21st Century Schizoid Man

I've always known that sex and gender have two different definitions, even though people often used "sex" and "gender" interchangeably, including some governments, so I thought it was out of some kind of polite propriety and didn't care enough to look into it.

I agreed with the "trans rights are human rights" thing because the statement isn't false, trans people are people, and so their rights are human rights. Yes, I'm apparently a very literal person.

I didn't internally acknowledge that slogans are naturally reductive, and thus look into what exactly this social movement wanted, and I think in part it's because there were just so many social movements you had to "support" to be considered truly "leftist".

And online, leftism is the only truly "compassionate" position. If you care about humankind, you're a leftist - so says the internet dogma.

There was constant talk about a "trans genocide" and discrimination against trans people; and so, as someone who is not trans and who doesn't live near the areas the supposed genocide is occurring, who am I to question their lived experience?

Now not to be too Israeli but I started peaking October 7th 2023. The same people cheering the rape and murder of my people and writing long posts on how the invasion of my country was "justified" were the same people talking about "trans rights are human rights".

In the eyes of the "compassionate leftists" online: either, human rights themselves don't matter in every situation or my people were just not considered human enough for those rights. Either way, I wasn't willing to sit with that.

I'd normalized a lot things in these spaces and it's only since I've stepped out do I now realize how bad it was for me mentally. If it quacks like a duck, walks a duck but says it's a chicken, I was supposed to believe it's a chicken to be considered a "compassionate" person. No wonder it was a detrimental to my mental health.

It was all "gender isn't important" unless you're trans and then you're allowed to think it's important again. Or, how androgyny as a gender-expression was completely swallowed by the term "non-binary" which talks like a biological reality despite it not being one. I looked back at the tweets that had JKR so publicly villainized and I realized I don't disagree with a single word she said.

I allowed myself to watch interviews with gender-critical people, like Helen Joyce and Jamie Reed. I found out about the Tavistock Clinic. I heard about the lunacy that is the Tickle v. Giggle lawsuit. I watched interviews from transsexuals and detransitioners, like Marcus Dib and Maia Poet. Her quote: "My body is not a pathology," really hit.

I think gender dysphoria is a mental illness, and like anorexia the proper treatment for it is to not affirm the person's warped perception of themself. It's absurd that being a life-long medical patient and self-mutilation are considered "compassionate" in leftist spaces.

I watched interviews from ex-Muslim women who recount how their lives were saved by the sex-based rights in the western world, like Yasmine Mohammad and Nuriyah Khan. I read Feminism for Women by Julie Bindel and, frankly, I loved it.

The statistics, obviously, aren't very heartwarming but the book itself made me feel comforted. I realized it'd been so long since I'd read / seen anything that wholeheartedly put the welfare of women, as women, first - no disclaimers, no caveats, no amendments. It stood on it's own, important enough to do so.

I want more of that. That's important to me.

I think there hasn't been sex-based (women's) rights for that long yet, not even 200 years, and much of the non-western world doesn't even have that. I think we're still in an adjustment period. Like, we're technically still asking what do men and women look like / act like / what are their roles in an equal society?

Like, people are individuals who make their own choices, yes. But, our sex also comes with natural inclinations that were developed throughout our entire evolution, inclinations which tend to effect our behaviors. It's not sexist to notice the differences, applying an inherent negative connotation to those differences would be the sexist bit.

I grew up with the idea that 1) "women don't need a man", and 2) "women can do everything a man can". In both cases, the man, hilariously, is paramount to a woman's view of independence.

It's also factually incorrect; 1) men and women will always be part of the same societies, of course we need each other, and 2) there are some pretty obvious things that men can do that women can't and vice versa. These ideas also don't give guidance to a girl who doesn't want to do what a man would do.

I've personally always wanted a lot of children and I'm a homebody. In practice I want to be a housewife, where is room for that in this world view? If I have no sex-based rights, I have no protections should I chose the wrong man to have that dream with. (The statistics are very clear, the most dangerous person to a woman is her partner.) Hence, again the idea of us still being an adjustment period.

I think the aforementioned ideas helped make the trans-activist movement: if there are no sex differences, then "changing" sex isn't a big deal, despite the fact that it's not even technologically possible.

I just really want more conversations about women's happiness and welfare, as part of an equal society. The american statistics show that women are just becoming more and more unhappy; and the only people that talk about that are right-wing men attempting to undermine the Equal Rights Act.

It's disheartening that in more leftist circles, the idea for the conversation isn't even considered because trans-women (aka the men) are the focal point of every conversation on "women's rights". I want women to be the focal point of women's rights. Shocking, I know.

I yapped a lot, my apologies for that but thank you for reading, and I recommend everyone I mentioned. Essentially, free yourself from the double-standards and inherent falsehoods of trans-activism, so we can talk properly talk about the welfare of women and girls.

With Jozef even using Hungarian in his speech, which IS historically accurate for the area, we're in the 15th century, the area that's currently part of Slovakia was Nothern Hungary back then and a lot of nobles were Hungarians, so it wouldn't be out the ordinary for Jozef to speak both common (in this case would actually be the dialect of the area as modern standard Slovak wouldn't emerge until the early 19th century) and Hungarian, with also Latin added on. Here's an example of him talking in Hungarian:

Meanwhile the common folks and other characters of lower status (Pavol etc.) use Šariš dialect:

But some interactions with the environment use a combination of proper Slovak and dialect:

In this example the first half of the sentence is dialect, the 2nd part is proper.

And then we have Ida who uses words frequently used by Romani people, specifically in this case the phrase Dig more (Oh look/Look there) and gádžu (meaning non-Roma):

And the Husits, since they are Czech are speaking Czech:

Which I think is absolutely beautiful. Again, I am wondering how the dialogue plays in other languages, if they actually do change up the language. I could imagine a world where in the English dialogue, nobility uses Queen's English meanwhile the common folk have an implied Cockney accent or use some sort of street English or something, but I also understand that would be pretty hard to do.

But am curious how it would look like

secondly I had a small conversation with my homie on how perpetva might have died exactly so. my vision is some kind of a burn-hit sumilar to the circus moves the penitent one does in the second game when veredicto is lit up.

WIP

You will make friendship bracelets for your faves that nobody else will understand 🫵

The inspiration:

For six long years, I dwelt in regret blinded by nostalgia; but her true character has turned to revelation.