Nowhere

And look, okay, listen. I have a film degree. Im not in any an expert on cinema nor am I a film scholar but I do have some higher formal education on the topic, and I am a trans person who has, unfortunately, been 21. Here's my 2 cents:

Firstly, trans-coded villains in horror movies (namely the "man in a dress" archetype) is pretty cinema 101. It IS so extensively talked about that you were probably drawing an eye in the back of the lecture hall if you dont remember anything being said about it. If you ever take a horror movie class specifically then you are absolutely guaranteed to have this conversation and have the plethora of scholarship about it thrown at you for required reading.

Secondly, I do not like this idea that simply being a bit rude or short with someone of a particular demographic is always and exclusively rooted in a prejudice towards the identity group(s) they are a part of. There is a VERY big difference between active transphobia and just being a bit of a dick, and conflating the two is going to make things very messy and potentially dangerous. For starters, you are going to create an extremely paranoid and jumpy bunch of young trans people who are absolutely convinced that the entire world is out to kill them when they inevitably encounter some random asshole in the real world. And you are going to give a whole bunch of conservatives a whole bunch of ammunition to say that we think every minor inconvenience or moment of discomfort is a targeted attack against us, frankly because you are acting like it is.

Additionally, every 21 year old has a very weird superiority complex. I did, you did/do/will. It just comes with the territory. Youre having your first taste of true independence and are probably in undergrad, which is an environment that drip-feeds you a lot of rewards for doing essentially what you just did in high school again but at a slightly higher difficulty with less social ostracism. If you live on your own or in the dorms with other 21 year olds, you will all just feed into each other's superiority complexes. You end up convinced that you and your friends are the smartest people alive and the first ones to ever come up with certain ideas, that I promise have been thought of by millions of 21 year olds before you. This includes "has anyone else noticed that trans-coded villains are common in horror movies?" And I think its justified to have a bit of a reality check in someone saying "yes, everyone has, this has been discussed extensively for generations, youre just 21."

Finally, I do not appreciate in the slightest the response to this tweet being "silence of the lambs has no artistic merit and should be scrubbed from the media landscape entirely because of Buffalo Bill." If you personally are not comfortable with/do not have the ability to look past the trans-coded villain archetype you dont have to watch it, but to act like the presence of a poorly-aged trope completely negates all the very real positive impact a foundational film did for modern horror is infuriatingly anti-intellectual and betrays your one-dimensional morality around media, as well as your complete inability to look at something objectively.

"This was addressed directly, you just didn't actually watch the movie."

He's also a repeated murderer who has killed people since he was 12.

To people who think self-identification is all that matters, denying that Buffalo Bill is 'Trans' is denying them.

Of course that means that Buffalo Bill, a notorious serial killer is then 'hateful negative representation' and you can't have any GNC figures being villains because people are offended that people would portray them as monsters.

Swordfish lives through the pursuit of the world’s worst archers, and finally meets Grym! I can’t tell if either of them are very enthusiastic about their situation, but at least Hopper’s happy!

As a contrast to Lucifer's terrible memory, Lilith has an unsettlingly good memory for faces and names, even for people she's only seen once.

"You're blessed to be here."

Not, "You are welcome", or "We welcome you to Heaven."

No.

Like a lot of things in this genre it kinda points out differences between ideals expressed in science fiction (or cases when something dystopian has been produced), generates negative affect from them, and smears that negative affect all over a bunch of stuff with (in my view) little rational justification.

Also MASSIVE gell-mann amnesia regarding EAs and longtermism IMO, and "what do you care if the bridge falls down? The most important thing is that it centers minority voices" mentality.

I think some of these problems are common in an essay that jumps between many different topics.

It says we shouldn't care about a supposedly theoretical, far off human extinction by evil robots and then talks about Sam Altman perceiving that the potentially evil/dangerous robots are forming right now in his own hands.

One: Why does the top say "stories of a better future"? That's not what science fiction is. That's not even what the article body is about. The article later says "Gibson’s vision was explicitly dystopian".

Two:

Star Trek depicts a post-scarcity, post-capitalist society where money has been abolished and humanity works toward collective betterment.

Star Trek is wrong or incoherent on this point. "Post-scarcity" is a buzzword that collapses under scrutiny. The strict interpretation is physically impossible because Chateau Picard is scarce; there aren't enough French chateaus to go around. The loose interpretation is already accomplished. Roddenberry didn't understand why money is.

Like, that's not sci-fi, that's fantasy! Two entirely different genres!

I need people to understand that Stella is a victim AND an abuser, these things can co-exist in the same person. She's just not a victim of Stolas, but she is a victim of the system. Meanwhile Stolas is a victim of the system AND a victim of Stella (and Andrealphus). That's the difference.