No title yet :]

Hm idk what a mystery. If only there was an explanation for this. 🤔 (/Sarc)

Maybe we're being targeted by Tumblr staff and mass deleted? 🤷‍♀️

Maybe we're being harassed off the website by people stereotyping us as being transandrophobic, exorsexist, and intersexist? And accusing us of being sockpuppets of trans women (or just anyone regardless of gender) they dislike?🤨

my mother, completely deadpan: well are they reviewing the theatrical release or director's cut.

me:

"This show is problematic because the hero didn't kill the villain at the end": When does he steal the bread?

"These two characters who were close friends throughout the series don't kiss at the end! What the fuck?": When does he steal the bread?

These scenarios may include:

Moving around folks who are already spooked or easily-startled

Approaching people who you absolutely do not want to alarm, such as people with poor spatial awareness, people experiencing paranoia or a panic attack, folks who are very focused on a different thing, people handling dangerous chemicals or machinery

When you very urgently need to get somewhere and there are people in your way

Any other time when you require others to be aware of your presence and location

Sincerely,

like, i guarantee transmisogyny has been apparent and effective in most friend groups, support groups, clubs, queer spaces, work spaces, and whatnot you've ever been a part of. people you know or knew are transmisogynists. places you've felt safe in have made transfems feel unsafe. does that transfem actually enjoy your "trans inclusive misogyny" jokes or does she feel like she can't speak up? is that transfem really quiet and inactive in your group or has everyone spoken over her, convincing her that her voice doesn't matter? is that transfem just stay home when you go out because she's introverted or because she has legitimate reasons to feel uncomfortable in the same places you feel perfectly fine?

Do we ever think seriously about how amazing it is that in Discworld, no female character ever gets fridged for the ‘benefit’ of a male character’s story arc?

I mean, it may not seem like a big deal until you remember these are actually 40 books and how incredibly common this is as a plot device in mainstream media.

Let’s take Sybil Ramkin (also known as dragon goddess of my heart) as an example. The one time she plays damsel in the series is in Guards!Guards when the King (actually dragon, actually Queen. Or maybe not. We shouldn’t presume on their gender identity) is going to eat her, and that’s because she was knocked out stone cold by several guards. Once she’s freed, she proceeds to kick ass and take names like you would expect from a dragon breeder, and you can also appreciate the fact that she kicks off probably the most practical courtship in the history of fantasy as a genre.

(also there was that time she knocked out a werewolf with a steel bar because they were holding her captive and apologized afterwards I swear to gods this woman)

And she is never fridged. Think about how easily most male authors would just go, ‘You know what? The protagonist isn’t having enough angst. Let’s kill his love interest.’

Then, tuppence more and up goes the donkey.

And she is such a positive force in the story! We start out with Vimes seemingly as a clichéd anti-hero cowboy-cop, the kind you’ll find in anything from Lethal Weapon to The Maltese Falcon. He is an alcoholic, utterly miserable and deems himself basically worthless. And then something (a combination of Sybil/Carrot/Vetinari support/scheming and Vimes’ own barely contained rage against the universe) kicks him in the pants and he gets character development like wowza! and we end up with a Lawful Good, incredibly clever (it never ceases to sadden me how he thinks he isn’t really that intelligent) protagonist with probably the strongest moral code I have ever seen in a fictional character. I mean, it had a mental/physical manifestation, for gods’ sake.

And they have this most elusive of fictional things; a marriage free of unnecessary drama and full of mutual respect and kindness, and she does her own thing with the dragons while he solves crime (she tends to help, though) and never is she killed off to 'advance’ his development as a character.

Because a) that would be a really gross (although frustratingly common) thing to do and b),

Made this post about 15 minutes after the repair guy who fixed the pump on my dishwasher packed up his tools and left, as the dishwasher was whirring along doing my dishes from that morning.

It is a term that is pretty much always used with transfems in mind. Even though 99% of "AMAB" people are cis men and 100% of cis men were "AMAB", the term does not convey "cis men plus some other tiny groups included on a technicality", but rather specifically focuses your attention on the alleged similarities between cis men and transfems.

For instance, a phrase like "men's attitudes towards women" hints that men are generally misogynistic, whereas "AMAB attitudes towards women" suggests that transfems specifically are no different from cis men in their misogyny. The act of co-categorisation is in itself a political position.

feverly making this shit just because i saw this

E.g. if you post saying how ridiculous it is that France has never yet paid back the money it demanded of Haiti for its independence 200 years ago, and the post gets popular enough, you will get someone saying "unfortunately the French government can't do this because voters wouldn't like it".

And it's like, yes, thank you, I have heard of "democracy". I am aware that people have incentives for doing things. I am aware that, in a racist society, anti-racist actions are frowned-upon. I am aware that, even if a French government was elected that was theoretically in favour of returning that money, they might still not do it because of fear of criticism from the the media and the far-right.

But the thing is, when I am saying this is ridiculous I don't mean that it is trivially easy to repay the money, I mean that it is such a grave injustice that doing the right thing should outweigh all the reasons for doing nothing. If France ever has a government with some humanity, I would want them to force through this repayment even if it meant being kicked out of office the next day. And if they didn't get kicked out, I would expect them to the repay all the subsequent debts Haiti incurred pay for that first debt, and if they are still there, then they can start paying reparations, not just to Haiti, but to every single former and current colony. The injustice is so large that qualms about practicality don't cut it any more.

People who reply like this seem to have a strange idea about how moral goodness works. If you are the President of France and you technically believe in repaying the Haitian debt but it's not a priority that you will actually incur any personal downsides to achieve, then I'm sorry but I'm not crediting you with being a good person. Good thoughts followed by inaction where action was possible makes you indistinguishable from someone without any good thoughts at all. There is no special medal for people who believe in doing the right thing but still don't do it.

People who reply like this always seem to be men, too. I suppose it's a type of mansplaining since it's a man assuming I wasn't aware of something incredibly obvious, and deciding to publicly correct my supposed ignorance. I generally will block people like this, because there is no point leaving myself open to further interactions from someone who both thinks that I am very stupid and that they are very smart. But sometimes another man will come along and reply to their reply saying "THANK YOU" or similar, and suddenly my post complaining about an injustice has become a bonding opportunity for two men to laugh about how stupid a woman is for never having considered that there are electoral incentives for inaction.