nobody is gonna give you a medal or free HRT for acting like a fucking gender cop. the system is not your friend. we’re out here lying to doctors for survival and demanding respect from an antagonistic system and you’re arguing about who is or isnt transgender like some sort of fan club for oppressive medical gatekeeping.
how the fuck do you profit from this. you’re wasting your time and your energy tearing other trans people down when you should have solidarity with them. you should be supporting all trans people, not just the ones whose gender you understand, not just the ones whose gender is respectable and palatable to YOU.
Tag: text
Hefner’s philosophy admittedly differed from the mainstream heterosexuality of the 1950s — but only in the sense that it was built to better privilege straight men. As Barbara Ehrenreich detailed in her book The Hearts of Men, before Playboy, bachelors were seen as losers who couldn’t get wives of their own. (They were also suspected of being gay, as the implications around the phrase “confirmed bachelor” still attest.) Hefner changed the public perception of single men, turning them into swinging (hetero) sex gods having adventures that poor henpecked married men could only dream of. This idea is still with us today — if you’ve ever seen an episode of Entourage or read a pick-up artist’s blog, you’ve reaped the benefits of Hefner’s work. But the change was never meant to make sex more fulfilling for women, or even queer men. Far from it.
[…] In the pre-Playboy variety of sexism, women were children who had to be taken care of and disciplined by their husbands. In the new, “radical” Playboy philosophy, women were sour, scolding mommies to be rebelled against or hot commodities to be acquired. This split between conservative misogyny and hip, “liberal” misogyny is still with us, and still expressed in much the same terms. But Hefner never challenged the sexism at the heart of the social order — he just wanted to remove any responsibility men might bear to the women they slept with, and make sure men’s experience of sex was consequence-free. His revolution re-arranged the surface, but left the underlying structure of patriarchy intact.
fellas is it gay to have to fuck or die and declaring yourself cured of this after wrestling around in the dirt with your (dude) captain
![]()
It’s…biology
fellas is it gay to have ur vulcan biology subdued by wrestling in the dirt with your captain
Unfucking Dungeons & Dragons
The concept of some humanoid or near-humanoid species being
naturally inclined to evil is a racist one, and, unfortunately, a prevalent one
in Dungeons & Dragons, exacerbated by the fact that these “evil species”
are frequently the “ugly” ones. Drow are a particularly glaring example – “made
black because of their ‘evil’”?! Fuck you – but the duergar – “the
slaves … learned only to enslave, really makes you think don’t it” – and
the orcs – “they feel the CALL to evil in their Gruumshy HEARTS” – are also
super not good. (There’s also a fair degree of ableism, with “insane” monsters
– in such cases, I honestly think “unaligned” would be a better description for
“too far gone to understand morality”. Evil implies a choice.)
Honestly, I wouldn’t mind so much if these weren’t supposed
to be naturally-occurring species – always evil demons or fey are fine, because
they’re made of magic and stories, although care should of course
be taken not to make them look like naturally-occurring species – but
elves are really just fragile pointy-eared monkeys, and they have excuses.
However, these evil humanoids are also genre staples and
often quite aesthetically good. To that end, I offer the Unfucking D&D Guide, which provides what I think are solutions to this
problem. (It should be noted that I am whiter than plain yogurt, so my ideas
should be taken with a grain of salt and definitely not take precedence over
the ideas of non-white folks. If I’ve said something fucked-up in this, please
let me know and I’ll fix it.)
- Duergar. Keep the “enslaved by illithids, made grim
& psionic” bit, toss the “learnt evil from them” part. The duergar are
joyless, or can appear so – you can play them either as gloomy and fatalistic
or as eccentric and unreasonably concerned with “corruption” – but despite
whatever mood they possess, make sure that they are thoroughly dedicated to
making sure the horrors of the Underdark stay in the Underdark, and are as
righteous and honorable as their hill and mountain cousins.- Derro. The derro are an “insane” species; I bring
them up only because I saw them confused with duergar in one post about racism
in D&D. Their lore has not been constant – the current lore is “dwarves
enslaved by illithids, tortured into madness, and now they’re eeeeeeeevil”,
which is ableist, not racist – but their metatextual origin is among the
detrimental robots, or Deros, of pulp author Richard Sharpe
Shaver’s stories (or possibly delusions). “Born from the dreams of a mad author” would actually be good lore
if you can make that author a tragic sufferer of schizophrenia in a time before
it was understood rather than an ~*~eViL mAdMaN~*~, but in any event, change
their type to construct, fey, or fiend, and, most importantly, don’t take
them seriously. The derro are pulp villains, and their evil is
grandiose and nonsensical. They ought not to be seen as realistic; they ought
to be seen as Snidely Whiplash, Commander Claw, or Heinz Doofenshmirtz. “Reasons”
are for other genres.- Drow. Return drow to their mythical roots as trow,
nocturnal hunters, tricksters, and magical artisans dwelling in the hollow
hills. There’s high and wood elves; dark elves can find a niche. Lolthite culture
is good villain fodder, but make sure that you can handle an “evil religion”,
and make sure that all types of elves participate.- Goblinoids and trolls. Make them fey, and abandon
Tolkien for Rossetti and folktale. Goblins make cruel bargains; hobgoblins
attend faerie courts; bugbears hide in closets andcreate electricity fromfeed
on children’s screams; trolls lurk under bridges and love riddles. As fey, they’re
not evil, simply alien and lacking in empathy towards mortals.- Gnolls. If you use the Volo’s lore, change
their type to fiend and be done with it. If you want to have them be natural
humanoids, go read Ursula Vernon’s Digger for the best-written
hyaena-furries in literature and base gnolls off that once you’re done crying.- Kobolds. Kobolds are already draconic cleaner wrasses
in lore; there’s no reason that metallic dragons can’t enjoy them as well and
influence some populations to good.- Illithids. The mind flayers certainly have great
potential as villains. However, there is nothing about their psychology that
impels them thither. Their biological requirements could easily be met by
feeding on those close to death, whom I might imagine would willingly donate
their brains as food or tadpole incubators in exchange for a painless death and
the surety that their memories would live on in the illithid. Also, create
food and water spells exist.- Ogres. Ogres are wilderness-dwellers who prefer to
maintain their personal territories through fear instead of actual force of
arms; the idea of the monstrous, anthropophagous ogre is a deliberate sham.
They are actually capable of great heroism, even if they aren’t exactly the
sharpest tools in the shed and okay to be honest I started out trying to build
up to a Shrek joke but I think I’d take this over canon lore.- Orcs. Orcs are an easy fix; all you need to do is
remove Gruumsh from the equation and they don’t have a bullshit “call to evil”;
in Eberron, without objective gods, the people of the Shadow Marches believe
that half-orcs are the proof that orcs and humans are one people, so there’s
even in-game precedent for orcs as members of society.- Yuan-ti. There are two ways to do this. One is to
dump all the lore and just have sexy snake cults, although don’t dress them
like Asian or Aztec stereotypes like a lot of the art does. (The 3.5 Monster
Manual yuan-ti pureblood looks like she’s constantly accompanied by an
inappropriate bamboo flute riff, I swear to Istus.) A sexy snake cult (and I am
including malisons, abominations, and anathemas in the term “sexy”, not just
purebloods) should be fun for everyone.
- The other way is to keep their personalities and dump
everything else, because if you keep that, you get truly excellent
villains. I mean, these fuckers. How dare they drag something as pure as
snakes into their Ayn Rand bullshit. Villain yuan-ti should be
something transformed from willing or deluded humanoids (histachii raise
the sacred snakes and the children of the yuan-ti, who possess their parents’
original race at birth). Couple that with the fact that since snakes very
definitely have emotions, yuan-ti logically should as well, which means that
they only think they’re above emotions. Now you have Objectivists roped
into a magical pyramid scheme, which should offend no-one who doesn’t deserve
it. You can mourn for the beings they once were, or just laugh in their dumb
faces. Also, the sexy ones all look like Ayn Rand.hey real quick request before i go to bed: reblog this post to spite tumblr user bravestcolour and all their uncritical ilk, who asked me if this post was a joke and who spat back the benefit of the doubt i gave them back in my face
This is right up there with my rant “Tolkien is not your GM.”
smackles’mores

Tony Abbott has suggested the use of the military to force states to do more natural gas mining.
“It makes sense! Haven’t you heard of the Green Army? They’re trying to save the environment! The only natural response as a conservative is to you military force to make sure they don’t succeed!” Tony slammed his fist down on the table.
“But Tony… The Green Army isn’t actually an army… and also it’s a government initiative… we’re in charge of that” replied a senior government official. “…and also that’d be illegal…”
“To hell with the law! I want those greeny tree hugging bastards shot and our natural resources mined and our planet’s atmosphere also shot to hell with greenhouse gasses – which I also want you to shoot as account of them having the word “green” in them!” Tony flung his hands up in a fit of rage and suddenly noticed a tree branch swinging just outside the window. The green leaves infuriated him and in a swift lunge his jumped out of the first story window and started attacking the trees with his fist.
“Do as I command thee!”
The rest of the party room leaned in close to each other.
“He realises he’s not Prime Minister anymore right? Did… did no one remember to tell him that 2 years ago or…?” one person asked. Everyone looked around at each other and shrugged.
“I… wait… didn’t you?”
“No. I thought you did…”
So there was this study in which adults were shown a crying baby. Those who were told the baby was a boy interpreted the baby’s emotion as anger. Those who were told the baby was a girl interpreted the baby’s emotion as being upset.
Confirmation bias is when people only acknowledge information that supports their biases, or twists information that does not into information that does.
So whenever someone says “trans women are acting according to male socialization” or characterizes anything a trans woman does as being “male” keep that bit about the babies in mind, and confirmation bias.
For some people trans women can do literally anything and it is perceived as somehow stemming from a fictional essential ~maleness~.
I recall snowflakeespecial, for example, linking two webcomics. One was of a cis woman celebrating her breasts, and one was of a trans woman celebrating her breasts. These comics were very similar in presentation and both said basically the same thing. However, snowflakeespecial claimed that the two strips were obviously completely different because the one made by a cis woman was genuine, whereas the one made by a trans woman was evidence of autogynephilia.
This is also reflected when cis people know a woman is trans, they will interpret any behavior, any physical feature, anything to support the contention that said woman is obviously trans, even if they had no idea even moments before.
In short, the game is rigged. When TWERFs, when truscum, when trans women collaborators pull this shit, they’re not engaging honestly. They’re engaging in terms of “Trans women are men. Therefore everything they do is indicative of being men.”
This is also why they lose their shit when trans women refuse to comply with their perceptions, as happened last night.
The basic rule is, however, that trans women are not allowed to be authorities on our own experiences. Everything we say is debatable and simply being a trans woman makes one discreditable. Any attempt to step outside the very narrow, confining boxes that others have decided describe us is seen as an act of aggression.
For that matter, any attempt to assert boundaries is seen as an act of aggression.
me before giving a bj
*tapping* is this thing on?
could u imagine inventing butter, and you take a big spoonful and ur like 😏 then that shit hit your tongue and….. 😰….. 😨 ….. ur done! 😱🤢 soooooo nasty! ugh! ohhh it’s repulsive! but then ur thinking 🤔i spent 16 hours making this little bowl of this filth, not gonna just toss it! no way! 😑 so u grab some of your leftover bread that you grew yourself on a bread tree. spread some of that Gunk on that bad boy. 😧 bottoms up!!! …….😳❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️ it’s amazing! it’s so delicious! how can something so horrendous by itself, make this bread so much better❓❗️❓❗️ you losing your damn mind
fdkfjslfdja ppl are mad that the female protagonist in The Shape of Water doesn’t speak oh my goD she’s the main character nonetheless and communicates with sign language…her “voice” has not been taken away, she just doesn’t communicate in a way that the average person is used to. the force of her voice isn’t heard by her oppressors for precisely that reason – she is “otherized” for it, much like the creature in the tank is for being what he is – and somehow I doubt he speaks conventionally either. that doesn’t mean either of them have no agency.
#‘hmm i dont like that she’s disabled but how do i sugarcoat this?’
“How do I make my deep seated ableism read as a feminist position?”
