Rumi and Celine could be an extremely interesting representation on what it's like growing up visibly intersex. In this reading, Rumi represents a visibly intersex person, Celine represents the caregivers and doctors of a visibly intersex person, and the Honmoon represents the pericisnormative patriarchy.

Rumi was born with patterns. From the very start, Celine told her to hide them, to be ashamed of them, that they are wrong. She prevented her from coming out to her friends about her patterns. There's nothing wrong with Rumi's patterns, there never has been - the only reason why they hurt her is because of her own shame.

Celine imposes the role of a demon hunter onto her. She ignores her demon parts unless she can use it to further impose the idea of sealing the Honmoon (like how a visibly intersex child has their traits ignored unless it can be used to promote the patriarchy.)

Rumi tries so hard to hide her patterns, but slowly, they are spreading. Picture this like an intersex person hitting puberty or otherwise becoming more visibly intersex, struggling to hide their intersexuality with each passing day.

Rumi trying so hard to hide her patterns makes them more visible, and has negative side effects for her health (her voice.) This rings familiar to intersex people who are given/feel pressured to use "treatments" in order to "cure" their intersexuality, "treatments" that often have a negative effect on their body (ie; being forced onto hormones or birth control.)

When she is outed to her friends, and it goes over poorly, she goes to confront Celine. Celine can't even look at her body, saying lines like "everything I was taught told me you were wrong." She says that they can lie to hide her patterns again, that they can still "fix her." Rumi asks her why she can't even look at her, why she never loved her, and when Celine says she does love her and "tried to accept her", Rumi rightfully points out that her idea of "acceptance" is built upon only accepting her if she fits the specific roles imposed upon her and her body.

The movie ends with Rumi still having her patterns, happily showing them off, going to the bathhouse with her friends like she always was too ashamed to do before, and creating a new Honmoon that isn't built upon shame.

1. saying "not all men" or

2. denying the existence and impact of societal misogyny/patriarchy.

I remember the fight for mixed gender sports, but now we’re fighting for trans people’s rights to be included in gendered sports. The only justification for gendered sports that exists is Those Men Will Crush Our Weak Little Women. It’s sexist. Segregation is always a means of oppression.

Both of which, if youll note, are species that we race in non-sexgender-segregated sports. There's not one derby for boy horses and another one for girl ones.

The majority of the dimorphism that we *see* is social and cultural. Women are discouraged from sports from a much earlier age than men. Women who are naturally tall and muscular may choose not to pursue body building because of social pressures for women to be small and dainty. Women who have broad shoulders, double jointed ankles and webbed toes (the things that make Michael Phelps such a good swimmer) may never touch a swimming pool in their life because of similar stigma surrounding women's bodies that men are not subject to.

Because the conversation is saying "men this and men that" but the behaviour is abuse. so they're actually talking about abusers. But the conversations continue on as if this behaviour is normal for men and that all of us are having the same issue.

it's painted with feminism paint. if you push the idea that there are men out there who aren't bottom of the barrel trash, it will quickly get you excluded from the conversation.

but all these women stand around and sigh like 'oh well all men are trash, what can you do?'

you can expect better.

you can demand better.

to do that, you have to acknowledge that men can be decent, and more than that, they should be.

When it comes to this, a feminist gloss over a worldview that men are just ‘like that’, it doesn’t do anyone any favours in whichever way.

As a feminist point, it fails to acknowledge the patriarchy, structural bigotry or the sexist ways that young children are raised and the damage and expectations it builds.

As a point against abuse and mistreatment, it does nothing to help victims who need to hear that better is findable and deserves to be found. It’s so much easier to move forward away from that damage when you know it isn’t everywhere.

As a basic point of accountability, those men need to be pulled up and told that they are not just ‘men’ they are bullies and abusers and pieces of shit and that the world has moved on around them.

The idea that men can and often do be good is genuinely essential to any meaningful conversation about sexism and abuse. Talking about anything else moves the needle away from the central issue. Horrible men is not a gender problem it’s a societal problem. I think some of you need to put your ideology where your mouth is and read some real books and research.