ok truman

This movie got made because Robin Williams said yes to it (and it's important that Gene Hackman did as well). Williams in the 90s was a mega-star of a type that's not present in the current media environment (maybe Tom Cruise, but I personally think that's echo from his salad days). Even his flops made money on the back end in the video rental market, which also doesn't exist anymore (streaming is different). Hackman was on the other side of his A-list career but still Hollywood nobility if not full royalty.

Playing gay was considered career suicide in the 90s. There had been a number of actors who put lie to that belief stretching back decades, but this was Williams and Hackman (yes, being on screen next to a gay character was enough to get you blacklisted) saying "screw that" and doing it anyway.

Being gay and out was career suicide in the 90s.

Nathan Lane had a really nice gig going for himself. The Lion King put him into the Disney rep company with people like Williams, Bette Midler, and Whoopie Goldberg (check their IMBD list from the 90s--they were making bank at Disney).

Lane didn't come out until several years later (nice summary: https://deadline.com/2024/06/nathan-lane-robin-williams-advice-coming-out-birdcage-1235975010/).

I don't want to imply that this was a Sorkinized moment where everything changed because of one thing, but this was a very important movie that caused real movement in the needle on queer acceptance.

So some fanartist drew a “sexy” (read: booby) version of a (cartoon) character who is traditionally very non-sexualised. Fans of the character got mad about it because it’s kind of groundbreaking how that character is written and portrayed and this art totally ignores the entire point of the character. They demanded the art be deleted. In response to that other people said, well what the fanartist did may be distateful but they have every right to draw what they’re into. The two sides fight for days and each starts a harassment campaign and even report their “opponents’” accounts.

So far so typical. But things eventually come to a head and they decide that this will be settled by votes - not through a poll. Through donations to a children’s education charity via each side’s portal. Whoever can get the highest amount of donation wins.

i was raised as a man whether i like it or not and sure there are ways i break from that. a lot of those ways are also ways i align with my cis male friends and the reason we get along so well. male socialized isn't code for male, it is literally what it means and if you transitioned young especially, yeah it's not gonna apply. for me, it just makes more sense.

none of that makes me a man, but it also is part of my lived experience.

How you were socialized is not your gender.

And

Socialization is real and impactful and to deny that is to refuse to engage with a lot of reality.

These are both true.

A lot of very important race theorists focus on the fact that how we present impacts how we move through the world, how we are treated, and what we intuively expect from others.

Talking about socialization isn't essentially saying that trans people are their agab.

It's acknowledging that the way they were treated their whole life has impacted them in both obvious and subtle way.

And if this triggers your fight/flight instinct, the appropriate thing to do is self regulate.

Someone being ignored and talked over by cis men doesn't debunk "male socialization" because it actually shows male socialization at work. In this case, a trans woman was taking a feminine role, something many but not all women have learned to do.

In my personal experience, one's ability to break into these conversations has to do with practice in the social role and vocal pitch. Trans woman with voice training is going to have similar problems to cis women. But a group of trans women who aren't using vocal training will still talk over someone whose voice is pitched to higher octave, regardless who is wearing pants. And no one will notice, because it's intuitive. That's been my experience.

That doesn't mean these women weren't women. Or that they weren't desperately harmed by the time the world was trying to construct them into men.

And it doesn't mean that the person with a higher pitched voice is a woman.

But that shit does happen, and pretending that anyone who notices it

or has a background in sociology and theory

it is still one of the primary underlying status quo ideologies

the fact that it is status quo means that, instinctively, you are going to label it as "common sense" or as "objective truth"

"eugenics" simply means "belief that there is a way of optimising human genetics for the benefit of the general good"

when I say that something is "eugenicist rhetoric" I am not saying "everyone who has ever said this thing is inherently evil". I am saying "you need to question where some of these ideas come from"