justherefordaart:

…

There is a diagnosis for dysphoria. I’m pretty sure it requires an MRI or CAT scan, but it’s proof that, at the very least, transgenderism is very much real. How much of what’s been claimed is real and how much is people vying for attention is my issue. You certainly aren’t abusing it, and you’re willing to talk about it, which is really great and something I’d like to see more of.

Patreon, I was just using as an example of how fake claims can be abused for profit. Sorry if it was out of nowhere.

uuhhhmmmmmm

the diagnosis for dysphoria is “hey, do you have dysphoria”

there is no scan for determining whether someone is trans

you may be thinking of something like this research from a few years ago that did brain scans on a few trans dudes and some cis people

but we have no idea what we’re actually looking at, which is why i put like zero stock in “brain scans”

for all we know there could just be a part of the brain that stores the pronoun you go by, and here we are publishing papers on how WHOA MEN’S AND WOMEN’S BRAINS ARE DIFFERENT like a bunch of idiots when that’s true by definition

anyway uh

since your whole argument here seems to be about the possible non-existence of non-binary people, here’s some food for thought

the actual paper makes clear that the trans guys didn’t even have 100% identical structures to the cis guys; they were just closer to cis guys than to cis gals

so you can’t really use brain scans to define a binary; even the people in this study didn’t fall on two well-defined extremes!

“false claims” omg

Anonymous asked:

i feel disappointed when characters turn out to be female because men are sexier than women and sexiness is the only trait i value in a character

you laugh but we have known people like this

on men in fandom

fozmeadows:

The point at which men feel compelled to make a separate, masculine fandom name for themselves, the better to differentiate themselves from other, presumably female fans inhabiting the same space, is the point at which they feel their gender to be not only relevant to their expression of fandom, but so important that it needs its own word, lest we confuse them with women.

The fact that men seem only to be interested in doing this on entering traditionally or predominantly female fandoms says a lot about the logic behind it. Where fans are presumed to be male, there’s no need to assert their maleness with a masculine name; where fans are presumed to be female, however, they strive to differentiate themselves, not only to void the risk of being mistaken for women, but to rebrand the actual property as being for men. 

If such men were genuinely interested in disproving gender binaries and the sort of sexist logic that tries to steer their tastes in other directions, as is sometimes claimed, they wouldn’t feel the need to establish that the thing they like has masculine properties, as though they couldn’t or wouldn’t like it otherwise. This isn’t like the oft-ignored female fans of comics and videogames asserting, rightly, that such things are for everyone, which category happens to include them; it’s men expressly stating that an originally or traditionally feminine property isn’t really feminine, the better to make it for men.   

Following this logic, female-dominated fandoms are only worth joining if men can make absolutely sure that their support isn’t confused with female support, or their interests with female interests, the better to assert their more selective ownership of the property. Crucially, this move also has the effect of forcing women to either accept the gendering of the fandom and adopt their own, feminine nomenclature - possibly one the men themselves have created, heedless of the fact that it was irrelevant prior to their insistence that it wasn’t, as per the term pegasister - or to refuse the binary and so have the male term become synonymous with the fandom as a whole, as though male interest is the only kind that matters.

tl;dr: If you’re a guy and your first thought on approaching a new fandom is “how do I make a name that describes my interest in this thing while letting everyone know that I’m a dude”, then do us all a favour and stay the fuck out of it.  

mallowninja asked:

pretty sure the simple answer is "If Amdusias says she's a girl, and we, her creators, say she is a girl, then she is a girl" and her design shouldn't be reason for you to imply or state otherwise? :Ta

sure but it’s interesting to examine why people pegged her one way or the other before they knew for sure, and why some people expressed active disappointment

Anonymous asked:

Weaseling out? I arguably do something worse, I accept. I just think certain things such as associating broad shoulders to masculinity is not simply something people internalized via culture but something very fundamental to our makeup and don't think it is useful in gaining further insight to deny or demonize that even though it may fit the definition of sexism. So I accept it as a part of me and all of us. Does that make sense? This is unrelated to authority which is rooted in culture.

amdusias’s shoulders slope significantly downwards though?  like 40°.

Anonymous asked:

Hey vee! Suits symbolize legitimacy since they are expensive and look neat but not garish. Also they usually broaden the shoulders which is a masculine trait and are therefore associated with it. I think that's all there is to it but you following your chain of thought to the conclusion of "people don't think women can be professionals!" seems fallacious and might lead to you fighting against windmills and be susceptible for extremism since misogyny is everywhere if you only search hard enough.

i don’t understand how “legitimacy” factors in here?  unless you’re suggesting that people assume only men can be legitimate, but that seems at odds with the rest of this question

i’m not suggesting it’s quite so overt.  suits tend to imply some form of authority or management, and there exists an association between authority/management and men.  (otherwise the “glass ceiling” wouldn’t be a thing.)  men are thus vastly overrepresented among CEOs and politicians and other suit-wearers you’re likely to see or encounter if you’re not in business yourself.  combine the two, and you’re likely to assume someone in a suite is male.

this isn’t actively antagonistic sexism; it’s the usual low-level background influence on how we perceive gender.  power, confidence, authority, even height — we interpret these all as masculine traits, strongly enough to override wearing a skirt.

i wish well-meaning people were not so eager to write off the little things as “well that’s not really sexism, because _____.”  no one wants to think of themselves as a misogynist.  but getting caught up in potential labels and trying to weasel out of them, instead of actually examining our thought processes, won’t improve anything.

incidentally, among orchestra conductors, men outnumber women at least 4 to 1.

Anonymous asked:

(1/2) Regarding amdusias gender disappointment (sorry if I spam but I forgot). In the comic you've only put focus on the dapper suit upper body and not the skirted lower body and with the reveal of GLORIOUS YAOI HANDS on ch5 p53, people really wanted amdusias to be male so all the funny yaoi jokes thet were up and coming in their minds worked. I too was like "He's gonna be touching face with those puppies and it's gonna look awkward. Yeah.". If she's female, obviously yaoi jokes don't work.

belethstoybox answered:

(2/2) Anyway my point is, even “I feel scammed” comments may be something benign like that and amdusias design being “owed” or more like lending itself to being male may be just because of that silly yaoi hands context and not because of some deeply rooted misoginy. We form the weirdest connotations sometimes, consciously and subconsciously but not necessarily malicious. Luckily this, one could be explained.

While it may be that there were other factors, it’s really hard to deny that deep-rooted misogyny is in everything, even if malice isn’t intended at all! (And those are the contexts in which it is especially important to examine it!) So even if there were other factors, misogyny is going to come into play a lot more than we’d like – for instance, it’s kind of weird to me that “suit” automatically read as male.

Women wear suits too, especially when conducting music. This isn’t an occasion where it was a specifically “gendered” outfit - for instance, it’s not like she was in a suit as part of a wedding, with someone else in a dress. It wasn’t that sort of obvious binary setting – to me!

That the base assumption was “oh, so this character must be male because of the suit despite that male and female conductors wear suits” wasn’t too appealing to me. I understand perhaps people weren’t aware of that, but, then it’s important to realize that that’s a thing, that suit-wearing doesn’t necessarily equate to a specific gender. It’s something to think about, at least! The whole point of this blog is to discuss / have conversations about why we have these assumptions (and to dissect misogyny when it may be cropping up, as well). And I mean, even if someone did assume she was male because of the suit - like you said, that’s not necessarily malicious, but it does require some reexamining of future situations.

Gotta think about the why!

what really gets me here is

professional men and women both wear suits, and the designs aren’t fundamentally that different

but people see someone in a suit, which means “a professional”

and assume that a professional person must be male

because, presumably, it’s much more difficult for a woman to get into a position where she would be wearing a suit

culture is a hell of a thing

prince-luffy asked:

What do you think of the new all-male Final Fantasy?

dragondicks answered:

I think the reasoning they gave for making it Boyz Only is weak as hell. 

“Speaking honestly, an all-male party feels almost more approachable for players. Even the presence of one female in the group will change their behavior, so that they’ll act differently. So to give the most natural feeling, to make them feel sincere and honest, having them all the same gender made sense in that way.”

So yeah, of course they had to all be boys, because if the (of course male) player sees a female character he might tuck in his shirt or some shit

“The world might be ready to see the curtain lifted on what boys do when girls aren’t around, when they come out of the tent all prim and proper. That’s kind of the idea behind it… we think, male or female player, that everyone will feel a certain connection and bond with the four characters.”

Thank god, the world is finally ready for us to tread the brave new ground of a story about Guys Bein’ Dudes. What’s better than this

HA HA ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME I WILL BLOW UP THE ENTIRE PLANET. 🌎🌋🌋🌋🌊💥🔥

Anonymous asked:

I really think that better terminology needs to be had because the term "Trap" used as it is, it very much demeaning to trans women as a whole. While you may find it amusing it is harmful to people. There has to be something better to use.

r4drawings answered:

Just because “I” find it amusing doesn’t mean I don’t understand how heavy and upsetting it can be to certain people. As previously stated, I don’t mean to offend anyone. 

pasteldaemon:

r4drawings:

pasteldaemon said: ‘I don’t mean to offend’ doesn’t carry much weight if you understand it can be offensive and opt to keep using it, tbh.

Yes, well the reality of it is that I’m bound to step on someone’s toes no matter how understanding, or nice, or equality minded I try to be. So regardless of how you want to take it, My stance is that I don’t mean to offend anyone. 

That’s grand, but it’s a stance that doesn’t mean anything if you don’t actually act to back it up, and making an effort, even if you can’t please everyone, is still miles better than words without any action behind ‘em.Instead it just reads less as not wanting to offend and more like ‘I don’t wanna have to deal with offended people’ Like….it’s really easy to avoid in this case but the way you’re putting things totally sounds like you have no intention to change what you’re doing, yo.

people step on each other’s toes, it happens

like, people literally step on other people’s toes sometimes

and that’s ok, everyone knows it happens and will give you the benefit of the doubt… until they see your response

so at this critical juncture, you have two options

  1. “oh! my bad, sorry, are you alright?”
  2. “whatever, toes get stepped on no matter what i do, i didn’t mean to do it regardless of how you feel about it now. also it’s pretty funny to me”

i don’t think anyone has ever stepped on my toes and then said #2. yet when the situation is not so literal, that’s exactly what a lot of people do.

somehow when the victim or their injury is not visible, it becomes all about you and how you feel and how awful it is for you that people look hurt when you step on their toes and no matter what you do it still happens so what’s even the point right??

Anonymous asked:

what is your stance of the whole "male feminist" vs "feminist ally" debate (i.e are men allowed to identify as feminists, or only as feminist allies)? also how does this relate to trans people (i.e can transmen still be feminists despite being men, or are they exempt because they used to be women. vice versa for transwomen: "is now a woman so can be a feminist now" vs. has previous experience as a man, so can't)? haha, sorry for asking but i can't find a clear answer to this anywhere online, ty!

i am pretty sure anyone who, um, is a feminist is free to identify as a feminist

only problem with dudes is when they try to talk over women about feminism and then demonize women for calling them out on it and hurting their poor tender ally feelings

this is called a “mantrum” and it is a symptom of advanced testeria

orcaowl replied to your post:I haven’t seen the epi yet, but I think shows can…
?? Sorry, I don’t understand. I was trying to add some input on what I know about how people treat queer women/women attracted to women in media. I’m confused by your response, but it’s ok. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear about what I was expressing

oh, sorry, i was venting about the silly disparity there, where we’ll write off women blushing at each other but can’t do the same for men

orcaowl asked:

I haven't seen the epi yet, but I think shows can get away with girls liking girls more so because of how media/society actively ignores their existence more so than the fake lesbian crap made for straight men tbh. Even when girls are canonically together in media they are ignored and often just considered to be "good friends" or "gal pals" or something like that. I think because of that, SU can get away with more because they could always say "oh friendly blushing" and people would believe it.

as we all know, cis boys cannot blush.  biological impossibility.  the blush organ is located within the ovary

Anonymous asked:

Not once was stevonnie referred to as she or a girl

uhhh not once was there any indication that anyone thought the new person loaded up with stereotypically feminine attributes (long hair, small waist, wide hips, belly shirt, short shorts, female VA) was anything but a girl, either

it’s technically true that stevonnie could’ve been a non-girl, and that the entirety of beach city, including kevin, is so gender-sensitive that not a single one of them even had the thought that “this person is a girl”

but it also could’ve all been an illusion or a dream.  nothing in the episode says it wasn’t, right

it doesn’t make sense to design the character like that, introduce a clear Dickhole Straight Dude archetype antagonist, and not intend that at the very least other people assume the character is female

and even if you are 100% right my point STILL STANDS: it would have been more subversive in the real world if stevonnie had been loaded up with stereotypically masculine attributes and lars had still found them stammeringly attractive