#what do you mean my personality traits aren’t inherently gay just because I am | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

ravenclawravings · 4 years

Note

Are you going to keep reading HP even though the books are littered with racism/sexism/xenophobia/slave rationalization/aids phobia whit a hint of pedophilia?

Short answer:

Yes, I am.

Long answer:

I don't condone anything that JKR has been saying, and I don't agree with her. She is twisting people's words and contorting points of view, but anyway...

You cannot separate the author from the book, to all those people saying "So-And-So wrote Harry Potter." JK Rowling wrote Harry Potter and you can't change that. What you can do is be aware and think critically of the media you consume, but if you decide that you're never going to read/consume any form of media that has been made by someone who has done something or said something problematic, you aren't going to be able to read or watch pretty much anything.

It is important to know that an author’s biases can become part of a book that you love, and those biases can be harmful and hurtful in many ways, but you can still love that book. I am aware of a lot of the problematic things in Harry Potter, but that doesn’t change what the book means to me. It doesn’t change how I started reading Harry Potter when I was only four or five, and at that age, all I could see was the magic. It doesn’t change how Harry Potter was a part of what shaped my childhood into adulthood, how I grew up with Harry. It doesn’t change how when I was so depressed that I couldn’t pay attention to anything, I couldn’t even watch a two minute clip of something, I could still read and enjoy Harry Potter.

It was a safe place for me, I could go back to the magical parts, but as I got older, more able to have critical thinking and process not just the magic I understood, but the underlying problematic parts of the book, I had to learn to read the books in a slightly different light. The books are still a magical place for me, as I’m sure they are for other people as well, but I know that there’s all of those little things that could make them hurtful. Some of them directly in the book, some of them said by Rowling after the fact. What I think is important here is to know that those things are wrong, to be able to read about Snape’s physical description (for example) and read it as trying to show him as inherently evil because of those traits, while knowing that that’s not true.

I also personally take anything that Rowling didn’t write directly into the books with a grain of salt. (I also don’t consider Cursed Child cannon.) I feel that however you want to interpret a book is what it means to you, and the author can’t change that. Rowling can’t take away from me what Harry Potter meant to me growing up, and what it still means to me as a major piece of literature in the world (whether you like that it is or not, it still is.) The fact that Dumbledore is gay is something Rowling brought up after the last book was already published, and while it’s not explicitly in the book, I like to headcannon that it’s true, but not because Rowling said so, but because I like it. I like to think that Dean and Seamus have been in a relationship since the Yule Ball, when they realised that there was no one they’d rather be there with than each other. And that Dean’s parents were very accepting, but Seamus’ gave him a bit of a hard time not only because he was gay, but he was gay with a black man, and they were from the generation where that wasn’t acceptable, and even though their point of view is wrong and problematic, they still thought that way, but accepted Seamus for who he is anyway. I also like to believe that Neville became the youngest Hogwarts Professor in a century (much like how Harry was the youngest Hogwarts Quidditch player in a century.) I like to think that Neville walked up to McGonagall at the end of the Battle and asked what was next, they had a conversation that brought around Neville coming back to teach one day, that he thought that he actually enjoyed being someone that people could look up to, someone who was able to help people. Sprout overheard and said that she could retire in peace knowing that someone capable was going to be replacing her (of course, Neville was overwhelmed with pride and grateful towards Sprout for thinking that.) This of course, also lead to Neville being the youngest Head of Gryffindor House in a long time, too.

I could go on about headcannons for days, and that’s just one part of about the books that I really enjoy. You feel like you’re just scratching the surface of the world that has been created, and no matter what Rowling says, it’s not her world anymore. It belongs to everyone now. I don’t remember who said it (John Green maybe?) but someone said that books belong to their readers, and I one hundred percent agree with that. Books belong to the people who read them. It may have been the author’s for a while there, but then they gifted the world with their creation, and it’s no longer just theirs.

I don’t want to go into specifics about how some of the writing in Harry Potter can be seen as offensive, because then I’ll be here all day analyzing, because there is a lot of it. You need to be able to think critically, and know that there will always be parts of media that you don’t agree with, parts of it that have become outdated, and offensive, and that that is how the world works, and it is a good thing that you can see that these things are no longer, or have never been, accepted. At the same time, you need to be able to see a story for what it is, and enjoy what you enjoy from it. If all you ever do is look at what is wrong with something, you’ll never be able to enjoy anything ever again. Nothing is perfect, and nothing is ever going to be perfect, and some things are worse or better than others, but you can’t always let the bad things define something. Yes, I know Harry Potter is problematic, I know Rowling is problematic, but Rowling can’t ever take away from me my own thoughts and opinions about Harry Potter, and neither can you.

-Zoe

#ask #answer #anonymous #harry potter #hogwarts #j k rowling

1K notes · View notes

timemachineyeah · 3 years

Text

Can I say something that might be really controversial?

Okay, so first: I don’t think there’s any sexual orientation or gender identity that exists entirely as a result of trauma. I think that if I could wave a magic wand and erase all the trauma in the world there would still be gay and bi and nonbinary and trans and ace and pan and every other kind of person.

That being said, I also don’t think it’s all that improbable that trauma plays enough of a role in the brain development of some small number of people that they end up developing things like sexual orientation and a relationship to gender that is different than they would have otherwise.

But I don’t think that’s a problem? I don’t think it invalidates their identity or makes them wrong or makes their sexual orientation or gender a mental illness?

Like, there are many parts of my personality and taste that are almost certainly a direct result of outside forces - including traumatic ones. I’m sure a me who grew up without traumas or with very different traumas would be wildly different from me. Like different food. Have different habits. Different heights, different weights. That doesn’t make being tall or short or liking different foods into an unpleasant symptom, though. If we found out that I only like cranberries in this timeline because of bullying when I was a kid, that doesn’t turn my liking cranberries into a problem. It’s still fine to like cranberries.

We know from identical twins that sexual preference and gender aren’t entirely genetic - because otherwise you’d never have those twins where one is straight and the other gay. Meaning there have to be some external influences.

If we could see into a million universes in a magic mirror and in some of them you’re cishet, that doesn’t make the you that’s here cishet. You’re still here and queer, and that’s still valid. And that’s valid even if you only end up queer in the universes where you’re most traumatized.

I mean if it works like that for some people, presumably for other people it works the other way. Maybe there are people who are cis or het who, in their most mentally healthy childhoods then grow up to be queer. I can’t imagine it would only work one way. Nor do I imagine “trauma” to be the only or even PRIMARY factor. There are too many factors.

Am I creative because I’m traumatized or because I was hiding my dyspraxia or because I had curly hair and no one to teach me to care for it or because I had support and love from my parents if I failed or because my big brothers egged me on or because I wanted to show off to my younger siblings or because we moved a lot or because I had barbies or because I had legos or because - ?

There are too many factors to ever say why I’m one way or another, or who else I might have been if things had been different.

And if it could be shown that I’m creative because of the bad things in my past and not the good, would that make it a bad trait? I don’t think it would. Not everything that becomes part of you as a result of trauma is inherently a bad seed just because it was planted by a bad wind.

So, sure, maybe there are some people who are trans or cis as a response to trauma or straight or gay or bi or pan or ace as a response to trauma or whatever. That doesn’t make that not who they are. And that isn’t an excuse to dismiss their identity or treat it like an unfortunate circumstance. “They wouldn’t have felt a need to transition if we didn’t have such a traumatic culture around gender” fucking MAYBE. Who knows! Maybe you would have enjoyed transitioning if we didn’t have such a traumatic culture around gender! But we do have that culture and their brain like your brain grew up marinating in it. And now we are who we are and we’ll never know where all the pieces of us come from. But what we do know is how we deserve to be treated - with respect.

#timemachine wuz here

35 notes · View notes

aleatoryalarmalligator · 4 years

Text

What My Thoughts On Morrissey Today

In response to my writing idea someone gave me I picked this.

So basically, Morrissey’s nationalism in recent years has gotten in the way of me being able to appreciate much that he comes out with. This is wild because a few short years ago, I stood up for Morrissey and actually still feel very moved by a portion of his music. It got me through some really rough patches in my twenties.

I realize he’s human and has faults and I don’t know him completely but just eh, living in Portland and having seen the stuff going on I’m kind of not in the place in my life right now where I want to even try to dissect him. It’s not just a fact that he’s wrong, but that it seems altogether very much in rejection of the things that made his music so special. It was difficult for me to come to terms with it or fully make sense of why someone who’s unashamed expression of witty despair in the 80’s and 90’s, someone who was outcasted from the overall closed mindedness lower working class post ww2 world of northern England, unafraid to be gay and completely the antithesis of some Tory ideal could be bought by some tired nationalist agenda. It’s even more difficult to realize where his alegianced lie in a world that is starting to reject democracy, embrace anti intellectualism in the guise of some form of selective politically motivated skeptism, and I see the world move farther and farther into fascism.

Margaret Thatcher attacked The Smiths. Morrissey was taken in for questioning more than once out of fear for what he represented. Morrissey and The Smiths has some subversive element that really did threaten the establishment and cultural norms, in a way that I feel was a little more multidimensional than even a lot of bands in the English punk scene. I guess for me, even though I grew up in the Inland northwest of the US, I felt there was a lot of parallels in common. I too detest a culture based around animal consumption, was really not a part of the world I grew up in and didn’t want to work in the factories, I liked art and music and nobody around me was really into that stuff.

I still like the Smiths and most of Morrisseys old music. I read his autobiography. I know he is a dramatic self involved individual but I did feel that up till somewhat recently his heart was in the right place and he just liked to be controversial, which is somewhat true still, but now I think there was more to it, some nationalistic self preservation instinct kicking in. Its actually more prevelant than I even realized and I honestly think it’s getting the best of anyone with money or power, even those who once stood for something counter culture. It’s hard to think of him as racist in the traditional sense with his adoration for Latin America, but he might just be so self involved that his popularity in those regions gave him a bias. He probably separates the racism from the nationalism, blindly not wanting to see how the two concepts are quite inseparable. Falling right into it.

Him saying “everyone prefers their own race”, is kind of wild to me. I genuinely even try to entertain this as a possibility like a philosophical thought experiment or a deep dive of some kind into my own subconscious part of me I am avoiding somehow, and it’s not true for me or a lot of people. Who the fuck is he to say who prefers who, and how backwards and dehumanizing. It’s pretty repulsive, and being he is bisexual and felt the discrimination of homophobia growing up, I’m inclined to think he’s not able to see that he’s become the enemy he once represented the antithesis of.

The guy I’ve kinda been with is Mexican. I totally love him. I look into people’s eyes and I talk to and open up to people and if I connect with them I connect with them. Not like I’m trying to play the I gotta friend who is this or that as some kind of example of much, or that I don’t see color or some faulty implication, but I have been in situations where I’m the only white person at a party and I prefer them because they are my friends and I love them, and the idea of classifying who I prefer is to imply that the white race should be my main concern as they are the same as me and therefore superior and they aren’t. There is nothing inherently special to me or a kinship felt with other white people for either their appearance or cultural background. It’s nice to compare notes of pop culture but a lot of stuff people go through is universal. I don’t take too much issue with multiculturalism. My white skin is meaningless to me. I can’t imagine being so inept as a person that the color of my skin actually defines my identity rather than my autonomy or ideas or relationships and what I stand for and my ability to appreciate and connect with other people.

What gets me is that in his support of the far right is not even in line with his hatred of police, or the hatred he had a few years ago. I mean, he has always gone on and on about police brutality, he’s been harassed by them on multiple occasions. He shows them on giant projectors at his shows. Police are a very important staple for fascism and nationalism, and he is now on their side after all this time? What changed? The lost young man he once was in 1981 feels very very different from who he has become and piecing together that transformation has been something I’ve been trying to do for awhile. I try to embrace both but they seem like similar but different people at odds with one another, like an uncle and nephew.

Here is what I imagine happened, and I could be wrong about that but I was a Morrissey fangirl for quite awhile. I literally had his signed autograph above my bed with dried flowers around it like a shrine for a few years, and got a grasp of Morrisseys personality in some ways.

To start off, Morrissey is a very poetic and sharp guy but he’s very miopic about his interests and has always had the tendency to see the world in a black and white framework. This in and of itself is not necessarily bad, but it’s the core framework of who he is as a person. When he was young it was very much more a reflection of his hatred for authoritarianism and deceitful people and phony artists. It’s not bad and it contributed to his music and lyrics and became the thing he was loved/hated for. The way he goes about it really has always been the double edged sword of his charm and vileness all in one and something people have mocked time and time again. He likes to be the guy in the corner that looks fine and smug and believes he sees the virtues/dispicable attributes of everyone in the room and there have been times in his life where he was, and though he won’t ever attack anyone face to face he’s quick to speak his mind about it.

Morrissey is also a very vain person. It’s subtle but he is very singular on certain aesthetics. At times it made him brilliant and poetic and a visionary. The Smiths album covers are beautiful. His look is both elegant and absurd in its grasp for purity. It also makes him seem like a twat and a pretentious prince. The fact that he seems to be these two things at once is what gave him that kind of controversial star quality at times.

Those are just two natural traits he has always been obvious with. And he struggled with it and focused on his passions and dealt with depression in the 80’s. Then fame happened and the smiths ended. He kept to himself more or less in the 80’s and 90’s aside from his disdain for Margaret Thatcher, but he kinda lost his mind a bit when his drummer took him to court in the nineties. Right or wrong he fought for two years and lost a good chunk of his money from The Smiths and when that happened he kind of was forced to start again. He lost his home. He developed that early personalized sense of self preservation and victimhood. I think he lost faith in many of his more naive ideals when he was younger. When you read his autobiography and know what happened it’s like he had to step out of his old life and into something else.

Then, he’s always been a vegetarian superiority type. I liked that he calls it as he sees it but because of his need to black and white think everything he came off as deluded and smug. I mean, to be fair you can’t seem to win with people who want to eat meat and I agreed with a portion of his message, but he never questioned himself. He’s not good at that, or doesn’t appear to be. My personal interpretation of him was to agree with part of it and give him the cred for being not afraid to be a dick and say it, but to see also that he was so dramatic and self absorbed about it to also laugh at him and the way he said it.

Now to go into fascism and why it grew on Morrissey. I see the world as kind of falling into polarization and flux because of the failures of neoliberalism. It’s a long political explanation, but essentially the systems that are in place do not provide answers to a lot of catestrophic issues. Democracy, though the best thing we have, is flawed. I really like philosophy and have studied this and the various arguments that are made, and I don’t have the answer either but fuck if I will ever side with nazis.

People are seaking solace in new ideas that are actually quite old, namely socialism and fascism that provide answers that democracy fails to. Capitalism eats itself and created monopolies and unfair wealth distribution, technology is making human labor obsolete and therefore not a stable means to base our economic system on, those with wealth are hoarding it and trying to separate themselves from the world they helped ruin. We are destroying the planet, running out of natural resources, many of our leaders in the last three or for decades have been flawed, there isn’t a universal safety net for things like natural disasters and pandemics and there are still places stripped of their natural resources where human slavery is prevalent and children starve to death. Neoliberalism has promised some great answer but has actually been the contributor to this entire mess.

We are seeing the beginning of the end now, and I am sure Morrissey isn’t going to waste that without putting himself in the victim shoes, the white traditional quintessentially Englishman of wit, who sees his beautiful world he grew up in disappearing in multiculturalism and seeing himself and the culture of old England as a dying breed, that needs to be preserved at any cost. He probably was on the fence about it for some time, weighing out his disdain for authoritarianism, having a bougouis experience with the seemingly left leaning media that he never managed to win over and called him out for his every misstep. I bet he had a friend who opened him up to the idea that we don’t know about who changed his mind. I bet cuts in taxes for the rich helped him preserve his wealth that he definitely feels entitled to after losing the first portion of it in the court case. He’s rich, famous and old and often times that leads to being quite out of touch, even to the best intellectuals. He lost his mother who was dear to him and I can imagine, even though it’s not political, it created a deep sense of emptiness and dis ease. Nationalism often times gives people a sense of security and identity and purpose. And the idea of having an unpopular opinion excited him just as it always has, gave him the opportunity to be the smug poet in the corner of the party, and he sold out. Hard. And he’s probably proud of it.

He’s irrelevant now. Honestly his latest album wasn’t good, and I like later Morrissey. He doesn’t have the same energy. I just feel like he’s grasping at something that he never fully ever had. What’s weird to me is that I’m writing about him like this when honestly, I could also easily write about how beautiful and meaningful the Smiths and Morrissey has been to me. I can’t explain how it cut through the extreme isolation I’ve been in, not to mention how the Smiths really changed music for the better. There’s always going to be a part of me that wants to defend him. I’m not saying we cancel him. I kinda think he canceled himself. I’m not going to try to not enjoy the smiths or morrissey when I hear him, and I will still hear it and enjoy it but I’m not ever going to spend my own money on filling his pockets. I still nostalgically enjoy the person he was a very long time ago and what he used to represent. I realize at the end of the day he’s just a flawed person. But also fuck fascism, and fuck Morrissey for caving into it.

I mean, at the end of the day the hardest part is that I made him a part of my identity and I just had to stop doing that in a simplistic way. I tossed out a morrissey shirt I had (it’s was a cheesy shirt anyway), and I found new genres of music and while I still love the smiths it’s not like I can’t do without them every day. I break down and listen to them sometimes. I know the songs so well. I listen to Xiu Xiu which is a modern day similar equivalent in some ways but is absolutely better and the singer Jamie Stewart is fucking gold.

#morrissey

14 notes · View notes

thedeadflag · 4 years

Text

shadywobblerpalacerebel replied to your post “Genuine question : what's wrong about mpreg ? '-'”

I Just want my gay bois in my stories to have biological children... Why is that transphobic? I don't get it...

Your answer is found in the post you responded to, so let me bring your attention to it since you skipped past it.

Well, I’ll first quote some trans dudes and NB AFAB folks, because they’re the demo harmed most by them (along with uterus-owning intersex dudes):

“daily reminder mpreg is transphobic. like some men can get pregnant and these men have vaginas and uteruses. stop inventing shit that doesn’t exist to invalidate those who do.“ -user: daddybackes

“I hate mpreg. like all these fic writers everywhere going to ridiculous lengths when they could just have trans men but apparently either a. we don’t exist or b. aren’t worthy of love/sexy enough to be in their little stories. i just hate mpreg.“ -user: daddybackes

“now that i think about it mpreg is one of the weirdest, literary concepts out there especially when it involves cis het men. IRL though trans men totally have the option to go through pregnancy and it’s completely normal. IDK, man, I hate when (more than likely) straight girls take something that is something that is uniquely trans and then apply it to straight CIS men. they want to erase us so bad because we’re not “real men” so we don’t get to be involved in their fan fic. They’d ltierally rather make up a whole other set of organs in men to justify mpreg than be like “well some men have uteruses.” Besides i’m not asking cis people to write about the trans experience, becuse they don’t know it, but they can at least just write a man and be like “also…vagina” that works too. so yeah exactly.“ -user: daddybackes

“because it’s ignoring that (trans) men can get pregnant (trans men specifically, but anyone born with a uterus can get pregnant, with any gender identity) and just making both parties cisgender“ -user: bpd-lance

“Like you don’t need magic for men to get pregnant. It’s not an alien thing. I am literally a man who can get pregnant I’m writing this post right now. It’s further otherization of trans bodies combined with gross misogyny when it’s actually used as a trope in fiction (I’m lookin at you, a/b/o fics). It’s always a cis man getting pregnant some how and then he’s treated like shit for these “feminine” things. There’s nothing inherently feminine in giving birth so why are the characters who do give birth in mpreg fics suddenly treated like they’re women (and therefore like shit) because they’re pregnant.If I got pregnant right now, I would not suddenly become a woman. The use of misogynistic language and actions (which are often not outright) towards a pregnant character upholds the idea that pregnancy is a woman only experience, which just isn’t true. It isn’t. I hate mpreg a whole lot and I’d love to have a conversation with other like minded mpreg haters” -user: bokuroho

“another cool tip: don’t write trans male characters to fulfil your pregnancy/mpreg kinks!the coolest tip of all: trans characters don’t exist to carry out your shitty kinks so have some fucking respect “ -user: rabbit-hearted-boy

“to people who write mpreg so their m/m ships can have babies:trans people exist mpreg and f*ta are transphobic (+ pretty intersexist too but i’m dyadic and not an expert so i’ll put that aside for the momet). they fetishise the idea of a man or woman having bodies that they aren’t “meant” to have. they fetishise transness. it’s gross and horrible and as a trans person i’m gonna complain about it.and that second part… uh. i mean that you could have a cis dude and a trans dude as a couple, because most trans men can still give birth to kids. (so long as they haven’t had surgery + aren’t too dysphoric to do so, of course.)” -user: autistictatsuyasuou

“why do people still use cis men to write mpreg stories when trans men existwhy do authors still use cis characters to write stories about gay couples conceiving a child when trans men exist why do writers come up with convoluted ways to get cisgender, men-identified characters pregnant when transgender men exist and need representation” -user: benjiscloset

-------------------

So, with that all said, there’s basically a few issues here:

1. Trans men are being ignored in favour of cis men, despite the cis men characters embodying traits of trans men in order to create/progress a certain narrative. This is textbook fetishization.

2. Mpreg, as a category, is the fetishization of trans men’s bodies to primarily pursue male pregnancy above all else (often involving plenty of smut), more often than not ignoring any and all trans experiences that either don’t fit the narrative they want to tell, or are too ‘difficult’ or ‘scary’ for the writers to write. This is deeply fetishistic in a world where there’s next to no representation of trans men that doesn’t include the fetishization of their bodies and the sexual use of them in ways befitting the cis gaze and standard dehumanization.

So essentially, cis men are used instead of trans men, which is fetishistic, but even when trans men are used, it’s nearly always fetishistic in how the characters and narrative are handled.

There is one type of male person in the world that can get pregnant, and it’s trans men. So when people remove that unique experience from trans men, and discard all of their other traits and experiences, and plop that ability to get pregnant into cis men, that’s absolutely fetishization. It’s fetishizing a whole social group of people, which is dehumanizing and misrepresentative, so it’s transphobic, yeah.

Ultimately, when it comes to any trans representation in media, the primary goal has to be the humanization of the trans characters, because by default, we are dehumanized, which is why nearly all trans representation in media is fetishistic.

If trans representation wasn’t overwhelmingly fetishistic and transphobic, maybe there’d be a little leeway, but as it is, any media content that doesn’t explicitly humanize trans people will end up being transphobic. They cannot be used as a vessel/vehicle for a certain plot device or narrative. They cannot just be used as a means to an end.

Like, a good test is this: Take the mpreg character(s). Remove any and all sexual narratives and scenes. Remove any and all narratives and scenes that are in any way related to his genitals and biological functions. Is a full story told? Can one be cobbled together by what remains? Is the mpreg character still a key element? Are they a departure from transphobic stereotypes (of course, if they’re not trans, then the work is a transphobic write-off)? Are they fully characterized at least at the level of the other main characters? Etc. Etc.

In reality, mpreg doesn’t explicitly claim to be related to trans (or intersex) people, but it cannot be viewed outside of that context in a world where trans and intersex people are also displaced from our bodies and our realities by cis dyadic people, in a world where our body parts are literally objectified and fetishized and removed from our humanity. I literally don’t give a crap what anyone’s intent is, that’s the reality of it, that’s representation that harms trans and intersex people, and if people fail to realize that, then they’re harming trans and intersex people, categorically.

Besides, we should be propping up adoption in fiction, because it’s just as damn valid and wonderful and real and natural as pregnancy. Putting nuclear family ideals over fetishization and oppression of trans men and trans masc nb folks and otherization/devaluation of is super shitty and there’s no reason for it.

#shadywobblerpalacerebel #mpreg #transphobia #trans representation #trans fetishization #intersex fetishization #intersex representation #intersexism #cissexism #fandom meta #creative responsibility #genitals tw #genital mention tw #pregnancy tw

12 notes · View notes

blessedarethebinarybreakers · 5 years

Note

(1/?) Hey! I am a bi non-binary person who is in their 1st year of college. I have felt a call to go into ministry ever since i attended a christian summer camp the summer before my junior year of high school. ever since then it’s been a nagging feeling in the back of my mind but only recently have i felt close enough to God that I can actually begin taking the first few steps down that path. the only problem is my dad seems less than supportive. idk why, as he is a strong christian himself. we

(2/2) had a conversation about it last night and he was talking about all the requirements Paul lists for pastors and elders and whatnot and just acting like he didn’t think i would be a good teacher. it was very discouraging. do you have any advice?

Hello there. I really feel for you, I’ve had family members and others question my sense of call to ministry and it is really painful – whether because there’s something you know about yourself and God’s will for you that these people you care about just don’t see, or because their doubts make you doubt the call too.

It’s true that an important part of discerning vocation involves getting feedback from others – what gifts to people who matter to you see in you? Where do they see you get passionate? Where do they see you bearing good fruit? But, getting approval from everyone in your life is not likely to happen. And that’s okay. Take people’s concerns into consideration, pray about it, ponder in your heart whether what they think about you is accurate and, where it is, whether it’s a trait that you can learn to improve or balance. But know that they aren’t necessarily right – you can disagree with them.

Many people have to fight the obstacle of resistance to pursue their callings – especially those of us who are part of a group that many people associate with always being on the receiving end of ministry rather than the giving end, such as disabled persons; or as being antithetical in some way to religion / God, such as LGBTQ+ persons; or inherently unqualified in some other way, such as women. You can have all the gifts Paul lists out, and some people still will refuse to see you as called to ministry because you’re a woman, or because you’re trans or gay, or because you’re autistic or use a wheelchair. They’re the ones with the problem, with the bias they need to work through.

When it comes to parents and others who have been part of our lives for a long time, there’s also the issue that – they’ve known you since you were a kid! a crabby kid, a bratty kid, a kid who’s mean or overwhelmed or selfish sometimes. It can be hard for parents in particular to realize that you’ve outgrown some of those traits, or are in the process of growing into something new.

And maybe you do have some traits that aren’t ideal for ordained ministry; or lack some traits that would serve you well. That’s okay! There is one Spirit, but many gifts – there is not one mold that all ministers must fit into in order to be Good Ministers. God delights in diversity – I know pastors who are extraverted and great speakers, pastors who are introverted and awkward at small talk; pastors who could run on all cylinders all day and pastors who need a lot of breaks; pastors for whom empathy and compassion come easily and pastors who need to work on their compassion. If God is calling you, God will give you and help you hone the gifts you need – and they might not look like another minister’s gifts.

I’ll use my personal example: I was scared to go to seminary, unsure whether God could really want me in ordained ministry, because I’ve got various traits that aren’t great for that – I’m autistic, and for me that means my social energy can run low really fast. I get irritated and overwhelmed really easily. I get too excited about “theory” and forget pastoral sensitivity.

But I went to seminary anyway – because guess what? you can go to seminary / divinity school and not be locked into ministry! Even if you go through all that education and then decide you’re not called to ministry, you’ll have learned invaluable things. It’s still worth going. And if you do go, and do become more sure of your call to ministry, your education will help you improve on the things you need improvement on. You don’t have to enter that education already “perfect” – it’s a lifelong process.

I hope this helps a bit, and I wish you well as you continue to discern God’s call for you! Followers, any other thoughts for this person?

#very tiny turtwig #queerly christian asks #vocation #calling #family tag #parent tag

29 notes · View notes

shippingisntactivism · 5 years

Text

I said on my old blog that I wasn't going to talk about this anymore but I feel the need to make a post so I can put my thoughts into a more comprehensive form.

(I'll ask that other people, especially cis people, please NOT give me all their detailed reasons as to why they personally wouldn't fuck a trans person because I really, really don't want to hear it and I promise you I could not care less.)

I think what ultimately frustrates me most about the genitals preferences discourse is not so much the fact that individual people aren't attracted to x kind of genitals, because of course you're allowed to not be attracted to a certain trait of a person, it's just that this is always phrased as "well this is just my INHERENT sexuality. I am gay/straight and THEREFORE..." Like, no. Fuck off.

Okay, if you are, for example, a gay man who just really really likes d*ck, cool. Good for you. Go live your best life.

But you don't get to act that that is BECAUSE you are gay. Being gay just means that you are a man (or occasionally a nb person) who is attracted to other men (or occasionally certain nb people). It doesn't say anything about genitals or what kind of men you like or anything else at all. (substitute this passage for lesbians, straight women, and straight men accordingly)

If genitals are something important to you - cool, but they are important to you PERSONALLY and may not be that big of a deal to other gay men. Or sometimes, a person's attraction to the other person might outweigh their non attraction to certain traits they have.

So yeah, I just wish people who argue they are allowed to not like x kind of genitals, (which btw nobody has said individual people aren't allowed to not be attracted to penises/vaginas) would stop doing it in a way that erases people of their identity who are attracted to those genitals, or at the very least don't have that big of an issue with dating someone who has them, cause it's so annoying that we constantly have to reassert that yes, actually, we exist.

Ultimately, for me at least, genitals just don't play that big of a part of my attraction. I'm much more attracted to other things such as gender presentation, secondary sex chararistics, whether or not someone is more interested in taking a male or female social role (still haven't figured out how things with nbs stand cause I haven't even met an nb irl) etc.

So yeah that's it. Again, pls don't derail my post, also TERFs stay from my blog 2kInfinity

#mine #rant

18 notes · View notes

roidespd-blog · 5 years

Text

Chapter Nine : SEX, SEXUALITY and GENDER IDENTITY

Ask yourself three simple questions. What are your biological characteristics ? What does or does not turn you on ? What are you ?

If you can get through all three, congratulations. You’ve built great foundations for yourself as a human being.

That is not always the case.

SEX — A NON-BINARY CONCEPT

That seems to be the easiest one. It was. Also, it never was. Organisms (entities that exhibit the properties of life) of male and female varieties, each known as sex. We’re not talking about doing the nasty but the genetic traits that constitutes your sexual reproductive system. Among humans (and other mammals), males typically carry and X and Y chromosome whereas the female typically carry two X chromosomes. Humans may also be intersex. That’s when it becomes complicated — but only if you are not eager to understand. To the first question (“What are your biological characteristics?”), I can say that I have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome. I produce small gametes (AKA sperm) and I have a penis (a nice little fellow). To my knowledge, my friend Julie has two X chromosomes and produces large gametes (AKA egg cells) and I might over reach because we’re not sot intimate that I have seen all of her, but I do think she has a vagina. Intersex people are individuals born with variations in sex characteristics that are not strictly XX-male or XY-female. They do not fit the definitions of male of female bodies. In the past, you would have called them hermaphrodites but believe me, this is so wrong and offensive. Don’t. I won’t get into much details about intersex individuals as I want to give them an entire article to focus on their existence. Just know they’re here and that your binary concept of the human body, though right for you and most of your friends and family, is no longer valid.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION / SEXUAL IDENTITY

It’s gonna get a tiny bit more complicated as they have one identical word in common. Sexual. You know that word, stop focusing on it. Put your eyes on their companions. Orientation is an pattern of romantic and/or sexual attraction to persons of the opposite sex and/or gender, same sex and/or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender. Those orientations are usually divided into three categories : heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality. Bullshit.

Identity is how a person thinks of him/her/themself in terms of whom one is romantically or sexually attracted to. Or not. The beauty of this new world is that you can pretty much identify with whatever words you feel comfortable with. I used to identify myself as an homosexual man with a 5,5 on the Kinsey Scale. But time and research made me rethink my personal point of view. I still use the terms homosexual, gay (though I have a preference for the umbrella word that is Queer, and the slurs I like to appropriate as my own) but the Kinsey method only include the three orientations I previously cited. I now more and more in phase with being androsexual and it redefined my attraction as a matter of identity.

I’m sure you don’t know what Androphilia is. or Gynephilia for that matter. Neither was I not so long ago. They are terms used to describe sexual orientation as an alternative to a gender binary homosexual / heterosexual / bisexual conceptualization. Androphilia describes sexual attraction to men or masculinity. Gynephilia describes the sexual attraction to women or femininity. Ambiphilia, finally, describes the combination of both Androphilia and gynephilia. I thought I was only attracted to cisgender man but a few years ago, I found myself incredibly aroused at the sight of what happened to be a transgender man. A gorgeous man that I will not named. Though confused at first, I realized that wouldn’t change who I am. I’m still the same person with the same sexuality. I just happen to be attracted to masculinity traits. By applying those terms to the common understand of sexual identity, we avoid bias inherent in normative concepts of human sexuality, confusion and offense with people of multiple identities.

But whatever the term, you get to decide. You can be : Asexual (experiencing little or no sexual attraction to others and lack of interest in sexual relationships or behavior) Bicurious Bisexual Demisexual (little or no capacity to experience sexual attraction until a strong romantic connection is formed with sometimes) Fluid Gay Homosexual Lesbian Pansexual (a person who experiences sexual, romantic, physical and/or spiritual attraction for members of all gender identities) Polyamorous (the practice and desire of consensual non-monogamous relationships) — yeah, that can be part of your sexual identity. Queer Skoliosexual (being primarily sexually, romantically and/or emotionally attracted to genderqueer, transgender and/or non-binary individuals)

You can even be straight and identify as MSM or WSW (Men who have Sex with Men or Women who have Sex with Women).

Honestly, the possibilities seem unlimited at this point. To the question “What does and what does not turn you on?”, be honest with yourself and don’t be afraid to think about it.

GENDER IDENTITY

Now on to the final curve of this ever-so complicated path. Gender Identity is the personal sense of one’s own gender. It is not always on par with the gender you were assigned at birth. To take myself one last time as an example, I am a cisgender man. Cisgender : an individual whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth. Got it ? In terms of gender, I don’t have to ask myself too much questions except socially as I slowly but surely try to break codes about masculinity and femininity. But that’s beyond the point for now. So when you are not a cis person, what can you be ? Someone can be transgender.

Transgender : a gender description for someone who has transitioned or si transitioning from living as one gender to another. Two warnings on this. First, “transitioning” doesn’t mean a transgender person has to change his/her/their you-know-me-down-there surgically. Transitioning means changing things as varied but not obligatory as exterior appearance, name, pronouns. What you do with your body is your own business (more on that in a future article). Second, the word transgender was preceded by two other words : transvestite and transexual. A transvestite is a person who dresses as the gender opposite his/her/their own but has nothing to do with sexual or gender identity. A transexual is the grandparent word of transgender but the term has been rejected by many transgender people as “beyond the scope” (with sexual in it, no shit). I would not use that word unless that person identifies as transexual. But I doubt it. But again, gender is a complex thing and it is associated with identity. And though you cannot chose who you love, who you are attracted to and who you are, you get to choose the words that fit you best. Not cis ? Not trans ? Maybe you are non-binary, or genderqueer (a spectrum of gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine and are outside the gender binary and cis normality). Maybe you are genderfluid. Maybe agender (someone who identifies as having no gender or being without a gender) or demigender. Maybe all or none of the above.

So to the third question I had you earlier, “Who are you?”, what will you say ?

There are no wrong answers. Only wrong silences.

As I get to write these articles one by one, I learn a lot about my people. Where they’re coming from, what they want and who they are. And through that, I’m learning a shitload more about myself, and not only as a queer person. This article was, in the end, only about little boxes available to you. Do not conform to them because they are there. I asked you three questions and expected answers. What if they aren’t any final ones for you ? What’s so bad about that? As long as you get the freedom to ask yourself a double “what” and a simple “who”.

4 notes · View notes

cooltapes · 5 years

Text

Can I ask your opinion as a bigender person (I’m cis)? What do you think of non-fetishy genderbends? I love seeing fanart that’s a different take on a character, whether simply a different hairstyle or a redesign of their costume or a straight-up AU, and when it isn’t for fetishy purposes some of the genderbend stuff is pretty creative in that direction. But is it something I shouldn’t support?

I’ve reposted this from your ask just in case you didn’t want to be published, but I wanted to ask other people and also talk about it because it’s a topic I’ve been thinking on a while.

I also personally love to look at genderbends from a design perspective, because character design is really interesting to me and I see it (when it's done well) as an analysis of the conscious choices people make when gendering their characters and how society perceives certain traits to me masculine/feminine, a tool to make yourself more aware of your own biases about gender and the concept of a gender binary. Like, these things shouldn’t impact on the way we perceive a character’s personality, but they do, and those are biases worth scrutinising. Our individual and collective understanding of gender plays a HUGE part when designing both a character's visuals and personality and to suggest otherwise is to just ignore the source of many gendered problems in fiction. Sailor Neptune is a good case study. As a cis woman, she performs hyper femininity within the lens of being a lesbian in an out relationship. If she were “genderbent” (I’ll get to that term in a second) to a cis man in a gay relationship, what would convey the closest impression to her original design? An effeminate cis gay man, with the same mannerisms and style as canon Michiru, or a cis gay man performing hyper masculinity? The former may be related to the original character more but I would argue that from a design perspective the latter is actually the closer equivalent after dissecting the societal expectations Michiru is both fulfilling and subverting, even though both “genderbent” Michirus would seem COMPLETELY different to canon Michiru. But why? What implications on personality and character agency does it have for a character to perform/subvert certain behaviours when the only thing you change is their assigned gender? Is a cis man who makes the same choices as canon Michiru in his presentation expressing fundamentally different personality traits than a cis woman? Why do/don’t we perceive it that way? In short, with what we know of Michiru’s canon personality, if she had been assigned male at birth instead, would she have made the same choices for herself? What is more fitting with her personality? And why and what do we project onto her when we consider this? This is the kind of analysis I run through when I think about “genderbending” characters... But.

I’d argue that most “genderbends” aren’t done well, or done with this analysis in mind, they’re very much just a surface-level embrace of the gender binary and gendered roles/designs. “Genderbends” are one of those things I enjoy playing with myself but probably wouldn’t trust coming from other people unless I already knew where they were working from. A lot of “genderbent” art I see is interesting for me to analyse not because it’s good but because it’s a window into how the artist - and anyone identifying with it - has internalised and expresses gender. I think the very subtle ones - the ones that just barely change a character’s silhouette or facial structure to the point where they “pass” now as a different gender - are both the most fascinating to observe but also the ones that leave the worst taste in my mouth if I don’t know where the artist is coming from and what they’re trying to demonstrate. It is interesting to see just how flimsy our definition of gender is but at the same time so rigid once you are seen to cross that line. And of course, as you said for some a “genderbend” is just an excuse to create more fanservice, which I would argue is incredibly interesting to dissect for how it fits the consensus of acceptable heterosexuality (I cannot stop thinking about the One Piece figures that turn cis male characters into big tiddy anime girls for straight male fans jack off to and how many layers of heteronormativity this is buried under) but again, not a GOOD thing. An anthropological thing. That doesn’t mean that I really want those “genderbends” to exist.

Alright, now to the term “genderbend”. I think the best thing you could do, and what I do on the rare occasions where I share what I make, is to tag them as “cisswaps” instead because it acknowledges that you are working within a cisnormative, binary structure, and if you’re aware of that framing then it at least implies you don’t agree with it. There’s a post roaming around out there that suggests all “genderbends” are trans adjacent and I don’t think that’s accurate or ... good, even. As I said I don’t think cisswaps or “genderbends” are necessarily good things and to suggest an artist adhering rigidly to a binary gender system and couching everything within cissexism is somehow creating a trans narrative is a bad take IMO even if I understand why some trans people would want to perceive it that way. I think gender headcanons are completely different from cisswaps and I love and support them. I don’t know if there’s a specific tag for those, though. If anyone knows of any I’d love to hear them, but I’m afraid they’d just get gunked up with bad content anyway.

This was a long post and the final message I want you to take away is that I cannot tell you if this is something you should support or not because I’m just one person with one very specific experience wrt gender. Some people will tell you cisswaps/“genderbends” are fine and lovely and that all this is overanalysis and there will be others who will tell you they have no merit whatsoever and you should never ever engage with them, even to dissect them.

Personally I think so long as you have a nuanced understanding and approach to gender, you don’t personally ascribe to a binary/cissexism, and, as a cis person, you find and listen to trans experiences, do whatever. That’s more important than whether you reblog someone navel-gazing about hypothetical gender roles in fictional AUs. Tagging stuff like this with “cisswap” is a good place to start, and most importantly it also provides trans people with a tag to block if they don’t want to see this content. And if a trans follower tries to approach you that something you do reblog was hurtful, be open to it.

TL;DR: For me personally cisswaps/”genderbends” are “interesting” but that doesn’t mean "good” and I am very hesitant to actually interact with other people’s because they can be and generally are binarist/cisnormative, but the concept is not inherently bad.

I would love to hear from any of my other trans followers here for their experiences and opinions.

#okay to reblog

12 notes · View notes

divagonzo · 5 years

Note

I know this is gonna step on some toes but it;s really bothering me. Why is it now that when people try to pair up the golden trio into different pairings it ends up being 'oh let's make the third one gay/lesbian too!!" like what is wrong with not wanting to be in a relationship or staying single and getting validation in friends/family??? why does everyone has to be paired up? either straight or lgbt?? it honestly makes me feel people arent worthy or fullfilled if they arent paired up >:(

‘Ello Nonnie. Here in the caverns toes are welcome to be stepped on - even if there are consequences for it. (AKA I’m sure I’ll annoy some too with this post as well, even if I will put it under a cut just to spare some sensibilities for others. Though I expect some to speak up and out on Anon about what I’m going to say below the cut.)

I’m gonna make an assumption that you’re probably Ace like I am - or maybe even Het, too, and seeing how far shipping culture has gone for characters in question. There also are questions on how characters are perceived in the text (is Harry Bi? Is Ron? Is Luna Gay? Ginny a lesbian or bi? So many questions - but it’s also down to the reader and their need (coupled with the death of the Author) for representation - including how little is out there for anyone who is part of the 1% - like a Charlie.) But if I'm guessing what has you bothered is the one maybe from yesterday about Luna and Ginny and Hermione (or something else and if so, point it out so I can read that and adjust if need be) and having an AU where the three of them are in a polyship.

Frankly, that’s the era we are in now, Nonnie, in that every character is possibly not straight and some of it is, Why not? While some is, How can we make our story more interesting towards those who aren’t strictly het? That is the entire basis and origination of AU - it's an alternative universe where the canon barely means a thing and it becomes like Sims, where you can re-write everything to how you want.

So I’m told, those who aren’t Cis and Het exclusively tend to spend time with those who share those traits/actions. (Birds of a feather and all) and it makes sense. (Being introverted gives me some distance to see these things.)

So the shipping goes 3 steps further, in the expectation that if Characters A&B are romantically involved, then Character C should be dating, too. That is an unfortunate toxicity of the trope that women are fed - that they are there for the consumption of others, either for emotional labour or for validation of the others. They aren’t seen as having inherent worth for existing, only what they can do for others, either in RL or in fiction. Having independent agency, finding their life content while being single, or content being Ace/Aro/questioning is harmful to those who have bought into the theory that they are only valued for who they date/physical romantic relationship - and not for the fact that they are people and have their own inherent worth.If a man is single (*yet having plenty of icky squicky skiddly doo*) they are seen as the swinging bachelor and celebrated - while women are held to an inherently different standard of “your only value is for what you can do for your man. (I won’t even get into the LGBTQIA side of it with all of the inter-niche dynamics of relationships.)That idea leads to an unhealthy codependency (mostly towards women) where the problematic ideal that women are to be living at home with their parents until marriage while men get to cavort on their own 'til they settle down with a partner.

The toxicity of "you have to be in a romantic physical relationship to have worth and value" is harmful towards women who are single (either by choice or not) and the older a woman gets and is single, the less people do see her. (Sad but true fact.) One of my sibs from another crib is absolutely amazing (and ambitious, highly driven, a workhorse; in amazing shape and a wonderful person - but because she refuses to make herself small for less than stellar men, she gets zero notice ‘cept from Sugar daddy scammers. *snort*

All of it is corrosive - straight or gay. People have worth because they are people - not because of who they are f* or dating. People have value at 18 and at 48.

Having Ron/Harry as a romantic couple is a *shrug* for me but for others, it's a healthier one than some in the fandom (not going there at all) but then changing Hermione to where she is written as being gay/pan/bi is why AU is there. While I don't personally agree, in an AU universe anything is possible and mostly anything goes. Her representation is needed, especially for those teens who wonder “If Hermione is gay in this, what can that explain for me, too?”

I do think the automatic assumption of Two guys as best friends automatically equals gay is toxic. It takes a dump on those men who are healthy and have guys who are friends - even to ride or die bff - and aren't gay - but because everything in media shows that it's inherently gay that you develop problems, including touch starvation - and that is an enormous Pandora's Box of problems. O_O

Personally, I don't see it and disagree with the assumption - and especially because I think it does an enormous emotional disservice and harms men where they can have a healthy platonic relationship, even to the point of having physical non-sexual affection and everyone including Great Aunt Tessie says, "They gay" and I just am boggled. Like, what the hell? Are they gay or can they be guy friends and not have the inherent desire to f* one another?

It's a double-edged sword, where people crave healthy male relationships with other men and with women but the moment it happens, there is an enormous segment (mostly women) who scream, "Just Kiss Already" and I find it so damn tiring. Like, can we just focus for one minute on a male/female relationship and not once bring up sexual tension? (side-note: This is why I am in serious appreciation for Avengers:Endgame in that Clint and Natasha are shown as having BFF platonic relationship and how damn deep and intense and emotionally fulfilling it is without having the side-trope of "friends with benefits". It makes my dark crusty Ace Heart scream in glee that it didn't have a romantic sub-plot shoved into it.)

But to automatically make every interaction as a potential romantic one hurts almost everyone - including those kids who aren't straight - because of the assumption that you only have value in who you are dating. It hurts guys who might actually come across fic and realize, Hey, I can have a best mate and not have the desire to get sweaty and sticky with them.

Y'all do what you want and do. But I'm gonna disagree on some points of note, too. I personally want more healthy relationships that are familial or platonic. Lord knows there's enough focused on romantic ones - and I'm a sap for a healthy romance/relationship.

#Anonymous

2 notes · View notes

siocynder · 6 years

Text

Strong Females/Sensitive Males

All right, everyone. Time for another Sio Sit-down.

Again, my word is not the law, you can have an opinion, you can disagree, it may or may not work for you, blah blah bleeeh. On to the post!

I’m going to use the word “strong” a lot. And “masculine”…and “feminine”...You know what, just go with it.

Update Your Strong Females

Here’s the thing, these days strong female characters are a really big thing. Girls, women, even men, want to see strong female characters on screen and/or on the page. Want to know why? Not just because it’s empowering, but because it’s not shown correctly at times and we want the recognition.

Shoving a sword into their hand and making them bloodthirsty does not a strong female make.

You’ll need to work a little harder than that. Or, well, work less. I think the issue is that people think too hard and then the character comes out choppy and unlikable. Sometimes it’s the male writers that just can’t seem to grasp what a female is like because they just don’t know. And that’s okay. However, that just means you need to talk to more women and really figure out how things work, what they like and what they want to see. Women writers should do this as well because I feel like the fantasies of being a kick-butt woman get in the way of realizing they’re still human just like anyone else.

Strong females aren’t always the ones who hold a sword and kill people. *Gasp* I know, right? Shocker! Sometimes—and get this—they’re the ones that have no idea how to fight at all. Am I blowing your mind yet?

Look, there are a few things you should know about how to write a strong female.

All females are different. Some know how to fight, some don’t. Some know how to communicate, some don’t. But whether they do or not they’re still human, which means they have feelings and desires.

There are really no rules for this one. Just think of all the women in your life. Are they smart? Are they athletic? Are they loyal and supportive? Are they manipulative? Are they outspoken or quiet? These are all strong traits. So, why do people keep taking things that are typically viewed as masculine traits and putting them on a female body and cutting out all their emotions? It’s a cop-out for one. People think “strong” and match it with “man”. This isn’t necessarily wrong. There are women out there who carry masculine traits, but you can’t expect a reader to be okay with that all the time.

Let’s think about Harry Potter, a series with incredibly strong women in it. Hermione, for one, isn’t ready to jump into a battle and she’s not about to kill anyone and she isn’t an inherently angry person. Her strength comes from her intelligence and her confidence in herself despite what people think and say about her. She’s strong in her way to always be loyal and there for her friends. Do you know how much strength it takes to let someone vent to you and to be happy with the way you are even though everyone thinks so little of you?

What about Mrs. Weasley? She’s viewed as a housewife. She takes care of the kids, she cooks and cleans. Even still, she’s assertive and always there. She takes Harry in, knowing all the trouble to come. She will kill to protect her kids. Loving, loyal, protective.

Okay, but what about women who do fight? We could look at Annabeth from Percy Jackson. That girl could kick Percy’s butt, and, in fact, she does a few times. She knows how to fight, and she fights for her life every day. She also has the intelligence from being Athena’s daughter. Her confidence in herself and her abilities is what makes her Annabeth. Still, she’s got emotions. She’s dealing with the sadness of losing a friend, of not feeling like she’s part of her own family. She gets happy and angry and falls in love just like anyone else would. The ability to fight, to hold a sword, and to be confident (all things that could be viewed as masculine) don’t undermine the fact that she’s a female.

If you have a female that’s an assassin, she’s not just going to kill people without rhyme or reason. This girl is going to be like a male assassin: knows how to fight, intelligent, deals with everyday issues. The thing is, giving a female a role that’s typically viewed as “masculine” does not mean she’s suddenly without a heart or suddenly “strong”. Are you going to write a male character who walks around killing people and has the personality and emotions of a brick? I mean, you can, but there better be a good reason for it. Give that to a female and it looks like you couldn’t come up with anything useful and simply gave up half-way through character development.

If you want to write a strong female character, you need to view them as a woman first. Make them have feelings, make them have friends—for goodness sake, give them female friends that actually stick with them and not fight all the dang time (Yes, I will be talking about this at some point)—and let them be women. Just because they have breasts and feelings does not make them soft.

Please, please, remember that.

Don’t Be Scared Of Sensitive Males

This is the other side of the scale. We’re tipping it now. Whoop!

Now, one thing that becomes an issue is that female writers tend to overcompensate on male characters to make them overly masculine. You may need to reread that sentence because, yep, I just said that. I’m a female writer, so I get it. I mean, I did sort of diss male writers in the female section of this post. And they do it because…reasons? Fantasies of big strong men? So that they don’t seem like they’ve been written by a female? Could be anything really. Regardless, opposite sexes can have difficulty seeing the other side because they aren’t the other side.

That being said, male writers—and I’m not completely sure, so I may be grasping at straws—may be more scared to put a “feminine” trait to their males. Maybe it’s because they think it’s not right, maybe they think they’re making them too soft if they do (whatever that means), but I find there are some male writers that overcompensate as well. And they’re male themselves!

The last thing you want to do is make your male character seem like a female unintentionally. It all depends on if you want them to be more feminine or not in the end.

You don’t need to push your male characters to be ridiculously “masculine”. They don’t need to like hunting or sex, or push themselves onto their female counterparts (again, I’ll be getting to this in another post). Not all men are like that. Some of them like music or dance. Some of them are asexual. Some of them were raised by their mothers and have a more gentleman-like behavior (not saying all men raised by mothers are gentlemen, it’s just an example).

Just like I said with the strong female characters, it’s okay for your men to have feelings. Sure, they think differently, but they still have emotions: sadness, loneliness, happiness, anger. Surprise, men are human too!

As a female, it can be hard to figure out how to write a male. Talk to more men then, get to know them, discover how different they are. I have a male friend who loves cuisine and cooking. It’s his passion. He has a home, a girlfriend, and a dog, and likes to cook. Why is it that giving a male the ability to cook instantly makes them feminine or too sensitive? Men can have passions other than wanting to get into a girl’s pants and wanting to kill/beat up people.

My own father was raised by his mother. He does the cooking in the family, and he loves children: things that are mostly considered “feminine”. Even still, he knows how to fight and he’s intelligent, and he’s loyal and caring. It’s okay to have all those things in a character. Portraying these things—a man crying, a man expressing his feelings, a man liking a hobby that is different from “masculine” activities—is okay!

In fact, please do! I’m tired of reading broody men who do nothing but hide their feelings and push people around with their always-annoyed attitude. Please don’t make them generic copies of a brick wall.

Just don’t forget that they’re men. Just like you can’t forget that a strong female is still a woman.

Men are going to think and talk differently. They’re going to notice things differently from girls. For example, they might not notice that the flowers on the table are particularly beautiful, but they’ll still notice them. If they’re straight, they’ll notice the girl and her body, but maybe not so much that her guy friend has amazing biceps.

I, personally, write male characters more than females. And that’s just because I grew up around males. Males were easier for me to get along with and learn about. I have more guy friends than I do female friends, so my male characters are much easier to write. You just need to get out there and talk to guys and experience that connection more. People-watching isn’t illegal—unless you start to follow them or watch through their windows. Don’t do that.

Harry Potter, since we were talking about him, can be a sensitive male. He feels for the lack of family, for the burden of his future. He vents and cries and has crushes and loves. But he knows how to fight. And he’s stubborn and determined. These things balance each other out. He’s still a man in the end.

There are even male characters out there that don’t like to fight and yet still managed to be a man. Not all of them need to have inherently masculine traits. That’s not what I’m saying. However, if you’re struggling in the beginning to write a sensitive male character then a balance, in the beginning, is a good idea.

Think Radu from the And I Darken Series. I love him. He’s not strong in the ways that Lada is (who is supposed to be a gender bent version of Vlad the Impaler, how cool is that? Want to read a strong female character done right? Read And I Darken.). Radu doesn’t like to fight and he’s more likely to use his brain than his fists. Does that make him weak because he doesn’t have “strong masculine” traits? Not at all!

Even gay characters have strong personality traits. It’s okay to write a character that’s very feminine, but there better be a dang good reason for it. Not because it’s a stereotype or because you just don’t know how to write a male character. Gay men can still be assertive and know how to kick butt and be masculine. Just like lesbians can be sensitive and girly.

And just like there should be a good reason to have an overly-feminine male, there should be a reason to have an overly-masculine male. Don’t just make these characters because you don’t know how to write them and have simply thought, “Meh, it’s okay. I don’t need to plan them anymore.” Those traits and personalities need to be part of the character, not simply you giving up and not trying.

Beginner writers often make the mistake where they plan their first book and they want to have a strong male and strong female. This usually results in an overly-masculine man and an overly-feminine female. Ditch the sexes for a second. What you want is strong PEOPLE. Balance is incredibly important.

Let’s look at some popular shows, like Supernatural. There’s a fanbase that loves the bromance in this show because the characters have heart-to-hearts, they’re emotional, they’re loyal. However, they’re still seen as men. What about Star Trek or Stargate? A group of guys that bond and have a connection yet are very strong male leads regardless. Of course, sometimes the writers try to soften the blow and make them have those connections in the infirmary when their supposed guard is down. Even still, it’s still predominant.

Orphan Black, Sarah Manning, is an incredibly strong female. She has a daughter and she’s a little lost in the world, but she’s totally ready to take charge when she needs to and she’s willing to put herself into danger for her friends and family. And her brother, Felix? He’s gay. Does that stop him from being a sensitive yet strong male character? No. He has his balance between loving his family, wanting to love, and ready to kick-butt if someone tries to harm anyone he loves.

And I’m not saying these overly-sensitive men or overly-strong females don’t exist. They sure as heck do. However, what I am saying is that if you’re going to do it you need to remember that they’re human. They better be believable and likeable.

Leave a comment or a question if you’d like. There are things I know I’ve missed, but I don’t want to overload the posts, so I’ll just go with this for now.

Sio.

#writing tips #sio sit-down #strong females #sensitive males #hopefully this helps

6 notes · View notes

serpensthesia · 7 years

Text

I need a moment, guys. Here is an actual snippet of a conversation I had today:

(after having spent some time explaining what Pride is, and that many allies also participate as a show of support, love, acceptance) dudebro: so how do you distinguish between gays and straights at pride? (let me also take a moment here to say that my eyes rolled so far back into my head that I thought they would get stuck) me: why would you need to do that? dudebro: i don't know, maybe you go but don't want people thinking you're gay me: why would it be a problem for someone to think you were gay? dudebro: because i'm not? me: i suppose if you had someone come up to you that was interested in getting your phone number you could just say that you were flattered but not interested, but other than that, i don't really see a reason why it would be a problem for someone to think you were gay? dudebro: i mean, in general, you don't want to be thought of as something you aren't? me: huh. i can't imagine what that would be like - for people to assume things about me without actually knowing anything about me. dudebro: can't tell if that's sarcasm or not me: it definitely is. sass aside, there is nothing wrong with being mistaken for a queer person because there isn't anything wrong with being queer. dudebro: well, unfortunately, not everyone thinks that's true me: yeah, but fuck those people dudebro: people can't have different opinions than you? me: people can totally have different opinions than me, but being homophobic/thinking being queer is inherently wrong isn't an opinion, it's hate speech and an unwillingness to be a decent human being. dudebro: isn't saying "fuck those people" just as hateful? and it's definitely an opinion? just as thinking being gay is alright is an opinion? me: i'm not saying i'm not willing to have conversations with people that think that, i'm just saying fuck them. fuck that attitude. what business do they have deciding what is right or wrong for someone other than themselves? and being queer is not a choice. you can have opinions on things where there are options, where you can choose one thing over the other. having an opinion that someONE - another living, breathing human - is right or wrong based on something they had no control over is just shitty... hence the "fuck those people."

And like, obviously there is a lot here that makes me want to shake this person and just say "stop being this way" but this idea of my (crudely worded) disregard of the opinions of people that think LGBTQIA+ people are going to hell or "wrong" in some inherent way is just as hateful as their actions and beliefs... what is that?

LGBTQIA+ people are under no obligation to meet the actions/beliefs of those that despise them with love, or kindness, or understanding. I am not obligated to listen to homophobic rhetoric and treat it as valid or important or worthy of even one moment of my time because there is a chance that my response might come off as "hateful."

If you believe that people can be "wrong" because of traits outside of their control (like being a POC, or a woman, even) then I will not feel bad when I tell you to fuck off (and it's unfair for you to expect a logical, tempered response when you are making statements that are unequivocally wrong)(though obviously the need to discuss when it is okay vs not okay to have an opinion, or to address that opinions can be flawed/wrong is... well, a different, but much needed conversation).

#i'm sorry i just needed to get this out #conversations with dudebros #continues to reblog happy pride things #but more aggressively than before #aggressively wishing you a happy pride!#nolite te bastardes carborundorum

26 notes · View notes

sinesalvatorem · 7 years

Text

@not-a-lizard: Yeah, maybe it's different people exerting pressure and different people expecting you to lie? Or they exert pressure first and then only later stop believing you?

Me: I feel like it's a game being played by different people with different interests.

@not-a-lizard Honestly I don't even understand how norms like "when someone compliments you, you should immediately compliment them back" get established, because that's HARD and non-obvious and seriously what even

@not-a-lizard but apparently that's a thing, did you know that?

Me: I did, yes.

Me: And it seems perfectly correct and natural to me.

@not-a-lizard: ... huh, okay

Me: Reciprocation: It's A Thing :p

Me: Though, like, I don't find it hard, because things I like about people are usually more salient than things I don't.

Me: Maybe this is just an Agreeable People thing :p

Me: Like, it would be Hard for me to meet a person and not be able to come up with an honest compliment for them, which is why I find compliment memes on Tumblr easy.

@not-a-lizard: How do you manage it, though? Like, someone compliments me something I'm wearing, and then my options are 1) try to think of something I like about what they're currently wearing, which involves obvious looking around and thinking and being awkward, or 2) go with a generic and probably transparently fake "You look great today too!" compliment

@not-a-lizard: Ah, okay, you're just inherently ready with compliments, I suppose that makes sense ;)

Me: Though, sometimes, it might be hard to come up with a socially acceptable one, because I might come up with something like "I like how autistic you are" and then not be able to think of any more :p

Me: Because I usually generate them one at a time.

Me: I mean, like, I usually don't have a hard time looking around for a thing.

@not-a-lizard: ... yeah that's just so strange

Me: And, also, this is why when women are complimented they're expected to draw out the phrase "Thank youuuu".

Me: You're using the extra time to think of a return-compliment.

Me: Though I've never seen a non-gay man do the prolonged "Thank youuuu" thing leading into a compliment, because men who sleep with women can't into compliments, for some reason???

Me: Maybe there are bi men who can, but I haven’t met them either.

@not-a-lizard: But yeah for me this is a terrible social norm that I am going to continue to ignore because any other options only end up MORE awkward.

Me: Fair enough!

Me: Meanwhile, I will continue being the most stereotypically feminine person ever :p

@not-a-lizard: And the other problem with various compliment-expecting social norms is that occasionally it results in people complimenting me and me mistakenly assuming they MEAN it

@not-a-lizard: (although you're right, they're probably just people like you who do mean it but it's a different level than when I mean it)

Me: [nod nod]

Me: Like, if you just leave me unrestrained, I'd compliment people continuously.

Me: But this is socially Weird, so I don't.

Me: Which I think is part of what compliment-prompting is for?

Me: It lowers the activation energy.

Me: It pulls down the social barrier to paying compliments.

Me: Otherwise you might end up like smol!me before I learned that Real Men Don't Like Things and used to compliment people all the time and have them look at me like I was a WEIRDO.

@not-a-lizard: I mean, this is very rarely a problem because generally I have an extremely low level of paying attention to what people think, but I've had a couple of cases where someone generic-complimented me twice and I thought that meant they idk liked/valued me more than average but a friend had to explain to me that it didn't XD

@not-a-lizard: Awww, smol!you sounds so cute though

Me: So, there are these scenes that sometimes show up in girl!media where two women meet and they initially don't like each other, but then one of them says "I like your top." And then it goes something like - Woman 2: Thanks. I like your shoes. Woman 1: Thank you. I love your hair. Woman 2: Thank you! I love your necklace. [iterate a bit] And then they end up BFFs.

Me: And this kind of social interaction just seems intuitively Correct and like the way Proper Humans work.

Me: Then I learned that 1) Boys are not Proper Humans, and 2) I was supposed to be one of those.

Me: It did not end well...

@not-a-lizard: ... Yeah I am definitely not a Proper Human XD

@not-a-lizard: But yeah for me compliments about appearance/objects are usually pretty close to value-neutral unless they're from someone whose opinion I already care about

Me: But, like, paying enough attention to someone to know what things you actually like about them is supposed to be a signal of caring about them! So, friendship-signalling!

Me: This is important, tho

@not-a-lizard: hmm, good point about friendship signalling. Maybe I should try to remember that in case of future compliments.

@not-a-lizard: (I'm generally not very good at realizing that things mean stuff other than their surface meanings. This is a problem with social interactions.)

Me: Yeah, fair :)

Me: I like how autistic you are :p

Me: But, yeah, this fails when prompting people for specific compliments, though! If you say "I'm pretty, aren't I?" and then give someone a Pointed Look, then what they say is meaningless because, if they disagree with you, they'll just lie.

Me: Compliment prompts have to be open-ended or they'll be bullshit.

@not-a-lizard: Yeah that's just terrible

Me: Or you could ask for an honest assessment of a trait like prettiness but, like, don't actually expect honesty from anyone but your closest friends and/or people who are inhumanly tell culture.

Me: Or ask anons on 4chan. They're also inhumanly honest.

#copy pasted from a conversation #social rules make no sense #except this time they make sense to me and i'm analysing them

48 notes · View notes

eilidhink · 7 years

Text

[Okay, so obviously this is partly in response to Kai’s post about stereotypes, but it’s something I’ve thought a lot about, and I kind of wanted to ramble about where I am with it all.

I’ve definitely got muses who are part of oppressed groups I am not part of. I’m white, first off, and obviously my two main muses (and two of my others) are not. I’m also an allo person with an ace muse and a demi muse, and I’m a bi person with a couple gay muses (and a token straight muse). I have an ADHD muse and a hard of hearing muse, and I am neither of those things. I haven’t experienced sexual assault or abusive relationships the way Eilidh has. I have a muse who might be genderfluid, and I’m in the process of doing research about that (and all the other things) because it is not my own experience. And I really don’t want to fuck any of it up, but I also want to contribute to representation beyond the default. That’s super important to me. It’s just a gordian knot of potential issues.

I mean, on one level, there’s the fact that for any given stereotype, there will be people of a group who fit it in some way, but that doesn’t mean representing them that way is always okay. Like, I’m a bi person who’s into non-monogamy, but when I see bi/pan characters on TV who don’t like monogamy, I get my hackles up a little (and rightly so, they usually fuck it up). But I have a pan muse who cannot and will not be monogamous, and I’ve seen other people write similar muses where it was handled really well and felt right--it’s not impossible. It’s also worth exploring characters who feel a tension to break stereotypes but see part of themselves in them. Who maybe feel an obligation to their community to hide part of themselves, or who decide to embrace stereotypes as an act of rebellion against respectability politics. Because those are real things people sometimes do.

Of course, if you’re going to let a character identify with a stereotype, it’s essential to have traits that look stereotypical have some reason or purpose beyond “they’re x identity, so they do x thing.” But even that isn’t enough? Like, there are PLENTY of times where creators have come up with reasons to have their characters be offensive that fit with the stories they’re in, but that doesn’t make them less offensive. Just because a writer can justify it within the story doesn’t mean it’s okay from an outside perspective (ie the Doylist/Watsonian thing). Sure, Quiet has to wear practically nothing because in the story she “breathes through her skin,” but she also wears practically nothing because her creators wanted her to wear practically nothing, so they came up with some in-story justification to defend it. I think that’s something we have to own as writers: we choose these things for our characters, and we have a responsibility to do the research and write them respectfully and maybe sometimes let go of an idea of we can’t make it work in a respectful way.

So do all our characters have to completely break all stereotypes? I don’t think so, or at least I hope not. When we’re writing fully rounded characters with complex identities, we’re automatically humanizing them and pushing them past stereotypes, which are basically dehumanizing and oversimplifying narratives. Like, we can pay attention to their relationships to stereotypes: part of Truck’s gentleness as a person comes from being hyper aware of stereotypes about black masculinity and the potential dangers of racism. Bridget pushes herself professionally as a DJ and a songwriter in part as a response to people who think she can’t do those things without full hearing. If I’m writing characters with these identities, I don’t want to whitewash all those experiences, you know? Although I might choose to whitewash some: not every story about an LGBTQ+ character has to be an angst-fest about how hard it is to live in a homophobic/transphobic world, but at the same time... yeah, that’s a thing that informs how characters think about themselves.

When we write more than one character with the same identity trait, though, that also gives us opportunities to show that x kind of people aren’t all alike Eilidh and Truck are both bi/pan but have totally different approaches to sex. Kevin and Nautica are both gay but one has a lot of internal baggage about it and the other just has some family issues about it, with next-to-zero internal baggage. Truck and Eilidh both have Native American/Indian* heritage, but Truck is very connected to his whereas Eilidh feels distant from hers. Hell, I have one Catholic muse who’s becoming a priest and another who’s a total hedonist. More muses: always a good thing except when you can barely keep up with one of them, much less a million and a half :-p

I try to be careful with plots, too. Like, for a while Truck was performing similar mentor roles in most of his relationships, and I intentionally put the brakes on, put a moratorium on those plots and worked to develop others, because I really didn’t want him to become a “magical negro” stereotype. And I don’t do many “coming out” stories with my LGBTQ+ characters (not that there’s anything wrong with writing them, but there are just so many). That doesn’t mean I never have/never will, just that I don’t feel like it’s an essential thing for all those characters, just by virtue of having those identities.

And I think it’s also important to say that I don’t judge my fellow rpers in the same way I judge the people who write tv shows and movies that actually get seen by millions of people. What we do here is inherently more experimental, we’re trying things out, we have smaller audiences and more flexibility. Like... I’m still going to judge the hell out of somebody who’s being an outright misogynist or racist or whatever in their writing, don’t get me wrong. But if a partner of mine was doing something with a character that felt problematic to me (particularly if it was a character with whom I share a marginalized identity), that’s a reason for a conversation, not the kind of bitter judgment and critique I have a tendency to throw at professionals, you know?

I don’t know, that’s not very cohesive, but like I said, these are things I’ve been thinking about and keep thinking about, and I don’t think I’ll come to solid conclusions anytime soon. But paying attention to this stuff and doing the research etc is important, so that’s what I try to do.

*I use “Indian” here because it’s the preferred terminology of the Nanticoke, Truck’s tribe.]

#ooc

3 notes · View notes

elizabethleslie7654 · 5 years

Text

The Modern Church: A Greatness Worth Reviving

buy jewelry with free shipping

This is part 6 of a series on modern society.

Here are the links to Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, and Part Five

This piece may not be as palatable to many as many of my previous pieces. The role of religion and church in the future which we seek is debated and not clear. However, I am clearly on the side of the religious (specifically Christian), and do believe that whites have an inherent and innate desire to pay homage to something greater than themselves. Long short I do believe that whites have an inherent desire to worship and be religious. Personally, I believe that the most correct and beneficial choice is Christianity, but not the cucked, LGBT, Black Lives Matter supporting Christianity. No, I believe in a Christianity that conquered nations and settled the world. But beyond what I believe, I think there are many benefits to simply going to church.

As is often quoted, Robert Putnam’s book “Bowling Alone” details the decline of social capital in America over the past 50-60 years. I personally believe part of this is due to the increase in multiculturalism and increased foreigners in our land. As a part of this declining social capital, church attendance has dramatically declined, with only fundamentalists really remaining steady, as per detailed in “Coming Apart” by Charles Murray (meaning mostly those sects who aren’t cucked have seen steady attendance ratings). While this might not seem like the worst thing on the surface to many that don’t support the church writ large, I believe it has been very detrimental. First, I believe that it has eroded the protection against degeneracy that used to exist in small towns and communities. Women were more hesitant to sleep around and people weren’t quick to take advantage of each other for fear of being ostracized by their community, which often consisted first and foremost of their church. Also, without most people attending church and having a default or de facto set of virtues and morals, it’s now a minefield trying to find values that people agree upon when approaching strangers or those within or without your community. Because so many people don’t go to church anymore, we have no idea what they base their morality on and therefore have to play nearly the same game that the gender insanity folks wish us to play when asking about pronouns, except this time it’s “guess the morality”. Even if you disagree with certain tenets of Christianity, it is hard to disagree that a people who share at least a base moral code and worship within the same building once a week wouldn’t be more connected, happier, and more cohesive. In fact, I would argue a given people would have a greater chance of sticking together and warding off any attackers or aliens that attempt to subvert their society, precisely because a strong in-group has already been established beyond that of race. However, there is more to it than this, there is also the issue of subversion within the church.

Some churches have cucked entirely and have begun to ordain women and have also allowed gays to either openly serve or openly attend worship. I would never recommend such a type of Christianity to anyone, because such a doctrine and religion is far from what is actually preached in the good book. God isn’t for gays, he isn’t for women leading, he isn’t for open borders. Sadly, these are all things that are subverted among some of the mainline protestant churches (ELCA comes to mind) that have millions of members. Even the Catholic church has been somewhat subverted with a communist, open borders Pope currently at the helm. I am thankfully a WASP but feel deeply for the poor Catholic souls that must endure through this horrible Pope who is making a mockery of their religion and doctrine. But there is more than just the cucking and cohesion aspects that I wish to address.

I was raised a protestant and then fell away from it for a while, exploring all different things, even some things as crazy as Buddhism and meditating in Buddhist centers. However, even when I fell away from Christianity I never fell away from a God. I always believed in something greater. I never thought that we’re here by random. And many people may scoff at that but I think it’s silly to think that any of this is random. I think we have free will but I also do think there is a bigger plan. And I believe that I’m not alone in this. In fact, I believe that it’s inherently a white trait to worship something greater and something larger than yourself. This doesn’t always have to be an organized religion with a deity but so many white races have created magnificent structures dedicated to their various Gods. The Greeks, the Romans, the Anglos in Europe and their Cathedrals. All of these structures truly awe-inspiring. With such greatness within whites it’s hard to deny something greater. But I do believe that our something greater wants us to succeed. God wants us to succeed. He wants us to exist. He wants us to keep living. He wants us to fight for our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, children, and grandchildren. He wants us to give everything we have to make sure we’re here for the next 1000 years and beyond. He put us here and he damn sure has no interest in seeing us wiped out.

So, in addition to appealing to a need and want within whites to worship something greater, I believe that a return to organized religion would only benefit our nation. It would likely keep women’s partner counts more in check, leading to more healthy and happy marriages and more babies. It would likely help increase cohesion and create happy towns, cities, and villages, potentially bringing up morality rates, as some studies suggest that regular church attendance can. Stronger and more cohesive towns and cities would likely be easier to mobilize to fight against outsiders and aliens. A common set of morals and values would make communicating and agreeing that much easier. Instead of having 100 different things to agree upon we might even be able to narrow it down to 40 or 50, which is still 50% than before. And to me societies 50% more cohesive and more connected are 100% better than what we’re going through now. So my advice to you, find a non-cucked church and go, week in and week out for a year. If you don’t like it, stop. Worst case, you’ll have invested 52 hours (over the course of a year) and you’ll have listened to a nice choir and potentially got to meet some kind, morally upstanding (likely white) people who will only wish you the best. Best case you find an outlet for something greater and a community who you’ll be able to turn to in times of need and can look to as inspiration to be your best self and limit your own degeneracy, in short, a reason to be better and not be black pilled. The choice is yours.

MY FAVORITE ACCESSORIES

from LIZ FASHION FEED http://bit.ly/2VrugpB via IFTTT

#IFTTT #LIZ FASHION FEED

0 notes

sinojikai · 7 years

Text

Six Weeks Into HRT

So I have a bit of a gripe. As you all know very well because I’ve been oh so vocal about it, for the past… almost four years, I’ve been living in this sort of gendered flux. Whether visible to others or not, it has stayed with me rather palpably for a very long time.

I have my curiosities. In fact, they’re more than curiosities. They’ve been so present in my life, these… forces of action, that alongside much deliberation and reflection they directed me toward starting HRT on November 30, and to continue the transformation since. I don’t want to be vain and call them desires, because I don’t feel that wanting to be seen as female, or rather wanting to feel valid as a woman, is vain. But I do recognize that it is an action taken to change your guise so dramatically… I question whether some would recognize me as the person they met years ago if I continued, or if they would simply see a confused facsimile. I recognize that the effortlessness of living with a male identity is admirable (though granted, I think that presenting masculinely is just objectively easier than any alternatives), but I feel that a lot of my discontentment comes from having to live with my male identity being seen as primary, and as exclusive of femininity, or of womanhood in general. That said, I also feel that a lot of my discontentment comes from knowing that my body will never be immaculately that of a cisgender female. With that I also recognize the deepness of my voice, and I recognize that many consider me to be handsome as a man. Yet, when tackling these two issues, I quickly notice that if my voice were more “effeminate” (in quotes because it’s usually meant in disparagement), or if my looks as a man were mediocre in people’s eyes but stunning as a woman, or by proxy, if I were naturally attuned to wearing dresses and jewelry and makeup (for most or all of which I can’t say whether I am or not because I simply have been too feeble to explore), or if I were simply assigned female at birth or born with a female body, there is a good, and perhaps majority chance that I would not have such insecurities about my womanhood.

And perhaps it’s because I’m gender-fluid. My profile currently states that I am a Gender-Fluid Female. It would make sense then that it doesn’t feel emotionally and spiritually exhausting to present as male, versus relieving to present as female. To me, it’s all presentation. But that’s a rational statement. It’s not one that necessarily describes my subjective experience. The fact is that I was born with male physiology, and assigned male at birth. But I found ways to transgress gender, at the very least for my own private satisfaction, from a young age, and especially found ways to through the sexual revelations that came with adolescence – as I’ve said many times before, there was an extremely brief period where I very openly identified as a gay male. (On that note, actually, it’s probable that trying to declare my sexual identity so much has taken a toll on my ability to enjoy or understand it. But of course most in that situation wouldn’t have such a struggle.) I like that, and have become accustomed to, not feeling so pressured by gender roles – or at least not as much as others might be in my position. And perhaps therein lies the answer: could it be that, for me, gender identity and expression is something that I choose, something that I have the capacity to mold for myself? Maybe the idea that I need to “stay male”, or that I “am female”, is overly simplistic.

Admittedly, although they are as subtle as one would expect only six weeks in, the changes I have experienced, as well as the changes I can imagine will occur in the near future, that my body has taken on have been rather pleasing… at first and even on later occasions shocking, and sometimes even shameful… but overall I like the idea of my appearance feminizing. I think that what overwhelms me are internalized fears, that “being a woman” or “transforming into a woman” is to accept myself as inferior, or even puerile. It’s funny how you can berate yourself so much for having certain traits, yet in others you see them as no problem. I often feel, especially having such a deep connection with the male identity I’d/I’ve assumed for so long, like I’m betraying my masculinity, or thus my human decency, by wishing, and willing, to be feminine. And when someone addresses me as man – though it seems genuine that most people don’t mean to masculinize me when they do it, so I don’t mean to scold anyone – I can really become very fragile in my sense of self… My anxious nature exacerbates that. And with that I just feel, even though I enjoy its expression, like gender = social pressure inherently… it leaves me feeling insecure, and it leaves me comparing myself with others (more than I would anyway), and it leaves me wondering constantly about who I really am even when I’m perfectly well. I’m sure, the way I’ve described all of this, that these aren’t just trans issues, even if they might be from a trans perspective… I like that I can write with this clarity about myself, but it helps if others can relate. ESPECIALLY for me.

#gender #transition #hrt #gender binary #questioning #genderqueer #genderfluid #be yourself #find yourself

0 notes