going absolutely fucking feral. fuck?

I’ve been getting a lot of TERF posts rec’ed to me through the #feminism tag lately. And they’re most often only tagged something like #feminism or #woman, so filters aren’t catching them. And it’s all just… anti-woman and anti-feminist take after take. Like. How have they hijacked the narrative and monopolized the meaning of feminism to be something so reactionary and reductive? They genuinely believe takes like, “women should be forced to abort children” are feminist. BFFR. They just hate other women having bodily autonomy.

I saw one just now where someone was like, “I was daydreaming about men just disappearing”— like being raptured— “and then realized that all women don’t know how to do male jobs and got angry” (and they did say ALL). They then went on to talk about how no women knows how to operate machinery because women have been prevented from EVOLVING to do the same things men do because men forced women to EVOLVE to serve them. Evolved. They were like, “all men could just… build a wood bridge but we women are kept from that knowledge. We have no teachers.”

Further fucking proof that these misogynistic asshats do not build community with black, brown, indigenous, poor, rural, or working class women. They live in a theoretical fantasy world daydreaming about men disappearing and “female separatism” rather than offering real fucking solutions. They live in a world where every last woman has the same lived experience as them. They assume all women are oppressed in the same way. They ignore intersectionality to purposefully minimize ableist, racist, classist, heterosexist, and cissexist structures so that everything is organizable into a simple and universal M > F dynamic. This way, in their chronically white movement, they, the white woman, is always oppressed and never responsible for the marginalization of others.

Oh. And the OP had the label “fascist” in her username. They’re self aware now, but at what cost?

Trans Exclusionary Radical Fascism, everyone:

The patriarchy is inevitable. Change is impossible. We are never escaping this hell hole.

Some other “gems” I saw, TW for racism, misogyny, ableism, and abuse:

The amount of Arabophobia, Islamophobia, racism, misogyny, and ableism I see in the #feminism tag every day is truly sickening. Like 1/4 of the posts anymore seem to be from white radfems sexualizing Arab, Asian, and Black women (while denigrating and singling out typically Arab, Asian, and Black personal-care and beauty practices) while another good 1/4 of the posts seem to be anti-queer. And then some 50% are porn bots with #sissy kinks. The tag has been trashed by bigots and bots, and I’m surprised that Staff hasn’t marked it mature content yet for the sheer level of porn bots using the tag. Oh, wait. I do know why. It’s because Staff employs JKR stans who would rather label #transfemme as mature content than combat the porn bots.

Men can have vaginas. Women can have penises. Being a lesbian is not about "only liking pussy". Being gay is not about "only liking dick". Those are transphobic and intersex exclusive statements.

The "sex" in "sexuality" is not referring to assigned sex at birth or the most common presentations of assigned sex genitalia. It refers to sexual attraction. Queer sexual attraction is gender and/or shared queer experience based. Gender is not the same as assigned sex at birth or genitalia. If your personal sexual attraction is based on assigned sex at birth and specific genitalia and you use a queer sexuality label you are appropriating that label and participating not only in transphobia and intersex exclusion from queer communities but also in homophobia.

Stop appropriating queer sexualities and then trying to kick out people who actually belong under that label because you want to make a little exclusion based bigot club for yourselves.

they only made two movies for men. SAD. oh well

Very sick generally of people trying constantly to frame trans men and trans women as being groups with competing interests and no overlapping experiences.

let's popularize the term crossdresser again. a lot of people denounce the term because they feel it is belittling to their trans identity, and that is totally fine. trans people are not inherently crossdressers. not everyone who dresses a certain way that's "contradictory" to their gender is crossdressing. not everyone needs to embrace the term, but for many, it is exactly what suits them.

whether you are a trans man who dresses fem while fully identifying as a man, a trans woman who dresses masc while fully identify as a woman, a cis woman who dresses in mens clothing, a cis man who dresses in women's clothing, a nonbinary person who dresses in a presentation that feels "opposite" of the gender, a genderfluid person whose gender and presentation change to be "opposites", an intersex person who dresses "opposite" to their identity, or literally anyone else, whoever you are, if you feel your presentation is crossdressing, this is your nudge to use the term if you feel it suits you.

when i am feeling more like a man, i dress very effeminately. whenever i am feeling more like a woman, i dress very butch. crossdressing is a wonderful way to express one's presentation and gender, and to play with the societal expectations ascribed to our genders. it's a good term. i love you, fellow crossdressers

Sometimes i wonder, is make up really oppressive ? Isn’t it natural to want to look as good and as appealing as possible to the opposite sex and all also women seem to naturally be drawn to it since their youngest years

Numerous forms of face painting have been practiced throughout history in a variety of different cultures, for a variety of different reasons. It's natural to like pretty, colourful things; birds do too. If you've ever spent time around kids you'll find that it's really not uncommon for boys to be drawn to makeup (or other means of applying colour to their faces, sharpies if you're real lucky) either. That's not about a natural drive to be as appealing as possible to the opposite sex, it's the human version of a crow going "ooo, shiny".

Feminist criticism of makeup does not stem from a belief that it's inherently 100% always wrong to Put Stuff On Your Face. It's about the fact that the way makeup is currently practiced means that women who don't wear concealer to hide the veins that show through the naturally thin skin underneath their eyes are automatically accused of looking tired and disheveled whereas men "get away with it". Men are allowed to look human, whereas this decorated state (that's arguably no longer about decoration if you're going for a "natural" look) is expected of women. Sometimes literally at the cost of their jobs.

Given how easy it is to attract men as a woman, and how difficult it seems to be to attract a woman as a man, maybe men should be the ones who are more inclined to spend precious hours covering up blemishes and carving out a more desirable bone structure with contouring powder. But they don't. It's an unpleasant process and it hasn't been marketed to them as necessary, so they continue to go out into the world with their regular faces without being made to feel like they're lazy for it. We'd be a lot better off if that was the default for women too.

im curious on what makes force fem hot honestly as someone not really into it. as a trans woman i understand the appeal of escapism in it but ive never really understood much else

its an act of degradation and control. societally, the idea of manhood is constructed around power, authority, capability, and value, while the concept of womanhood is constructed around subservience, passivity, and sexual availability.

these ideas are obviously not good things for society and the women subject to it, BUT it means that turning a man into a woman is... well its something like turning a person into a sex object, especially when you see what KIND of Fem usually gets Forced (submissive and breedable, essentially).

compare to something like pooltoy or plush animal transformation- removing someone's agency, and generally these transformations will implicitly or explicitly also be sex toys.

obviously yhis Does Not Work going the other way; dumping a bunch of Hypermasculine Stereotypes on someone Does Not remove them of agency, its the opposite, in fact. Who'da thunk. Actual masculization as a fetish is things like head shaving or roachification- turning a Beautiful Woman (tm) into something that's treated as repulsive or devalued. Guro has similar elements, as does slob and weight gain; some find eroticism in the destruction of value.

AND OBVIOUSLY all these things are manifestations of harmful societal ideas! a bald woman is just as valued and valid a woman as one with long hair, women have and deserve autonomy, transmascs do not need to make themselves palatable to cishet men, and so on. Some people do reclaim these tropes and fetishes as subversions of the norm! people practicing them are not inherently doing their harm! this is just kinda the reality behind sexuality.

Fam how can one be trans in the direction of their assigned sex? I'm not even trying to make the idea sound ridiculous or anything. I'm genuinely curious and want to understand. I thought the whole meaning of trans was that you feel or act in the opposite direction of your assigned sex; if you're transfem but you're afab then to me that's just cisgender??? But like please explain to me how that's not the case if that's what you and others strongly feel so I may grow my compassion

Context: [Link]

well ! while I personally am not intersex, I DO want to highlight intersex people first and foremost.

gender and sex are very Very complex, and I think generally people don't consider the way that being intersex can play a big role in that!

there are intersex people who are afab who are also trans women, there are intersex people who are amab who are trans men, there are intersex people with many Many different relationships with sex and gender and anywhere in between !

an afab person can be born with masculine sex characteristics and transition the way trans women often do. that person May identify as trans, they may not ! that trans person may not even consider themselves a woman depending on who they are and what they want !

I Do think there needs to be an effort to be aware of and make space for intersex people within the trans community, and really the wider queer community as a whole. as it's often something that's given a footnote without deeper thought into the ways that intersex people Actually interact with our communities.

which I don't blame people for not already knowing ! that's the whole point of trying to educate people in the first place ^^

.

and as for Myself

labels are, ultimately, a form of gender presentation. what you call yourself is an extension of not only how you see yourself, but how Other People perceive you.

I could call myself nonbinary or I could call myself trans masc, and both would be Accurate. but people have certain traits and expectations and associations when they see those labels. there are assumptions made about the kind of life that I live, the things that I want, the things I might experience, that change depending on which labels that I use.

and that's not Inherently a bad thing ! I mean, that's part of why people Like labels. but it Can be a struggle for people whose gender is Funny.

I could Also describe myself as genderqueer or multi-gender or genderfluid or gnc or-. I've tried on lots and lots of labels, and for the most part I haven't thrown any of them out, I just keep them in a box under my bed and take them out when relevant.

I've been wrestling with the feminine aspect of my identity for a very Very long time. I've been aware that I'm some level of trans masc. that part was easy. I want a deeper voice, I want things about my body to change, I don't want people to look at me and see a cis woman.

but I Also like femininity. I've found that after accepting myself as trans masc and slowly growing an environment where I am Perceived as masculine, I've started getting euphoria at presenting femininely in the Same way that I did (and do!) get about presenting masculinely.

but that feeling doesn't carry over when I'm perceived as a cis woman. it's Quite Uncomfortable for obvious gender reasons.

and while I may not know the exact Words that I'd use to describe it (as I've said, I've been chewing on it for Many years now), I've gotten a clearer idea of how I Feel.

I want to be Visibly trans. I want to be perceived masculinely And femininely. I want to transition masculinely to present femininely (and sometimes butch, sometimes like your dad at the ace hardware store, I contain multitudes).

and of course, figuring out what I have going on has involve a lot of exploration ! it's the same way I figured out the whole trans masc thing in the first place. seeking out other trans people and other Things About trans people feeling things out.

I find ! that I have a lot of shared experiences with transfeminine people. both in how I feel about certain things, some of the presentation that I want, and in how people would React To said presentation.

my femininity Is Trans, I don't relate to cis womanhood. but I Do relate to trans femininity. which is really awkward for me, because it's difficult to describe it to other people fjksldljkasfdjklfasd

(I don't personally consider myself a trans woman mind, but I'm certain there Are people who are trans men and trans women at the same time. gender is complicated, sex is complicated. labels are malleable and sometimes situational)

Could I describe myself with a different label? probably ! I've got lots of them. but when I Don't put emphasis on this aspect of myself people assume that it's not there. insist that it Couldn't be there, and I don't know what I'm talking about. and those people who Would act nasty towards me probably aren't gonna change their mind just because I changed my bio. but it feels Nice to assert that aspect of myself when other people are trying to tear it down.

.

part of me feels like I should post the intersex portion of this by itself, because people tend to engage more with shorter posts and there's nothing Short about my gender situation ljkfdasjkls

but ! I dunno, if this makes even one person understand the gray areas of gender and presentation a little more it'll be worth it.

thank you for taking the time to ask ! and especially for doing so kindly ! I do hope you'll see this

as you can see, reblogs and replies are now turned off for this mind-numbingly braindead post, but I couldn't resist sharing some of the batshit content in the notes.

typing in color so it's easier to tell my commentary apart from the screenshots

radfems are insane because... we think "all women matter" doesn't include males. incredible insight. I also love "leave my sisters alone. and leave me and my brothers alone, fuckers," as if that's the direction the harassment is typically occuring in. as if radfems are hunting trans people for sport simply by not believing in or supporting the gender construct. yes. we are clearly the insane party here.

more evidence we're the insane ones, as this person claims men aren't an oppressor class and that somehow believing that they are will lead to... believing butch lesbians are an oppressor 💀 this is your brain on gender - completely unable to even consider sex, only "masc presentation," which is how they come to the batshit conclusion that acknowledging men are an oppressor class will ultimately come to include butch lesbians.

... girl. what.

however........ there's one reblog that really stands above all others. It is so long and so unhinged that it surpasses tumblr's image cap, so I'm going to have to do a part 2 of this post. but here's a sneak peek:

Gender worshippers learn what gender essentialism & bioessentialism actually mean challenge: impossible

Seriously. Y'all loooove redefining shit so much, but these terms were created for specific reasons and you can't just rewrite any word or term you want to suit your beliefs. Gender essentialism refers to the commonly held belief that gendered traits are biologically determined by sex rather than learned. The idea that women are "naturally" or "biologically" homemakers, more nurturing, less confrontational, and more emotional, that little girls "naturally" or "biologically" prefer dolls over toy trucks, that women "naturally" or "biologically" feel driven to have babies and there's no such thing as a happy childfree woman, that sex is inherently more emotional and meaningful for women, that men are more logical, better at STEM subjects, better drivers, that it's "natural" for men to cheat but not for women to, that men are "naturally" or "biologically" more aggressive, that paintball and Call of Duty are naturally "for boys," and a thousand other ridiculous things way too many people believe.

But oh shit, what's that? The people who really started fighting back against gender essentialism and arguing that gender is a social construct were... second wave feminists???!!! the very movement radical feminism is born from and shares most of its tenets with???!!! it's... it's almost like... radfems are the literal opposite of essentialists 😱

Meanwhile, today's trans community will tell gender-nonconforming people they're "eggs" and "totally going to come out as trans any day now" while simultaneously claiming not to define gender by stereotypes 🤡 like, OK...

check notes for Part 2!

i am genuinely confused by something you said in your joan of arc post & i would love if you could clarify. you said "women afab can be trans. men amab can be trans." i understand how that applies to intersex people, who may be assigned a sex they identify with but have other sex characteristics that they get dysphoria from. or theyre assigned as one sex but once puberty hit they developed far more traits of the other sex, so they had to transition back to what they used to be. i understand those scenarios. but as far as we know, joan of arc wasnt intersex & you dont bring up intersex in your post. how can a non-intersex person transition to something they already are & have been for their entire life? changing how one presents, like changing their style of clothes to better suit their gender & personality, doesnt count as "transitioning" imo, cis people do that aaall the time, multiple times throughout their lives. so what do you actually mean by this??

So my definition of trans is very much inspired by Leslie Feinberg's definition of trans(gender): An umbrella term for "everyone who challenges the boundaries of sex and gender," in which ze specifically includes cross-dressing and GNC people who are men AMAB and women AFAB. I would define trans as being inclusive of anyone who queers sex and/or gender.

In my humble nonbinary opinion, we way over-rely on the idea of trans as being about identifying as a gender that isn't your assigned sex. I, for example, was assigned female and identify as (amongst other genders) a woman, but my womanhood is very much trans. For one, I was on T for two years and intend to get bottom surgery, but I was also alienated from typical cis girlhood for my entire life and my womanhood is inherently tied to me also being a man and abinary. My womanhood is not cisnormative at all.

"Woman" and "man" (and male and female) are all constructs. Just because someone may call themself a woman, and have been assigned female at birth, does not mean they identify as the same kind of woman that society expects and demands them to. There are different ways of constructing womanhood. The "gender identity that isn't AGAB" definition was built on the idea of trans people as going from one binary point to the other, with the assumption that "woman" and "man" are still Real Things with one natural meaning. Attempts at being nb-inclusive have basically just said "well nonbinary isn't a gender assigned at birth, so its trans!" which is completely true, but it also ignores all the nonbinary and genderqueer people whose genders are more nuanced than that.

On Jeanne d'Arc specifically, I actually have some relevant quotes on this:

(from Vested Interests: Crossdressing and Cultural Anxiety and Clothing and Gender Definition: Joan of Arc respectively)

This is why I included that line: because we often assume, in our exorsexism, that a historical figure must identify as a man/woman (cis), as the opposite (trans), or maybe as neither, but those are the only options. We are still limiting ourselves and these historical figures' by limiting how we understand gender and genderqueerness. To Jeanne, being a cross-dressing female virgin soldier could be its own gender, something different than the genders of cisnormative mothers and nuns.

& as a note: I feel like, a lot of the time, non-intersex people in the community will make exceptions for intersex people (like "well, intersex people can be transfemmascs/male lesbians/etc" but no one else!!!") which. doesn't actually seem that great for intersex people? Like aside from assuming that these genderqueer experiences can only be had by intersex people, it also means that if you identify that way, you must Prove that you are Allowed to be doing that, by both outing yourself as intersex and arguing that you are intersex Enough.

stop simping over women and pay attention to your husband. You clearly made your choice to be with a man and have his child rather than choose a woman. You bisexual women don’t get to exist in lesbian spaces when you lean towards men. Unless your husband lets to you step out on your marriage or lets you have delusional thoughts that any lesbian would want a woman knocked up by a man. You bisexual women who lean more towards men or are with men have no right to be in sapphic or lesbian spaces. And lady d is a lesbian so as if she would be with someone who let a man touch them let alone knock them up.

Oh, I'm sorry, did my husband tell you that I'm not giving him enough attention? Didn't think so.

Yes, I made a choice to be with him, because I fell in love with him. Because he's my best friend and my biggest supporter in everything I do (yes, he even supports my writing and fics and he tells me often how proud he is of me). I did not chose him because he's a man. Truthfully, his gender had absolutely nothing to do with why I married him. I just happened to fall in love with and marry a man, but that does NOT make me any less of a bisexual woman.

"You bisexual women..." and people question whether or not bi-erasure is a thing, meanwhile, this entire ask is such a great example of just that😒

"delusional thoughts that any lesbian would want a woman knocked up by a man." is truly offensive to not only every bi woman who has been with a man, but any woman who has. What about the lesbians that got pregnant by men?? Because this may come as a shock to you, but it does happen. It may not happen a lot or often, but it does. Does that mean that those women are "tainted" or "ruined" also??? No it fucking doesn't, you idiot.

It really makes me laugh when people try and use a fictional character to make a real life argument. You want to know why? BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT FUCKING REAL!!! So honestly, you have absolutely no idea if that's true or not because she's a fake fucking character from a video game. Are you also this upset at the fic writers who make her trans??? Or what about fic writers that make Alcina's partner trans??? Or are you just that much of biphobic person and this is the hill you're choosing to die on?? Either way, you're an actual bigot.

This post just SCREAMS biphobia and bi-erasure and it's fucking gross. You are so very obviously projecting your own issues and insecurities in this and honestly I would be embarrassed if I were you. Because not a single thing you said is true AT ALL or holds any merit.

Bisexual women who lean towards men or who are with men ABSOLUTELY do belong in those spaces. Just because a bisexual woman is married/with a man or leans towards men does not discredit or change their sexuality. No bi person automatically becomes straight if they date/marry the opposite gender or become gay/lesbian if they date/marry the same gender. It's called BIsexual. More than one gender. You do not get to invalidate every bi person with this shitty (and inherently wrong) opinion.

I know you wrote this trying to get a rise out of me, and congratulations because you succeeded. But I also know that people like you leave messages like this because they feel so broken and hurt and shitty that they want others to feel like that too. Unfortunately for you, I grew up in the era that birthed anonymous hate messages so you'll have to try harder next time. Not only that, but I am proud and confident in who I am and no pathetic anonymous (especially anonymous, you pussy) message is going to shake me.

I am a proud bisexual woman. I am proud to be married to my husband. I am proud that I will soon be the mother of a little boy who I will raise to be a much better person than you'll ever be. I am proud of what I've written and no, I will not stop.

dancing lights

synopsis: just a lil partying with jordan

pairing: jordan li x reader

words: 1k

A/N - a two second scene from saltburn inspired this and i couldn’t figure out a full fic for it so…

WARNINGS - Drug use and swearing.

As time melts into the early hours of the morning. Neon lights flash and dance across the sea of bodies packed into the room like a giant sardine tin. it’s a strange period of time. nothing matters. nothing feels real. it’s all just a little bit of fun. it’s loud. it’s messy. your friends are all here somewhere but you can only focus on Jordan right now.

there is such a tenderness in the way they look at you; an admiration in those pretty dark brown eyes. they cannot keep their hands off you but it is far from aggressive. it’s a hand on the small of your back. or your fingers intertwined as you weave through the crowd. it’s a constant that makes you feel comforted. like they’re almost scared to lose you to the masses. and you simply watch as their body moves to the beat of the music. a blur of bright colour and swaying. it’s slow. it’s sensual. like they’re putting on a show just for you. they only care about you in your small corner of this party. he takes your hand; thumb gently brushing across your knuckles as he lifts it between the two of you. he presses a kiss against your skin before looking up to meet your gaze. “may I?” shouted over the thump of the bass. you are not entirely sure what they are asking for. you do not care. they could have anything they want, do anything they want, if it made them happy. plus you had consumed enough alcohol for the risk to be worth it. you nod silently slow. a dusting of white power decorated the back of your hand but not for long as their nose makes quick work of the lines. it is weird how into it you are. how you cannot look away. it is not an inherently sexy act. in fact, it’s far from it. it’s not even good but you are mesmerised. a deep desire for the person opposite only made darker by the flashing lights and dizziness in your head. their tongue glides over your skin to collect any remnants. it would be such a shame to let it go to waste. a delicate kiss is placed at the base of your wrist. A thank you for its service. It brings heat rushing to your cheeks. a feeble, almost inaudible 'fuck' leaves your lips as you watch. Their lips curl into a knowing smirk as they guide you closer. You are expecting a kiss as they slowly lean in but they divert to whisper in your ear. "Do you want some?" you shake your head and they fall back. His smile grows lazier, less controlled as they gaze at you. merely maintaining your stare and leading the peaceful sway to the beat. it's pleasant. it's soothing. you could stay in this moment but it's interrupted as you are ushered closer to him. His hands drift to your hips; applying a tiny amount of pressure. your smile grows to match theirs.

"You good?"

"yeah," they nod slowly. "I feel great." they press their body into yours. "you look... fucking radiant."

"radiant?" you repeat with raised brows.

"radiant. beautiful. spectacular. take your pick." a hand once again graces your jaw. it stills your movement as his thumb lightly slides down your bottom lip before they lean in to connect your lips in a feather-like embrace. Over before it even started. “the kind of beauty men went to war for," whispered against your lips.  Wow. Such high praise. they really were high. As they drift away you reach over and pull them back into the kiss. it's deeper this time. desperate even. it fills your veins with want and warmth.

"you're much too kind," you giggle as you back away. "that's how I know you're fucked."

"When I compliment you?"

"the kind of beauty men went to war for is a little much," you respond.

"if that kiss was anything to go off, it worked though." he teases, a cheeky smile.

"Maybe a little."

"yeah?" hands that once graced your delicate hips now drifted lower to gently squeeze your bottom as you are pressed further against them. a sharp intake of breath you just can't help . "just a little?"

a shaky breath slips into the air. "maybe a lot." you reach up to peck their lips. "who could resist such charm."

the sun is scoldingly bright as your eyes flutter open. your head throbs with the many mistakes of last night. a slender arm is draped over your chest. Jordan lays face down beside you with their head facing away from you. this was their bed. their room. you groan loudly which causes them to stir.

“How you feeling?" you wonder quietly, shrinking away from the bright rays. they don’t respond as they push themselves up for a second before falling back down but facing your direction this time.

"I feel fucking rough man," they groan out against the fabric. "you?"

"absolutely fucked." you chuckle lightly. with their arm still across you, you shuffle closer into their embrace. snuggling up to their side. they hold you closer. you hum warmly at the contact. "do you remember what happened to Cate?"

"I don't think I saw her again after we all split up," Jordan explains. You roll onto your side so your whole body is facing them. They offer you a very weary smile. "Ah well."

"i’m going back to sleep" A faint hum from Jordan puts you at ease. You settle into their embrace and let your eyes fall close. "I wanna stay here with you forever."

"You wouldn't get sick of me?" they mumble out.

"Probably would," you joke. placing a chaste kiss against their bare shoulder. "But I'd stick around anyway." a comfortable silence comes between you and just before you can drift off entirely you remember what you wanted to ask. “should we get Vought-a-burger breakfast?”

“Definitely,” they murmur peacefully. “Later.”

hiii!!! so uh, this is sorta about 'contradicting' (?) identities in general, but i only recently found out about, like, lesboys and gaygirls and all of that, but what is it exactly? like how does it work? or is that weird to ask? i'm trying figuring myself out but a lot of stuff i've seen doesn't exactly... explain it (or explain it well), and while i guess i do get why, it's just kinda hard to understand it myself for my own identity

also, probably a question you get a lot in a hating way, but isn't the definition of lesbian nonman loving nonman? so then how does lesboy work? like is it for people with more complicated gender identites, like fluctuating genders and bigender? just genuinly confused, my apologies...

sorry for not getting to this sooner- been busier lately and didn't have the time to collect everything I needed to respond!

About what it exactly means to be a lesboy or a gaygirl ('turigirl' is the more common term, 'turi' meaning turian, another word for gay attraction to men. so I'll be referring to it as that from now on), there isn't exactly....one right way to call yourself such. it really depends on the person, but I can give you a basic definition and a list of common reasons someone may call themselves such

im gonna put a read more because this ended up being super long so sorry

lesboy is a term for any lesbian who may have a connection to manhood and/or masculinity. turigirl is just the opposite of that, a gay person (mlm/nblm) who may have a connection to womanhood and/or femininity. common reasons I've seen are:

being multigender or genderfluid

being cusper/in between trans and cis gnc (in between trans man and cis gnc woman, in between trans woman and cis gnc man)

being a system who uses lesboy/turigirl as a collective identity or when identities blur together

a person who uses man/boy or woman/girl as a means of masculine or feminine gender expression but not actually identifying as such

being a trans man/ftm or a trans woman/mtf who still identifies as lesbian or gay for personal reasons

those are far from all the reasons, everyone has their own unique experiences, but the gist is these people may have some sort of connection to manhood/womanhood while still having a queer attraction. personally, I'm multigender, genderfluid, and transmasc. lesboy I find is a nice label to express being both my bigender self and being a lesbian, as it forces people to acknowledge both without separating the two. it's cute and makes me feel validated!

as for "nonman attracted to nonmen" definition of lesbian......it has its issues. it's received criticism all around from all sorts of lesbians in the community. this definition is very new - it emerged only in the recent years, and someone on twitter had date searched it and found it didn't even really exist before 2019. and having that as the one and only official definition that every lesbian has to abide by, when lesbian is a centuries old word with so much history behind it, is a bit ignorant. people who are multiple genders or ftm or bi being lesbian is not even remotely new, going back decades upon decades, and it never stopped existing too. It's a bit weird to have a whole new definition that doesn't include all sorts of lesbians that have been here for so long and just tell them they're not welcomed anymore, right?

that's not even close to the only issue there is with it. it's been disliked for centering lack of attraction to men, or defining lesbian in relation to men, rather than who we're actually attracted to. putting nonbinary people in a new binary of either being "men or nonmen," which not all feel comfortable putting themselves into. especially when considering a definition of gay being "nonwomen attracted to nonwomen," man-woman bigender people are simultaneously excluded from being both lesbian or gay. It inherently overlaps with mspec identity ("attraction to nonmen, which is more than one gender" and "any orientation that involves attraction to more than one gender" kinda obviously overlap), despite people insisting that a lesbian can never be mspec. people have found multiple loopholes in it, (which I can elaborate on if someone wants me to, for the sake of trying to make this as short as possible), and lastly, and term "nonman" (and nonwoman) were found to have existed before to describe the degendering of black people in society. this isn't the only source I've seen for this, but sadly I can't exactly find it (or find it without going back to that hellsite called twitter and I'm not doing that to myself)

oh and as the link points out, defining lesbian by these words also ends up excluding a lot of two-spirit people from ever identifying as lesbian, myself included. which is also really racist. I don't know how you're gonna end up excluding a whole cultural gender that's common for indigenous americans to describe themselves with and try to prove it somehow isn't racist, to be honest

and lastly, some surveys/polls have shown that the definition isn't the most widely accepted by lesbians as people make it out to be. there's this simple poll that someone posted asking how lesbians felt about the definition that received 1,529 responses, and 61.1% of voters said they disliked it. comments gave lots of reasons I've stated already. there was another survey put out that received 211 responses that for any lesbian who had a genderqueer or unique relationship with gender, and one of the questions asking opinions on the "nonmen loving nonmen" as a definition. the average among the group was slightly negative (average 2.838), and reported that the group who tended to feel the most positively about it didn't consider themselves to be trans, with the other positive leaning group considered themselves to be somewhat cis. the group that felt the most negatively sometimes considered themselves to be trans. and of the multigender participants, the average opinion was 2.255 (more negative than the overall average). When concluding, the original poster stated, "When divided by gender, the only groups to feel positive about this definition were "not trans" and "somewhat cis" participants. Multigender participants felt especially negative about this definition"

all of this shows that this definition isn't nearly the best for everyone who considers themselves a lesbian. I know it's been a way to include nonbinary people who are lesbian in it's definition, but I think it really misunderstands why nonbinary people are included in lesbianism in the first place, and just assumes that all nonbinary people aren't men and fails to recognize that multigender/genderfluid people are nonbinary too. and it's not like lesbian has to only have on definition- it can definitely have multiple and depend on each person's experience with it. if someone personally defines them being lesbian around being a nonman attracted to nonmen, and takes pride in not being attracted to men, that's totally fine. what becomes a problem is forcing all lesbians to define themselves like this and make it the standard, or else they're "not real lesbians." it is ahistorical and ignorant to require this or else you'll strip them of their lesbian status, and is really at the end of the day, lesbophobic. especially as a requirement that primarily exists in online spaces. im sure the lesbian who is not at all connected to these circles doesn't particularly care about strict requirements or whether someone is a "nonman" or not. in conclusion, it is not the best nor most accepted definition of lesbian, and deciding which lesbians are valid or not based solely on that definition is pretty exclusionary and ends up policing a lot of lesbians, myself included

Propaganda

Rita Hayworth (Gilda, Cover Girl)—Absolutely, drop-dead gorgeous. She steals every movie she’s in; she was Fred Astaire’s favorite dance partner, as you can see in clips from their movies [link][link]. Born Margarita Carmen Cansino, Rita's story had its tragedies—her father was awful and had her performing in nightclubs way, way too young; the studio totally remade her look because they were afraid of her hispanic image, putting her through painful treatments and diets; she had a string of failed marriages. But beside all that, I think there's something about Rita that still glows through—an inner beauty that has nothing to do with the studio, or the men who pinned their dreams on her. Rita brings an incandescence to roles that's impossible to replicate, and was truly a great actress in that she could switch from herself—shy Margarita—into a bold and glamorous femme fatale so convincingly everyone fell in love with her as Gilda. She's my favorite movie star, and I think she was a beautiful human through and through—Rita, gorgeous and real and shining bright.

Jennifer Jones (Duel in the Sun, Song of Bernadette)—Maybe not the best actress (despite her academy award), but she definitely has charisma. Watching her opposite an against type Gregory peck in duel in the sun: incandescent. Also was a mental health advocate.

This is round 2 of the tournament. All other polls in this bracket can be found here. Please reblog with further support of your beloved hot sexy vintage woman.

[additional propaganda submitted under the cut]

Rita Hayworth:

Do you need any other propaganda? Here’s the video.

She was not called "the love goddess" for nothing: beautiful, glamorous, despite playing sexy and provocative roles her inherent shyness somehow also would shine through sometimes, creating this contradictory and incredibly attractive image

Often played "the bad girl" who tempted the male hero away from "the good girl"; but did have roles that broke her out of that mold. She was also the inspiration for Jessica Rabbit. THE pinup girlie.

She was soo beautiful when she was young and she MAINTAINED that beauty into her later years and I think that old lady glamour is hot. bombastic sex appeal

HELP

every line she delivers in gilda is so flirty and passionate or absolutely desolate and it's so good

I just have a lot of feelings about her

Jennifer Jones:

She played a saint, a plumber, a film with Kate Bush music video vibes and a ghost and was friends with Ingrid Bergman

the point of my masculinity and male positivity posts are to underline that masculinity and manhood are seen as a threat or in direct opposition to queerness, and that often times in order to be seen as queer you have to be partially or wholly feminine or gender neutral, or express your manhood in a feminine or gender neutral way in order to no longer be threatening, invasive, or a problem.

it is very difficult to exist in queer spaces as a hyper masculine person & a man. you're made to feel like you need to walk a tight rope feeling like you're inherently out of place, as if you existing and being masculine or a man in queer spaces makes others uncomfortable inherently.. just know that when i make positivity posts it is to remind us all that masculinity/manhood and queerness are not opposites and that you do not have to be a feminine man or masc person to be viewed/seen/heard as queer.

chasing men, masculine people, and masculinity out of queer spaces isn't helping anyone currently and won't help anyone down the line. please accept masc enbies, butches, bears, and masculine trans men with the same kindness, love, and passion that you do neutral and feminine people. that's the point when i make these kinds of posts. thank u

To piggyback off of @shunnedmorlock's post here about the relative justification for both the black and green causes, and how the show presents Rhaenyra's cause as sympathetic.

The in-world choice of who to support in an internecine conflict is, for a lot of lords, ultimately going to be based in self-interest rather than legal, ideological or moral justifications. This fandom fixates a lot on who is in the "right," but the houses that throw their support behind Rhaenyra or Aegon mainly do it for self interest or self preservation. Every lord is going to have multiple literal dragons breathing down their necks, many lords are going to be offered enticements from one side or the other, and some will be considering their own personal circumstances and the precedent their choice sets. A great number of the houses seem pretty determined to stay out of the conflict altogether, even several of the houses that pledge their support in theory, wait until the risk of being caught up in a dragon battle has passed to take any action.

For viewers, our reasons for supporting one side or another are different. Strictly speaking, looking at things from a modern framework, no one has a "right" to the throne. Usurpation is not a human rights violation or even a crime by our standards. Imagine fixating on women being unable to own slaves and thinking that a woman fighting for her right to do so is an expression of feminism. Ridiculous! Certainly it is bullshit within an already bullshit system that a woman comes after her brothers in a hereditary monarchy, but in a just system this conflict wouldn't exist in the first place, not because Rhaenyra would automatically be queen, but because Westeros wouldn't have a king or a queen at all. Liberation doesn't start at the top and trickle down, but rather the opposite.

That said, to modern viewers, Rhaenyra's cause is sympathetic because it feels like an injustice. Most of us don't live within a feudal system and do not have the framework to understand why it's not a form of oppression to be denied the throne. We see it more like a presidential race, in which Rhaenyra is the Hillary Clinton who might have defeated Trump in 2016 if not for misogyny, in which even if we didn't particularly like her, we were disgusted by the fact that that man beat a woman who was at worst no different from many of the men who had occupied the seat before her. To the average vaguely liberal American watching the show, it's insane for fans to support Aegon and the greens and clearly you'd only do it for horny or antifeminist reasons. And you see that a bit in even the showrunners' comments on Alicent being a "woman for Trump," how both they and much of the audience fail to fully understand the historical framework, but in a way that's kind of understandable, because while what happens to Rhaenyra might not be injustice, it is unfair.

If you're looking at things from a historical in-world framework, this is a world in which stability takes a higher priority than equality. Inequality is everywhere, completely baked into the system. If you want to bring about gender equality in a feudal monarchy with a large agrarian population, you have to have first the stability necessary for the rise of an urban middle class which allows for more women to move into the trades, you need the printing press for widespread literacy, which means that more women are getting educated, you need movements such as the reformation to challenge the divine right of kings, and you need to reform the political structure so that leadership is not based on birthright in the first place, because that concept inherently reinforces patriarchal norms even in modern countries that allow women to become queens regnant. So making one woman queen is not going to make things better for women across Westeros, but that woman going to war to reclaim her "stolen" birthright could make things a whole lot worse for a pretty much everyone. This is why you see a lot of history nerds on this site going well, yes but Rhaenyra does have the weaker claim because common law was a big deal in the medieval world and her becoming queen is going to lead to long term succession crises due to the circumstances of her children's birth, so the thing to do would be to take the peace deal. Because while on an emotional level you can understand why she doesn't, it's not the choice that prioritizes the good of the realm.

I think on some level Condal understands (and I think GRRM probably hammered this point home) that you can't really grant anyone the moral high ground in a war of succession if you want to approach the issue with any level of nuance; Rhaenys' speech in the previews for S2 seems to indicate as much. The problem with HotD is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants to say war for the throne bad, but HBO also wants to make up for the way GoT fumbled the ball with Dany and give the people their likeable dragonriding princess triumphant.

Except Rhaenyra isn't triumphant, she is felled by her own Targaryen hubris and belief that nothing could possibly overcome the might of dragons. It's not Aegon that defeats her, truly, it's the people emboldened in various ways to act against Targaryen interests. It's the dragonseeds she hands dragons to who wonder why they have to take orders from a queen or king when they have control of the kingmaking weapons of mass destruction, it's the smallfolk who face down dragons with pitchforks because they've had enough. They've backed themselves into a bit of a corner with what @shunnedmorlock called the "engoodening" of the black faction, but they can turn it around by showing that it's not enough to be nice to your family, you have to actually care about the people and at the very least (the bar is on the floor, it's fuedalism!) not throw them into chaos, famine, and war for no reason. Give us payoff for Rhaenys' dragonpit scene, have Mysaria and Alys Rivers play a role in their sides' downfalls, show how resentment on Dragonstone allows Aegon to infiltrate. And yes, show Rhaenyra losing herself and becoming a worse person, but in ways that the audience can't excuse as justified. This is how you sow the seeds for that actual progressive change that people seem so desperate to find in the dragonshow, you show how the Dance emboldens the regular people who for the first time realize they can slay dragons, dovetailing into the new show, which stars Dunk, a commonborn man from Fleabottom, and Aegon V, the only Targaryen who ever cared about the smallfolk.

Can HBO pull it off? Ehh. But I remain eternally hopeful, against my better judgement.