AgentBlackDog

(TADC spoilers)

As I grow older I think that the lens of "representation" can be a very limiting way to view queer fiction, especially things drawing from a queer creator's own lived experiences, and Jax's story is a great example of why.

By some rubrics, Jax is "bad transfem representation." She's a fucked up, maladjusted person who never actually even transitions, who pushes away and hurts most of the people close to her, and whose story ends tragically with something that partially evokes suicide. (Though the abstractions are still, you know, alive, and they seem to still be in there somewhere, so I don't like reading it as a 1:1 metaphor. And also obviously Jax's real world counterpart is still alive and seems to be doing better lol.) Jax isn't an aspirational character for trans women watching the show or someone who makes trans women look good to cis audiences. She's unflattering and suffers a downfall of her own making and only realizes that she's still capable of being loved after it's too late. Thus, "bad representation."

The tragedy of Jax's story is something deeply personal, a cautionary tale about the ugly side of dysphoria and internalized misogyny and bad parent-child relationships and what happens when you repress yourself into a jaded, irony-poisoned mess rather than letting yourself be vulnerable in front of other people. It's a pain that a lot of us can relate to, because real people don't always mirror "good representation," and seeing that pain expressed in a work of art like this helps us process those feelings and know that we aren't alone. The ugliness isn't a mistake, it's the point.

Yes, I also love cute and fun and hopeful and sappy stories about queer characters that make me feel warm and fuzzy inside, which is closer to how most of the other characters' stories end in TADC, living happily ever after in a version of the circus where they get to live life how they want to live. Neither is the singular "right" way to tell queer stories, because we need more of ALL kinds of queer stories, because art is subjective and different things will speak to different people. And it's beautiful that this is a story reached such a wide audience and was able to speak to so many people. I hope Jax put things in perspective for some folks.

(TADC spoilers)

As I grow older I think that the lens of "representation" can be a very limiting way to view queer fiction, especially things drawing from a queer creator's own lived experiences, and Jax's story is a great example of why.

By some rubrics, Jax is "bad transfem representation." She's a fucked up, maladjusted person who never actually even transitions, who pushes away and hurts most of the people close to her, and whose story ends tragically with something that partially evokes suicide. (Though the abstractions are still, you know, alive, and they seem to still be in there somewhere, so I don't like reading it as a 1:1 metaphor. And also obviously Jax's real world counterpart is still alive and seems to be doing better lol.) Jax isn't an aspirational character for trans women watching the show or someone who makes trans women look good to cis audiences. She's unflattering and suffers a downfall of her own making and only realizes that she's still capable of being loved after it's too late. Thus, "bad representation."

The tragedy of Jax's story is something deeply personal, a cautionary tale about the ugly side of dysphoria and internalized misogyny and bad parent-child relationships and what happens when you repress yourself into a jaded, irony-poisoned mess rather than letting yourself be vulnerable in front of other people. It's a pain that a lot of us can relate to, because real people don't always mirror "good representation," and seeing that pain expressed in a work of art like this helps us process those feelings and know that we aren't alone. The ugliness isn't a mistake, it's the point.

Yes, I also love cute and fun and hopeful and sappy stories about queer characters that make me feel warm and fuzzy inside, which is closer to how most of the other characters' stories end in TADC, living happily ever after in a version of the circus where they get to live life how they want to live. Neither is the singular "right" way to tell queer stories, because we need more of ALL kinds of queer stories, because art is subjective and different things will speak to different people. And it's beautiful that this is a story reached such a wide audience and was able to speak to so many people. I hope Jax put things in perspective for some folks.

A tragic scene:

My turtle notices the blueberry I put out for him but in his excitement he drops it into his pond. He considers a recovery mission on his own, then turns to me for assistance instead.

you ever have just like, a really bad idea

山田維史 「企業PR誌表紙絵 ー 環境シリーズ "カマキリ”」 1987年　キャンヴァスボードに油彩、アクリル絵の具

i'm assuming you're an anti-vaxxer and this is about me being vaccinated

vaccines are complicated and is technically a poison like all medicine is but it's a heavily regulated poison that's designed to make you stronger

as i said before, vaccines work by tricking the immune system into thinking it got infected so that your adaptive immunity can protect you in the future

there are a bunch of different kinds of vaccines: attenuated, inactivated, replicating viral vector, nonreplicating viral vector, RNA, DNA, virus-like, and protein subunit

attenuated means the virus in the vaccine is weakened. this is the oldest type of "vaccination" dating back to china in the fifteenth century. what they did back then was that they got scabs from people who had smallpox and you either snorted it or you put it in an open wound. it very risky but better than getting smallpox naturally and it was in 1769 that edward jenner popularised a method where you infected people with cowpox which made them immune to smallpox. today what we do is grow viruses in nonhuman primate cell cultures and just hope they mutate enough to be harmless to humans. and this kind does have a chance of infecting you but its better than getting infected naturally.

inactivated means we've killed the virus so it cannot replicate. this is safe, much much safer that attenuated. but it can still infect people. still better than nothing.

replicating viral factor means you put the genetic material that creates the protein shell into another virus that's harmless to humans. it will replicate and won't infect you.

nonreplicating viral factor is the same thing as replicating viral factor but the virus cannot replicate.

RNA vaccines are the hot new shit. so you get the mRNA of the virus that codes for the protein shell, inject that, and have your cells make it. your immune cells don't know what it is and bam you have immunity. its so cool and is 100% safe because while reverse transcription is a thing, your body doesn't really have the means to do reverse transcription because primers are very specific to organisms.

DNA vaccines are basically the same as the RNA ones except the cells need to go through the process of converting it into mRNA. perfectly safe.

virus-like vaccines means its just the protein shell with no DNA or RNA inside. no chance of infection or replication.

protein subunits means its just the little spikes on viruses which is what your immune system detects anyway. incredibly safe.

yes the attenuated and inactivated ones can still infect people but having been super damaged either through mutations or attempted murder, the infection is mild. it still causes an epidemic if just one person gets infected because for diseases that these kinds if vaccines are made with, usually no one has the disease anymore.

I think it must be, at least partially, because, people hate the imperfect victim. Its easy for so many people to sympathize with someone who never lashed out. Less so for people to sympathize with people who are angry and lash out. Even though its a perfectly sensible reaction to being hurt over and over. I'm sure most people would like to think they would simply never.