.: 𝕞𝕒𝕜𝕠𝕙𝕒𝕣𝕦 :.

|| 𝚒𝚝’𝚜 𝚖𝚎𝚊𝚗𝚒𝚗𝚐𝚕𝚎𝚜𝚜 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑𝚘𝚞𝚝 𝚢𝚘𝚞 || catherine - they/she - 27 - mainly here to yell about free! but sometimes there are bears. come overanalyze and love on some fictional swimmers with me!! ♡

[caffernnn]

ermmm. hi friends ! 🐻‍❄️

[sawasawako]

- lighthousekeeping, jeanette winterson

[s0fich]

[s0fich]

happy in his blankeyy

[balaclava-trismegistus]

[Getting so angry it makes my brain disease worse] people sre supposed to be nice..

[gremlininho]

let me. innnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

[irisunmuted]

"okay ❤️ yay ❤️" remains an unmatched response

[moniquill]

[isuggestrevolution]

i have a suggestion

[actualtree]

ITS ONLY JULY FIRST

[coolsadtrash]

[glowcowboy]

“it’s not that deep” it’s not that shallow. now what

[gondorrevealparty]

Polycules should be able to trade people like sports teams do

[gondorrevealparty]

Listen -- you're a good defender and your pussy is fantastic, but that's not what our team needs right now. We're trading you to Greater Boston in exchange for someone who has a car.

[this-is-trans-joy]

everyone loves to hate terfs until they realise that it actually entails rejecting bioessentialism entirely and then suddenly you’re “taking things too seriously” and you “don’t have a sense of humour” like i’m sorry but saying protect the dolls doesn’t make you immune to terfism it has seeped into every corner of mainstream feminism and unless you’re actively searching it out and checking your own biases you will always be at risk of sharing a space with terfs

[this-is-trans-joy]

“Only women can—” nope. “But all men—” nah. “The divine femininity of—” gonna stop you right there. “Everyone born ama—” if you finish that sentence I’ll kill you. “Men don’t experience—” you’re wrong. “Gender isn’t real but sex is imm—” *loud incorrect buzzer*

It also goes without saying that bioessentialism inherently can’t be trans inclusive no matter how hard you try. “All men including trans men—” probably not. “This is only a woman’s issue—” is it really? “Afabs only—” why? “All trans men are like—” what? what are they like? finish the sentence i dare you.

[specialagentartemis]

my petty gripe about anachronism in historical/fantasy/spec-fic worlds is attraction language.

We’ve all heard the “should you use modern queer labels or not” argument but honestly even when people go “true, they wouldn’t use the labels ‘aromantic’ or ‘asexual,’” so often the characters describe their experiences as “I never felt romantic attraction” or “I don’t feel attracted to anyone” in ways that makes me go. You are stilllllll thinking about this in an extraordinarily modern online way. That 19th century steampunk detective man will NOT be angsting about having never felt romantic attraction, he would be angsting about being unable to feel moved by the beauty or charm of a woman, or something. And I do think that “attractiveness” language is different from the identity-level idea of experiencing attraction—Sherlock Holmes does not talk about not experiencing attraction, but when Watson says “What a very attractive woman!” Holmes responds “Is she? I did not observe.” (And then Watson calls him an inhuman automaton and calculating-machine and Holmes calls Watson’s judgement biased). Never swayed by the attractiveness of a man or woman, never desirous of marriage, never charmed by the delights of love, all of these feel like some of the variety of ways that someone in this milieu might describe an ace- or aro-spectrum identity more than “never felt attraction” does. Mostly because, like the terms for aromantic and asexual themselves, nailing down an exclusively attraction-based definition of a-spec identities is a relatively new and extremely post-AVEN thing. And yet in fiction everybody knows to articulate their experience as feeling sexual/romantic attraction. And I always want to go nooo how would THIS character think about it?? Not how you think this character SHOULD think about it, how would THIS person in THIS context articulate their feelings?

[newsandstuffisee]

[prof-grace-aspen]

I'm a fandom oldie and a strong proponent of "ship and let ship", and I defend everyone else's right to ship what they love... But I think that gives people the idea that I like, automatically love every single ship??? Or every single trope?

I don't though!

There are a lot of fandom tropes that are on my "absolutely fuck no" list. There are a lot of irk kinks that are also on my "nope absolutely not" list, too. Personally, this is healthy. I'm able to look at something and go "Yep, I hate it, but it's not harming anyone, so continue to do as you please."

[wlw-whump]

as much as I love badass characters pushing through pain to fight, I also love when they hit a point where they just can't. something structural is wrong or broken, so they can't stand. their muscles are simply too weak and overworked to hold them up. their bloody hands slip off the handles of their weapons, they can't aim through their vertigo or tunneling vision, they shake from blood loss or exhaustion even if not from fear. they've just reached their limit, and no amount of willpower will change that!

[probablily]

sometimes i agree with a post but i dont like your attitude

[wiseguynephile]

flashback to when I got a little too gnc in my new profile pic, and my mom caught on that I had The Gender (which she was super supportive about, tbc), but didn't want to ask about it outright. so she started making up never-before-seen euphemisms