop dysphoria, as well as prevent one from developing dysphoria, all depending on how we, as a society, treat them—and if the people around us can help to prevent dysphoria from becoming an issue entirely, thereby circumventing the desire to transition at all, it is impossible for transgender identity to be truly innate to any one person.

In summary and in closing, mental illness, including dysphoria, is encouraged by—and sometimes even brought on by—our surrounding environment in almost all cases. Environments naturally change overtime, and in the process, certain factors in mental illness may become less common or even disappear entirely; however, just because one goes away does not mean all others disappear. One of many of our possible futures as a society is one without gender, and unsurprisingly, this would get rid of gender as a trigger in dysphoria—but so long as no other factors have been dismantled in the process, they will continue on as potential influences in its development, even in this genderless society. It then may be easy to conclude that some people are just “born” transgender, especially seeing as how the development of sex dysphoria in a genderless society would be even more random (comparatively to that of a gendered one)—but that conclusion, that “Some people are just born that way,” would not be reached with any other mental illness, and beyond that, does not give us, the society, enough credit or responsibility. The fact that there are trans people who barely even remember not being trans, such as myself, stand not as proof that we are “true transsexuals” but as proof that we live in a society that is hostile to multiple vulnerable populations and it is up to us to change that. Gender abolition will not solve all of these problems and it may not even get rid of sex dysphoria entirely—but it is essential and a great place to start, which is why I continue to stand for it, even despite it not being a perfect fix.

I hope this gave you a little more to think on.

#i hope this didn't come off too accusatory or preachy #i tend to argue with myself when i write and i can never tell if i'd come off as harsh to someone else #because for all i'm concerned i'm looking at my normal train of thought lmao #anyway anon in the time i left you waiting for a response i have done a lot of thinking #and i have so many more thoughts on this topic than even i previously assumed #my beliefs have already actually rather significantly changed since my previous post #at least in that i am now looking at the situation with a lot more nuance that i had neglected to consider at the time #but hopefully the argument i proposed here paints a bit of a better picture on where i was coming from when i had originally written it #it's far from perfect but then again nothing is perfect to me so i'll just aim for... good enough.#and on another completely unrelated note i have no idea which anon this is because all of mine type the same #someone needs to take on a more distinctive typing style so i can tell who's who lmao #submission #answered #gender critical #writing #text #my post

18 notes · View notes