The Evolution of Me

I have found that many people who have not had a trans female or trans feminine experience often have trouble wrapping their brains around the concept of trans-misogyny, so I will offer the following two anecdotes to help illustrate what I mean by the term. Once, about two years ago, I was walking down the street in San Francisco, and a trans woman happened to be walking just ahead of me. She was dressed femininely, but not any more feminine than a typical cis woman. Two people, a man and a woman, were sitting on a doorstep, and as the trans woman walked by, the man turned to the woman he was sitting next to and said, “Look at all the shit he’s wearing,” and the woman he was with nodded in agreement. Now presumably the word “shit” was a reference to femininity — specifically, the feminine clothing and cosmetics the trans woman wore. I found this particular comment to be quite telling. After all, while cis women often receive harassing comments from strange men on the street, it is rather rare for those men to address those remarks to a female acquaintance and for her to apparently approve of his remarks. Furthermore, if this same man were to have harassed a cis woman, it is unlikely that he would do so by referring to her feminine clothing and makeup as “shit.” Similarly, someone who is on the trans masculine spectrum could potentially be harassed, but it is unlikely that his masculine clothing would be referred to as “shit.” Thus, trans-misogyny is both informed by, yet distinct from, transphobia and misogyny, in that it specifically targets transgender expressions of femaleness and femininity.

The second example of trans-misogyny that I’d like to share occurred at an Association for Women in Psychology conference I attended in 2007 (for those unfamiliar with that organization, it is essentially a feminist psychology conference). One psychologist gave a presentation on the ways in which feminism has informed her approach to therapy. During the course of her talk, she discussed two transgender clients of hers, one on the trans male/masculine spectrum, the other on the trans female/feminine spectrum. Their stories were very similar in that both had begun the process of physically transitioning but were having second thoughts about it. First, the therapist discussed the trans masculine spectrum person, whose gender presentation she described simply as being “very butch.” She discussed this individual’s transgender expressions and issues in a respectful and serious manner, and the audience listened attentively. However, when she turned her attention to the trans feminine client, she went into a very graphic and animated description of the trans person’s appearance, detailing how the trans woman’s hair was styled, the type of outfit and shoes she was wearing, the way her makeup was done, and so on. This description elicited a significant amount of giggling from the audience, which I found to be particularly disturbing given the fact that this was an explicitly feminist conference. Clearly, if a male psychologist gave a talk at this meeting in which he went into such explicit detail regarding what one of his cis female clients was wearing, most of these same audience members, as well as the presenter, would surely (and rightfully) be appalled and would view such remarks to be blatantly objectifying. In fact, in both of these incidents I have described, comments that would typically be considered extraordinarily misogynistic if they were directed at cis women are not considered beyond the pale when directed at trans women.

"One has indeed personally to come under the shadow of war to feel fully its oppression; but as the years go by it seems now often forgotten that to be caught in youth by 1914 was no less hideous an experience than to be involved in 1939 and the following years. By 1918, all but one of my close friends were dead."

So, for example, Pilgrim's Progress is an allegory of Christian salvation. It's sort of a novel? There are characters who do stuff? but also they are very one-dimensional. The main character is a guy named Christian--yes, really!--who is journeying from his hometown ("the city of destruction") to the Celestial City (heaven). There is not much subtlety to it. It is pretty much what it is. There is no slippage, no playing around with the theme, no places where the symbolism is ambiguous. John Bunyan, the author, is hitting you over the head every step of the way with the Meaning That You Are Supposed To Be Getting From The Story.

Not all allegories are that crude or simplistic; the Narnia books are also allegory for Christianity. They have a lot more subtlety to them and a lot more nuance, and there's a lot of stuff in there that isn't allegorical, but on the crucial matters there is still a 1:1 correspondence. Aslan is Jesus. He's not like Jesus, he's not a character that has some similarities to Jesus or takes themes from the stories of Jesus, he is Jesus.

Tolkien is not doing allegory. Tolkien is taking the material of his life--his faith, his experiences in WWI, his linguistic and historical knowledge, his favorite books--and using them as the building blocks of his story. The themes and imagery and symbols draw heavily from all of that, the characters and settings draw heavily from all of that, but they are too complex to be allegorical. There's a lot of symbolism! It's not allegory.

So, for example, let's take the Dead Marshes referenced above. Does the experience of walking through this muddy wasteland with corpses all around that are rotting but still look like people draw from Tolkien's WWI battlefield experience of dead bodies in the trenches? Of course it does! but there are also a lot of differences. These dead are not from the current war, they are from a previous one--they are a reminder of old conflicts, of the ways the systems and powers of the current war have not come out of nowhere, there is history here. There is meaning that is not drawn from the Somme. And they are also drawing from literary references Tolkien was familiar with--primarily William Morris. Modern readers don't get the references because we have generally not read The House of the Wolflings, but that doesn't mean that the references aren't there.

aaaugh - thank goodness for the online guides*, or i'd never have made it past this level! it feels like i've been staring at this loading screen for almost a year....

This tournament is not meant to cause any shipwars or spread hate. Please stay kind when sharing your opinions on the submitted ships.

Vote in the other polls here

Why people wished they stayed platonic:

Stiles Stilinski and Lydia Martin

They literally had a great storyline of Stiles getting over his crush on her, they both went on to date other people they had more chemistry with, and then in season 6 they shoehorned in a love story between and made it the focus of the season when it should’ve been focused on Scott and Stiles’ bond (one of the reasons season 6 sucked). Then Dylan O’Brien couldn’t be bothered with the show anymore so it was all for nothing anyways

Their relationship in the early seasons was so annoying with Stiles just pining after Lydia and being kind of mean and entitled. But then season 3-5 he seemed to move on from her and they become a fun duo, being the two who can't fight and are the detectives of the group (season 4 especially!!). Then season 6 came along and they finally became canon and it sucked.

Myka Bering and Pete Latimer

They had a very strong sibling-like relationship for the majority of the show, Myka’s actor wanted her character to be in a relationship with a different (female) character, the characters were literally so platonic they slept in the same bed naked when they knew they’d wake up without their memories to make their future selves investigate what had happened because they knew there was no way they’d ever sleep together and were, in fact, actively disgusted at the idea. It was only in the last season they became romantic and I’m fairly sure the entire cast rejects the entire season anyway.

For the first four seasons they were disgusted at the idea of being a sexual/romantic couple and I understand that the showrunner was trying to go for a "methinks she doth protest too much" vibe but that's not how the actors played it! They worked so well as having an annoying-siblinglike relationship and then the last half season spedrun a romance and it didn't work at all.

Plus Myka is clearly into girls (might be bi but isn't into Pete) and her relationship with Helena (canonically bi) at all times had SO much chemistry. Bering & Wells forever.

The final season suddenly shoved them together as a way of ending things and it was rushed and unnecessary. There was a bit of a will-they/won't-they early on but that had seemingly settled into them being great partners and friends. Also Bering & Wells forever!

1: There's an entire episode where the plot is that they leave proof something is wrong by making it look like they hooked up, which is completely out of character. 2: Myka had a nearly-canon girlfriend and the show was already canceled when they put her and Pete together for the finale.

They were such a fun duo, perfect platonic (work) partners who meant a lot to each other but it didn't have to get romantic. Many fans think Myka in particular had much more romantic chemistry with someone else, and to some people Pete and Myka getting together was a surprise and/or disappointment.

I just think that having a strong, meaningful friendship would have worked just as well for them.

A beautiful supportive platonic male female friendship that was built up over many seasons who were shoved into a relationship in the last few episodes to follow up on romantic tension that had been dropped after season 1

some of my favourite ttrpg rules