Kunabee

Hello!

So the perfectly vertical scar is unrealistic for a couple of reasons. Main one is that very few scars are perfectly pointed in any direction, especially not traumatic ones (surgical ones might be but I'm not familiar with any procedure that leaves a vertical scar through someone's eye). Second, for the eye specifically, it just doesn't make sense anatomically (?) since eyes tend to be set deeper in the skull so that this exact thing doesn't happen - they're sitting in two big holes surrounded by bone. The third is that if someone did actually get slashed in a face with enough force to make the second point irrelevant they'd likely either die or have something much more significant happen to them (behind eye is where the brain is stored, so...). Or at least lose the eye, since the globe just got cut in half.

With this in mind, you have a few options.

A: Leave both the monocular blindness, scar, and backstory in and just make it make more sense. For example, maybe she was hit (can fit the original cause) and had an orbital fracture (can leave a scar or just general asymmetry in the area), it got infected and she started having eye problems (endogenous endophthalmitis). I'm honestly not sure how probable cataracts would be here since it's really mostly a progressive condition, but if she was to receive some sort of trauma to the lens then a cataract could form there. Just keep in mind that other things would probably happen as well, it'd be impressive to hit only one specific eye structure (whilst doing it hard enough to cause a permanent problem).

B: Leave the cataract and scar. Hell, they can be unrelated. Maybe she developed the cataract as she grew older and also had a scar from, IDK, (there really isn't anything that results in that kind of scar so cut me some slack) a laceration from some machinery that she had when she was younger and had to get it stitched up, which left a more-or-less vertical scar. Keep in mind that if she has an eyelid scar, that will affect its functioning - for example, if it sticks out, she might not be able to fully open the eyelid.

C: Leave the cataract and give her a more common kind of scar instead. This is easy since literally any scar will be more common. Some ideas; hit the forehead on the roof of a car while getting in, had a tumor that had to be removed, born with a facial cleft, got a really bad skin infection, had meningitis, boiling water fell from a stove top, needed brain surgery, born with (anterior) encephalocele, minor injury that she kept picking on and it healed poorly, family dog bit her, broken nose from getting accidentally elbowed in the face by someone, car crash where she hit the dashboard with her head, part of skin had to be removed due to skin cancer... The choice is yours. Literally anything would be more realistic and interesting (since the vertical eye scar is just treated as a visual quirk the same way a mole is rather than a Thing caused by Something most of the time and a Thing caused exclusively by swordfighting the rest of the time).

As to drawing it, you probably could make the scar either less extensive with the same severity (e.g., only shows on the brow bone and cheek) or make it more severe with the same extensiveness (it does show up on the eyelids and general eye area, but there is visible asymmetry, skin/bone indentation, ptosis, etc.).

The thing below is something I drew really quickly right now for reference, IDK how helpful it is but just be aware that the way eyes are placed in the face is designed to specifically avoid things getting into them. So if you're bypassing that, the actual structure of the face has probably been changed.

Hope this helps!

i don’t think any of this is incorrect or disrespectful to point out— because yes, a LOT of cis women share traits with trans women. it makes sense! both cis women and trans women are women, and there will obviously be a lot of crossover in experiences. many women, cis and trans, are subject to violence and degendering for having traits that society associates with “maleness”— the conception of which is inextricably tied to white supremacy and european beauty standards.

but the unspoken assumption in a lot of these well-meaning tags is that trans women sharing traits with cis women is what makes them women. this line of reasoning, while clearly not malicious, still implicitly associates womanhood with sex assigned at birth. that is dangerous for all trans people, and ends up making many trans women feel that their acceptance and legitimacy as women is conditional on the basis that they share a majority of traits with cis women.

i am all for finding common ground between cis and trans women, and love sharing experiences with my cis women friends and realizing how similar we are. but in discussions that specifically center transmisogyny, i think it is important to consider the pitfalls of using cis womanhood, or worse, the quality of having been AFAB (i fucking loathe the language around sex assignment and how frequently it’s weaponized against and used to misgender trans and intersex people, but it does come up frequently in these discussions, so i’m reluctantly using it here) as the metric by which the legitimacy of trans womanhood is measured.

love love love this way too much to keep hidden in the tags, i hope you don’t mind me highlighting your tags and rambling a bit lol

womanhood (much of this applies to gender writ large, but i’m focusing on womanhood here) is, to me, something that is performed, practiced, and embodied by an individual every moment of every day, and the positionality of “woman” emerges as a result of those interactions with the outside world and society. the tautology of “trans women are women because they are women” is unhelpful because it denies further inquiry and analysis into what it actually means to move through the world as a trans woman. it’s a thought-terminating cliche. trans women are women because we perform and embody our womanhood every day, and when we refuse to grow up to be cis men and enforce and reproduce patriarchy, we are misogynized and subject to patriarchal violence far more aggressively than cis women are, with absolutely none of the scant protection that cis womanhood affords. this is not to say that trans womanhood is rooted inherently rooted in suffering or whatever alternate interpretations of my words the reading comprehension website will conjure up. rather, in a patriarchal society, the positionality of “trans woman” is constructed by both our joyous assertion and embodiment of our womanhood, and the material reaction to that assertion by a society that considers us disposable sex objects and targets of ridicule, harassment, and violence.

i dream of a future where trans people embracing and embodying their authentic selves is met with love and enthusiastic support instead of violence and subjugation. a future where transness, and particularly trans womanhood, can be entirely free from its relationship to patriarchy. but we’ll never make it to that future if we don’t put into words our current conditions, and use that awareness to inform political action.

so here's a super long post about strokes in general, and mine in particular/what I went through.

a) yes, they did.

b) cool, YOU never heard it, so it didn't happen?

c) okay cool, they more often use terms like, "Israel heavily lobbies Congress and thus influences Congressional decisions--"

So does China and over a dozen Arab Muslim countries, yet I don't see you accusing Chinese or Muslim Americans of "controlling Congress" on those grounds.

In fact, you accuse anyone who does of being "Sinophobic/Islamophobic."

Showing you're all two-faced hypocrites.

d) And again, that's beside the point:

The Left claims to protect minorities.

The Left harasses and attacks Jews.

The Left claims Jews "don't count as minorities" because "Israel donates to Congress, so Jews are REALLY the ones with power--"

Except

1) Diaspora Jews =/= Israelis

2) You cowards never attack ACTUAL Trump Congress Officials or Trump fans at Trump Rallies, because you know deep down they'll actually hit back and/or legally retaliate with the full force of the law.

Thereby demonstrating with your COWARDLY ACTIONS who you REALLY think is in power.

You're not "punching up at those in power" when you harass and attack Jews, you're BULLIES AND COWARDS who're PUNCHING DOWN AT AN EASY TARGET.

I think you’re just throwing out “I hate these two groups and they’re both men” to say it and aren’t actually taking in what the people you’re arguing against are saying.

MRAs are anti-feminists. They blame their struggles on women and feminism.

Trans men are speaking on the specific issues they face at the intersection of sexism over their bodies, transphobia, and effects from the standards of toxic masculinity being perpetuated around them. They blame their struggles and oppression on the same thing feminists blame their struggles and oppression on—patriarchy. Most trans men speaking on transandrophobia are feminists and are finding a commonality between the struggles of women, both trans and cis, and trans men, while speaking about how these things impact them specifically as trans men (not just as trans, not just as men; stop separating experiences like this, it’s the opposite of intersectional!) in ways that might not be felt by or seen by others.

But you see a man saying anything about oppression and assume instead of reading what’s being said.