Pomegranate Seeds

Seasonal planning/// opinions and ideas welcome

Pumpkin I’m not confidence the face would ever look like a face because her coat is Long and Flowy

More seasonal planning// opinions and ideas welcome

Sham is nice because any colour can go anywhere and it will show up. The Frankenstein one I just went off his white patches but I could just add others in any other place.

Skeleton is very common but So Much Work is have to really plan it out whereas the others I know I can freehand.

Using their likeness will spark their ire.

Encroachment upon their domain will earn punishment beyond earthly tithe.

The consequences of their regard may be intangible and long-lasting.

Rarely, you may earn their approval, but it is not worth the risk.

You must ask their permission, which is rarely granted.

Once they have you, they will not let you go for a hundred years.

You must be clever and use trickery and wordplay to evade them.

The master of each domain has their own unique and fickle nature, and some are more forgiving than others.

so world help me

it was several black and white panels. first panel was almost cartoonish soul like figures dancing together. They dancers one by one start to fade into the forms of wraith knights.

the knights were headless as the souls were still being joined to them

God I don't even know what her point is here. "Trans" as a term is problematic because it pretends that trans women aren't more oppressed than trans men, the solution is to accept that "trans" is meant to be about a dialectic between the "opposite forces" of masculinity and femininity (and uhhhh nonbinary and agender people too or whatever, which Jules constantly bemoans how much she doesn't understand what a nonbinary experience even is but I'm meant to buy that her theory has genuinely considered how nonbinary and agender people fit into this, sure!!!!!) and t4t is here too and we can fuck about it, problem solved.

I have to point out that she says

There is the non-binary denouncement of so-called binary trans women for apparently taking gender too seriously, or perhaps taking beauty too seriously, in medically transitioning.

And then she cites an article, Why Can’t My Famous Gender Nonconforming Friends Get Laid? by Meredith Talusan. And I do not get why. This article is about Meredith (a nonbinary person) talking about her friends Alok Vaid Menon (who is nonbinary) and Jacob Tobia (who is genderqueer), and their collective observation that Alok and Jacob struggle to get dates by virtue of being visibly gender-non conforming and androgynous, while Meredith (who can pass as a cis woman and went through HRT and SRS while still identifying as binary) is seen as much more desirable. They reflects on their friend's struggles with being nonbinary in the dating world while visibly androgynous in the "wrong" way.

There is nothing in this article about how “binary trans women” must be denounced for “taking gender too seriously.” That is entirely a projection on Peterson's part, one she does nothing to explain; just pops this article into this paper I'm guessing because it pissed her off when she read it. The article is about misandrogyny and how it impacts nb/gq/gnc’s people love lives. But of course, to Peterson, this cannot be interpreted as anything other than an attack on “so-called” binary trans women.

Because nonbinary people are never ever allowed to ever imply that being aligned with the binary in certain ways can result in being spared from kinds of transphobia that others, particularly many nb/gq/gnc people, cannot escape as long as we live authentically. Pointing out that a visibly androgynous, hairy and feminine, body is seen as undesirable is, of course, secretly REALLY about how nonbinary people loathe the True Transsexuals and their HRT and surgeries (nevermind that Meredith is a nonbinary person who physically transitioned, a group that Peterson loves to pretend doesn’t exist). Because everything nonbinary people do and say when it comes to describing our oppression is actually about being big meanies to binary trans people, The Main Characters Of Transness.

The "so-called binary" thing is a dogwhistle imo, because while all trans people can be affected by misandrogyny, binary trans people who CONSTANTLY define themselves in opposition to nonbinary people, love to act like being called binary is a slur (hmmm where have we heard that one before, class?). But I just know it grinded her gears to hear Alok joking about how going on E and getting electrolysis would make them be seen as more desirable, to see a person who decided being a binary trans woman wasn't right for them and who is openly talking about exorsexism/misandrogyny (if not by those names).

this isn't even getting into just how much this whole theory of hers is EXTREMELY fundamentally binary, but she thinks she can get around that by mentioning nonbinary people once or twice and suddenly its totally not everyone! like:

I suggest that trans is better regarded as an auto-antonym than an umbrella or an interchangeable prefix: a word that generates two opposite meanings (in this case, masculine and feminine). This auto-antonymic quality in fact produces many more than one pair of ‘opposite’ meanings, considering that trans holds nonbinary and agender significance too, rejecting any singular masculine/feminine master dialectic.

Nonbinary people are brought up three times in this whole paper, and one of those times was the above-mentioned bad faith reading of that article. & anyways, after reading her blame the fucking Skrmetti decision & the legal attacks on trans healthcare on "vainly championing the ostensible superiority of androgyny, or, today, a kind of immaterial, nonbinary idealism" and her doing that whole fuckass article waxing lyrical about how nonbinary people are just playing dress up and aren't meaningfully different than binary people, I'm sorry but fucking Press X To Doubt that she put the line about nonbinarity in there for any other reason than to say she didn't technically exclude nonbinary people if people yell at her on Twitter.

Anyways re: "the trans battle of the sexes can be fixed by t4t sex and everyone just agreeing that transfems have it worse, because that's the only real problem here :)" didn't S.L Void literally write an essay on this exact "solution":

There are also cases where the reaction [from all types of people] to transmasculine people expressing pain they have suffered due to this kind of discourse and the sweeping generalizations being made about transmasculine people that sounds something like: “in real life we don’t talk about this, we all just kiss each other”, and this reaction is just as shitty as dismissing it entirely. It adds a dynamic of something that many trans people are intimately familiar with, that of the “please, I like you when you don’t speak and are simply something nice to look at”, the kind of reasoning that strikes the fear of being abandoned by loved ones into the hearts of many many trans people of all different gender embodiments. [...] It is not helping anyone to pretend like “in real life” these problems do not exist and in real life we all just kiss, cause it’s not true and it creates a situation where transmasculine people feel like to express pain is to be a party-pooper, and to be an ally is to be happily sexually available with no regard for who perpetuates antitransmasculinity or not. [...] So while yeah, its possible that in real life, some of us are just kissing each other, it’s also true that many of us are doing both — we’re acknowledging and working to combat one another's oppression, and loving each other while we do it. It is also very possible that in real life the opposite is happening, and there is antitransmasculinity and transmisogyny being perpetuated in spaces that should be mostly free of them. ‘Irl we just kiss’ is a dismissal of this, and it’s not helpful for anyone. It mistakes attraction for allyship, something we sincerely cannot afford as a unit.

^^^^ this is the problem with Peterson's whole approach to these gender wars and many other people's. While not always productive, some of this discourse is the dialectic, it is a slow addressing of some deeply unaddressed wounds in our community, and importantly, this cannot be done without addressing anti-transmasculinity and exorsexism alongside anti-transfemininity/transmisogyny.

"there is no trans" is literally ancient baeddelism

as is the idea that trans men arent truly trans because what trans women face is way worse

but she's certainly on her way to that kind of trans radical feminist thought, for sure. "trans is problematic because it obscures that trans men have systemic power over trans women" is not "trans men cannot be trans and using the term trans is inherently transmisogynistic" as a stance, but they are certainly within the same family. i don't think Peterson's takes have to be literally baeddelism for us to call out the family resemblance.

Which sounds like it is a good starting point for looking into the historical context and says that men and women have been "positioned as naturally antagonistic".... but then does nothing to break down this positioning. Does nothing to explore and extrapolate on this supposed "naturalness" of this positioning..... the rest of the essay just goes on doubling down on this "natural antagonism", presuming it is a supported position.

book 7 broke me and my sense of humor

you are in the medieval era and you have this role!

I finished this brushbuddy art doll earlier this week and he is very cute. It's got a wire armature inside and is fully posable, including the leather fingers and toes. (There are also magnets in the feet to potentially stick it to things later.)