A reflection of my ADHD riddled mind

This is probably going to be one of my more incendiary essays, all things considered, but I wanted to publish it anyways since I've been thinking about it a lot. This came from an investigation into the sources that Blanchard originally built on for the autogynephilia hypothesis back in 1989 (Blanchard 1989). All english bits from Hirschfeld's 1921 work Sexualpathologie are me shittly translating it with DeepL, I am very sorry.

“The main thing that brings him sexual satisfaction is putting on complete women's clothing. Just the thought of this makes him happy (...) [and] the stronger he fought against the urge to appear as a woman, the more violently and irresistibly the passion broke through again after a while[.] (...) That is why he cannot stand it when people talk about him ‘dressing up, which is masking, disguising himself’” (Hirschfeld, 1921, 198).

All these quotes demonstrate the central tenant of what Magnus Hirschfeld, arguably one of the most influential sexologist of the 20th century, calls transvestitic automonosexualism, a “sexual perversion” as Hirschfeld himself classified it, but what we would today understand to be a fetish or a sexual orientation, as per Anne Lawrence (2004), one of Blanchard’s most faithful disciples. Something that strikes me as interesting is that, if you think about what Ireland and Kronic say in Cute Accelerationism - that “the shaming of autophilias is literally nothing more or less than a prohibition on liking yourself” (Ireland & Kronic, 2024, 94) - this is exactly that. The case study Hirschfeld bases a lot of his conclusions about transvestitic automonosexualism on, is of someone who “cannot stand it when people talk about him ‘dressing up, which is masking, disguising himself.’” Their sexual enjoyment of crossdressing is brought into the forefront - it is, after all, called a “sexual perversion” by Hirschfeld - but there is clearly some undercurrent of wanting to be a woman, or, at the very least, womanly. Even if they derive pleasure from this, even if they are listed as an transvestitic automonosexual, they still believe this to be something more than a fetish, something more than “masking [or] disguising himself,” right? Even when Hirschfeld mentions that their main form of “sexual satisfaction is putting on complete women's clothing” he follows it up by saying that “[j]ust the thought of this makes him happy.” Their sexual attraction to their own womanly form, achieved most successfully when in full feminine dress, is also their source of happiness. Why can’t trans women enjoy their own bodies sexually, why must that be classified and pathologized? It’s literally just “liking yourself” as Ireland and Kronic rightfully point out and, furthermore, sexual interest in a female body doesn’t eschew other reasons for transition nor does it invalidate people who transition because of it. I am essentially arguing against the pathologization of transness, the different typologies Blanchard dreamed up (AGP and HSTS), but giving him the W in terms of him saying that trans women transition because they “love themselves as women” (the literal meaning of autogynephilia) because, as far back as Mr. T[1] in Hirschfeld’s 1921 chapter on automonosexualism, that’s been exactly the case, be it romantically, sexually, spiritually, societally, or for other reasons.

Thank you for reading.

[1] Mr. T is the name of the subject in the case that Hirschfeld analyzes.

Sources:

Hirschfeld, Magnus. (1921). Sexualpathologie (3. Vol).

Ireland, Amy & Kronic, B. Maya. (2024). Cute Accelerationism.

Lawrence, Anne. (2004). "Autogynephilia: A paraphilic model of gender identity disorder."

The Backrooms, this eerie pool video and an empty motel corridor. What do all of these things have in common? They’re all liminal spaces in which reality, at least as we understand it, is a bit altered. These areas of non reality, or at least reality which does not bend to our traditionally understood perception of what an area is supposed to be, are now a common staple in indie Internet horror like the Backrooms or, if we are to ascribe terms posthumously, creepypasta like Herobrine. Most of these spaces are characterized by their emptiness, their lack of context, the fact that they are scrambled depictions and warpings of our comfortable Inside (as described by Peter Heft). The uncharacteristic, non-standardized Outside is thus a “rupturing ‘of the very fabric of experience itself’” (p.4) that comes to define our reality; our Inside. It is also for this exact reason that most liminal spaces are solo experiences. If we were with another person, if we were to have any hint of the regular experience to cling onto, the Inside stays intact. Therefore, as described by Heft, encounters with horrors of the liminal, the beasts of an eldritch and indescribable nature, “must occur in secluded, run-down areas because secluded locations are thresholds between the world of appearances and the world of things as they are” (p.1).

Liminal spaces, as mentioned beforehand, are now a staple in the internet horror genre. But, in a sense, it has always been a part of horror; the Zones, as Heft calls them, have been a part of horror since the 1970’s and the liminality of theirs is rather caused by someone intruding upon the area. As with Stalker, a 1979 horror film, the meteor crashing into the area, mutating it and creating what Heft calls a “Zone of anomalous materiality” (p.4). This liminality is however not what we see in modern horror, rather in the modern context we observe a liminality which is caused by a lack of anything; sure, in the Backrooms there may be a creature roaming the halls ready to kill you, but the only reason this creature is scary is because there is nothing else. Our inability to piece together anything of our regular material understanding, the Inside, is what creates this fear; the fear of not being able to understand both the beast and the seemingly infinite, wet damp corridors of the Backrooms is what scares us. If we take an example outside of horror for a moment to discuss the uncomfortability one feels when seeing liminal spaces, we can take a schoolhouse. A schoolhouse isn’t scary whatsoever, in fact it is usually a place of joy; it is therefore only scarier and eerier when the schoolhouse lacks the one thing we usually associate it with: people. When the schoolhouse is empty, completely devoid of any children, teachers or sound it is “stripped of its context” and, with no ties to reality left to us, it becomes “a threshold between two worlds” where “anything can happen” (p.15). With the schoolhouse, the eeriness comes not from a threat imminent to our danger as in most horror, but rather comes from the fact that nothing is normal, nothing means anything here. We are in an in-between place devoid of any of the reasoning, natural laws or anything that standardize and come to structure our reality (i.e, our Inside).

We are constantly reminded of this in the liminal. When in the Backrooms we see no junk, no equipment which reminds us of a life on the outside; just the same walls, the same wallpaper pattern and the same strangely damp carpet. When in the schoolhouse, the only thing to hear and see are your own shadows and the sound of the clock ticking away; time feels impossibly slow, as if the sound of time ticking by is a mere illusion and a twisted tortuous mirage of the normalcy that this space is void of. But it is not real, time isn’t ticking by on the clock as it would in our world with context; for even the slightest hint of returning to the Inside, of yet once more returning to the island and merely peeking out at the black sea of infinity harbouring all we do not understand instead of being submerged in it, would mean “‘the eerie disappears.’” Here, in these infinite deterritorialized Zones brimming with as much potential as there is nothingness, “‘[t]here’s no such things as facts’” (p.16).

Thank you for reading. This paper was quite difficult to get through but it was also really interesting because I got to learn some Deleuze & Guattari along the way.

Sources:

Yes. Yes you read that right. This short little dive through history will discuss how virtual worlds with VIP or exclusive rank memeberships often, be it purposeful or not on the part of the developers, cause the game to become very classist. Essentially, there exists a boundrary between the non-VIP members and the VIP. MovieStarPlanet (MSP) has been chosen here because it is a game i personally played when I was younger and using Izzzyzzz's 2022 deep dive video on the game as a form of concrete backing behind my hypothesis.

So, what even is classism? Well as described earlier classism, in a MSP context, is the seperation of VIP and non-VIP members. But it isn't as simple as that, it has more to do with how the VIP members behave around non-VIP members which dictate whether or not it is truly classist. Classism is a broad topic and tries with varying sucess to integrate many different intersectional elements (Pincus & Sokoloff, 2008), but today we're just going to be viewing it through the lens of class discrimination. In Pincus & Sokoloff's 2008 paper they outline how individual discrimination, a form of intetional harrasment, can be enacted on thsoe lower in the class hierarchy than oneself. Especially relevant to this story's example, they note that "they can be snobbish and say negative things about people 'below' them" [p.19].

From personal experience and from Izzzyzzz's video, this happened on MSP a lot. With a lot of the content on the site being paywalled, the VIP membership was a must have or at least must have for those who wanted to enjoy the game beyond the shallow perameters provided by the developers. This led many to the membership but also inadvertently created a class divide amongst the MSP playerbase; the foundation for classism to even exist in the first place. This class distinciton, creates an "us" and "them" mentatlity which seeps into the very fabric of the game. "Poor" or non-VIP members are treated almost as if they do not have a place in the game, as if their very existence is "below" the VIP's, as mentioned in the earlier quote. To quote Izzzyzzz: "the intense paywalling to bullying quote unquote poor players pipeline is real with this game" (10:04-10:09). The divide which exists between those who can pay for VIP and those who can't may not be the classism in and of itself and may rather be, as mentiond by Pincus & Solokoff, "capitalism in action" [p.20]. Yet still, as Izzzyzzz goes on to mention the discrimination between "rich" and "poor" players still very much exists and it usually happens in the form of bullying someone for their outfit/style (10:15-10:37). Non-VIP clothes, from personal experience, don't allow for that much expression. Therefore, those who have VIP look down upon those who don't because they have the ability to express themselves more; to not look "poor" or, one could say, "lower class."

MSP, by all means, has a classist and hypercapitalist system which promotes the purchase of VIP to join the upper classes of MSP society (Väistö, 2016) and, inadvertently, promotes classism due to the large divide in expression there is between the two groups. This makes it easier to point and laugh at those the "rich" deem as "below" them, "poor," or, in a game where social capital and looks are all (Väistö, 2016), "ugly." The effect this has on the real world might seem miniscule and insignificant, but, as demonstrated by Väistö's investigation into younger MSP players, this is not the case: "herefore, in this instance, there is a connection between the status children construct for themselves both online and offline" (2016: 125).

Thank you so much for reading this giant block of text. This one was particularly fun to write because I found a thesis I really enjoyed reading through. Sources are below as always:

"Tourist expansion ruins local life" is not something I fully agree with. In fact, I actually think it can help with promoting and amplifying the history of a certain area. But that isn't what this post is; rather, this little dive through history is to explain why tourism and its subsequent expansion, tramples access, the people's will and free spaces in search of more profit.

This post will mainly base itself off the story of the Portside Park, mentioned in chapter 2 of Blomley's 2004 book "Unsettling The City: Urban Land and The Politics of Property". Whilst its main focus point is gentrification, a topic much more complex and storied than this, I believe the point it makes applies just as well to tourist expansion and its destructive capabilities.

The Portside Park, or as it was known by activits at the time CRAB Park, was a small fenced off park area in an otherwise industrial waterfront district [p.46]. The park, owned by the VPC (Vancouver Port Corporation), was seen by the VPC executives and managers to be a desolate and abandoned place. It was "occupied by weeds, rocks and junk, and desperately polluted with toxic silt" and, as described by one VPC representative, "is not a heavily used park." [both quotes from p.47]. This attitude shows clearly what those, less caring of the people's use of the park, was what led to the clash between commercial interests and protesters observed in the summer of 1984 [see Figure 2.9, p.48]. It was the rage of a people who saw, what they believed to be "'the People's Park'" [p.48], being used for something which was anything but for the people. They wanted a compromise, a space that could be "'noncommercial,' that is as consciously different from other proposals for the land, some of which included private 'improvements.'" [p.48]. These private improvements, most likley refer back to remodelling the park, not for the benefit of the locals, but rather for the tourist and gamblers coming into the area [see p.48-49]. Finally, Blomley notes one last quote by one Dunphy M., "'I think our people would feel uncomfortable with and there would be people uncomfortable with us. If development takes the shape that creates that kind of class difference, it could dillute the community's hold on the park'" [p.48-49]. Blomley furhter expands upon this quote on page 168, mentioning exclusion and access to the park as reasons for the protest and blocakdes to occur when and where they did.

To prove that this concept, of capitalist interests phasing out accessibality in search of more profit, is a global one we must look back at Bugibba; specifically the "Perched Beach" and its current privatization.

Bugibba's beaches have been open since the dawn of their opening. They have been spaces where tourists and locals alike can enjoy a nice breeze, the warm water and access to the ocean. In 2006, when the "Perched Beach" was opened as a tourist attraction, it was promised to always be open: "Once again, we shall ensure that the public area remains just that - public: for the free enjoyment of all'" (Borg, 2024). These words have seemingly gone hollow in the minds of those who stand for the public development of Bugibba. Little public funding has gone to it, grants for the construction of property which only hinders public access to it and little enforcing of their shaky 2006 promise are all issues which have led to recent protest. Quoting the editorial posted just about a month ago, "for decades, the laissez-faire attitude of shoreline preservation has led to illegalities" (Times of Malta, 2024). Capitalist interest once again fail to account for the history of Bugibba, made even worse by the unfortunate fact that Bugibba lacks much history to respect/refer back to, to rally activism (refer back to my previous post, "Bugibba and Young (1983)."

The language, the sentiment which was espoused by those unaware of the Portside Park’s history and culture, is similar to that of those who are privatizing the beaches of Bugibba. This is why Bugibba’s history, the history of why its public and available beaches are a cornerstone in Bugibbian life, is important. It is the language that was used by the people of the Seaport, the people of Bugibba and countless other local peoples who have been victims to the trap of tourist expansion. It is this issue, this rabid need for more guests, more tourism and more money flowing into the companies unaware of the history and people they're trampling over. If they do not care for the history, those who do will make them care; make them aware that "the beaches belong to the people" (Times of Malta, 2024).

[This is part of a much larger script on the history of Bugibba] [This will also be a lot longer than my previous post, I apologize]

Bugibba is one of the largest resort towns in the entirety of Malta and has been that way for the past 80 years, since its initial boom in the 1960's. It, however, has little history and heritage to speak of which is why information on it is so hard to find. That's why Chapman & Speake's amazing 2011 paper is such an invaluable asset and its also how I found Young's 1983 paper which this post will focus on. This post, compared to the one I made yesterday, is slightly more analysis based rather than a retelling of some interesting history.

But why Young (1983)? As Chapman & Speake mention: “Prior to the 1950s, Bugibba and its neighbouring settlements such as Qawra and St. Paul’s Bay were small fishing and farming based communities” (2011: 483). This makes Young’s paper really interesting in the context of its focus and Bugibba’s former status as a fishing town (which it had been for decades [e.g Chircop 2010], if not centuries [e.g Abell 2007: 125]). It describes 6 stages of development, which will be projected onto Bugibba below.

i. The early traditional stage is pretty much still the traditional fishing-farming village, with the only tourists who come there being those who come to visit relatives (p.38). This is most likely the state in which the 1899-1907 survey of Malta was done, by the British Royal School of Military Engineering (NAM 1899-1907). This map shows a significant lack of an established city with only a few (presumably) houses by the shore (fishermen or farmers, most probably).

ii. The late traditional stage is similar to the previous stage, however some infrastructure has been built for tourism; not necessarily hotels/accommodation, but rather summer homes which the wealthy use on their time off. Possibly, the city may even get a police station, indicating that the government knows the potential of a future resort town (p.36, 38). This is similar to what Chapman & Speake said themselves (p.486), about what Bugibba was like pre-1950 tourist boom.

iii. The initial tourism stage is when people start to come to the village, although tourism in and of itself hasn’t really started. They respect the local culture, seeing as some of them are poets/wealthy and themselves dabble in culture, and they stay mostly separated. The villagers live on as if the tourists aren’t really there, or as Young states, “‘apathetic’” (p.38). NAM (1928), a motion to start an archaeological investigation into Bugibba, could reasonably be used to plot time. It wouldn't be unreasonable to state that amongst the poets and wealthy coming to Bugibba, might be some archaeologists. This plots pretty accurately on the rest of the accounts of Bugibba's development.

iv. The early tourism stage describes when a fishing town, like Bugibba, has finally been acknowledged for its potential. This brings with constructions of tourism complexes, commercial enterprises (shops that aren’t for village living essentials as in stage i-iii) and more. The village is being encroached upon by the tourist infrastructure, possibly even by Maltese with good money[fn1]. “Natives”, accepting the inevitable, mingle with tourists and trade food, products and newspapers and additionally, some who have the qualifications to, help the tourists out with their medical issues.

v. The expanding tourism stage signifies a point in which the village has been designated (usually by the government) to be a tourist attraction and now infrastructure to accommodate tourism is built. This also includes stuff like a new school or bus lines, which also incidentally help out the locals. One of the defining infrastructural developments is the building of a “major luxury hotel” [p.38]. New shops and attractions will open up and, whilst the older village locals might worry, the newer village locals embrace the new attention the village’s getting. This would be Bugibba leading into the 1950’s and it is from here that the development which Chapman & Speake go over.

vi. The intensive tourism stage of tourist development is the final one and it is what can be observed in the early days of Bugibba's tourist boom. The town has been ransacked by private companies looking to get their own piece of the tourism pie, new self-catering apartments, hotels and villas for tourists from all over the world to visit. The urban development of the town has gone into full swing and "the only traces remaining of the Early Traditional Stage" [p.40] are the few monuments and fishing huts which people deem as the town's heritage. This is true too in Bugibba, as little if anything from this period remains intact. 

Almost 4 decades ahead of his time, Young commented on the model he created, asking: “How may the villscape change after Stage 6? Will it, in time, lose some of its appeal as a tourist destination?” [p.41]. This is what Chapman & Speake spend a majority of their time discussing, asking an eerily similar question at the end of their paper: “If Bugibba’s future is not as a resort, then questions concerning its form, function and identity need to be asked” [p.490]. Thanks for reading if you did and below are the references. This was really fun to put together.

Footnotes: 1. E.g, it could be that Calleja Giuseppe (NAM, 1920), who was going to America, possibly in Detroit for work (Sanko, 2018: 113), came back with good money and helped with the building of new tourist infrastructure

References: Abell, N. (2007). The Role of Malta in Prehistoric Mediterranean Exchange Networks. Chapman, A. & Speake, J. (2011). Regeneration in a mass-tourism resort: The changing fortunes of Bugibba, Malta Chircop, J. (2010). Living on Fishing, Caught in the Market: The Maltese fishing communities, 1860s-1920. Sanko, M. A. (2018). Britishers in Two Worlds: Maltese Immigrants in Detroit and Toronto, 1919-1960. Young, B. (1983). Touristization of traditional Maltese fishing-farming villages.

Russenorsk was, by all means, something which could be described as a "langauge of trade." It was formed solely to make it possible, and easier, to communicate across trade; the Norwegians couldn't speak Russian and the Russian "Pomors" couldn't speak Norwegian. This topic however, is quite large in scope and one Tumblr post wouldn't near do it justice. For a better comprehensive view of the development of Russenorsk, I would point readers to Broch & Jahr (1988) for a Norwegian source and Kortlandt (2000) for an English source.

No this zooms in on one specific aspect of it: the contacts between the Norwegian hunters on Svalbard in the 18th and 19th and the Pomors who either came to trade, hunt or build ships. This specificity is based off of Minaeva & Karelin (2020), a paper which discusses the rise and decline of the Russenorsk language on Svalbard.

The first contact between people on Svalbard and Pomors would be in 1744. However, it would be another 30 ish years before any real cooporation was made between the two people; in the meanwhile, many contacts were made but they were mostly due to stops in bigger trips or shiprecks [p.117]. It wasn't until the 1780's that the Pomor people and Norwegians began working together and "marked the beginning of joint Russian-Norwegian crafts in the archipelago" [p.118]. And throughout the next 70 or so years, the Pomor-Svalbard trade or at least communications became well established and accidents and triumps litter the time period [p.118-120].

Now, to the actual point of this post, the language development was due to several different reasons. One being that the Russian-Norwegian trade had been going on for ages, since at least the 16th century; even during England's continetal blockade during the Napoleonic wars, was unable to stop the trade between the two nations. Second, the language, as mentioned above, was done to make trading between the two peoples much easier [p.121]. The language was fully developed through to the mid 19th century. A Russian explorer, poignant in his remark of the stark contrast with which the Pomors and Norwegians spoke with ease, whilst when he got to Norway that "'now i only feel my hopelessness" [p.122].

The Pomors learned the langauge, knowing they would be stranded on Svalbard for a bit after their expeditions or hunting seasons. They learned the langauge for trade, yet also to call out for emergency [p.123-124]. The Russenorsk language, in all of its beauty when one thinks about it poetically, was ultimately only a langauge of short-term use. Soon, when the trade stopped due to Bolshevik blockade of the Pomor trade and connections between the two peoples faded, the langauge did too [p.122]. The langauge, which once although shallow, connected two foreign peoples with one another, faded into irrelevancy (at least in Svalbard).

That's about it. Thank you a lot of reading this if you got to the end, this is very hapharzdly put together but its just to test the waters with how I use this blog. Anyways, see ya next time when I inevitably get the random urge to post something here. References: Minaeva, T.S. & Karelin, V.A. (2020). Language contacts between Pomors and Norwegians during expeditions to Svalbard in the second half of the 18th — first half of the 19th centuries.

Kortlandt, F. (2000). On Russenorsk.