Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (1990)
Tell me why I can’t stop thinking about them
The Bowery Presents
🪼
KIROKAZE
Today's Document
Mike Driver

Love Begins

Andulka
macklin celebrini has autism
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
No title available
No title available
🩵 avery cochrane 🩵
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
Noah Kahan

JVL

tannertan36
The Stonewall Inn
Cosmic Funnies
almost home
YOU ARE THE REASON

seen from Singapore

seen from Germany

seen from Netherlands
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Germany

seen from United States

seen from Saudi Arabia

seen from Germany
seen from Czechia

seen from United Arab Emirates
seen from Russia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States

seen from Germany
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
@godmodebeginswithlesbians
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (1990)
Tell me why I can’t stop thinking about them
"Oh yeah, we have an outdoor Corgi, he just gets so bored cooped up inside all day. He knows to stay off the road. Don't worry, he's way too smart for coyotes and the neighbor's know to look out when they drive past."
"Us? Oh, of *course* our Dachshund sleeps inside- we just let him out in the morning and make sure he comes back for dinner. He just does his own thing, no worries."
"Um, you know it's not humane to keep a chihuahua confined to an apartment? They're dogs, they're natural predators. They need to experience hunting behaviors or they get depressed. No we don't leash ours, he absolutely hates it, we just let him come and go whenever."
Yall get how fucking stupid that sounds, right? So stop letting your goddamn cats get eaten and attacked and infected and hit by cars
A toddler would probably love full unattended access to the neighborhood too, but we don't do that either, do we
It's 2026, "keep your damn pet in a house or in your view" should not be controversial
I had to go on a hunt for this but it was worth it. 100% agree
its crazy that megan thee stallion is not considered a queer artist by some people. the woman is not shy about the fact that she finds women attractive and likes having sex with them. she references it pretty frequently in her music, she made a whole song about enjoying having threesomes with a woman and a man, she made a Jennifer's Body-themed music video, she had Victoria Monét full riding her thigh on stage at a coachella, and there's literally a video of a lesbian interviewing glorilla at a party & asking who she would date if she was queer and her immediate response is "megan. megan like girls!" and then megan turns around and immediately starts flirting with the interviewer. i don't know what more you want. that woman is Bi Sexual and we should all be thankful every day for that. bi women are still bi when they wanna fuck men too you know. the fucking of men is also done bisexually.
someone PLEASE call the gay people police !!!!!!! a queer woman of color is talking about being horny for women guys please we NEED to stop this quick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
does a bi woman sexualizing women in her music & wanting an FMF threesome make her a gay icon
yes
veritably
indubitably
its a requirement actually
really good tags so far. also. just have to make this point:
meg's music in general is frequently very horny. when she includes her attraction to women in her music its sexual because when she includes her attraction to men in her music its sexual. she's a sexually explicit artist. you know. "your honor i'm a freak bitch handcuffs leashes" "hoes tryna get picked, i'm just tryna get dick" "mandatory that i get the head but no guarantees on the penetration" literally references pimping out men in her music all the time 1/2 of Wet Ass Pussy herself.
she very much depicts herself as a sexual subject and sexual actor in her music, someone who desires and chooses to act upon those desires with confidence and skill. and given how much intense misogynoiristic hate she gets from cishet men i think it should be very very obvious she's not faking being into women to get cis male approval!
so to assume that her talking about being sexually attracted to women and faking wanting a threesome with a man and a woman and faking having had and planning to continue having sex with women is her performing fake bisexuality to pander to straight men is laughable. and also disgustingly biphobic and racist. as with the original post, its very much an intersection of biphobia and anti-Blackness; there is no way for her to be a "good queer icon" to such people as shown above. this whole post could apply to Cardi B or any number of Black mspec artists, or just queer Black artists in general.
Intersex people: Being intersex does not mean you can’t be male or female
Perisex people: Ohhh okay! I see now!
Intersex people: Thank you
Perisex people: All intersex people are just AFABs and AMABs with slight variations!
Intersex people: ????????????
When I say the recent major waves of transandrophobia, transmisogyny and exorsexism on this site feel like a psyop, I am not saying "bigotry in the community isn't real and everyone ever posting it is a government agent", I'm saying that a lot of us are becoming so susceptible to hating one another that we arent even recognizing when blatantly obvious bad faith actors are inserting themselves into our community spaces anymore.
I am watching people get anons that are self evidently written by TERFs, 4channers and a number of people who likely do not engage with our spaces outside of discourse, and blindly blaming other trans people/communities as a whole. Watching them insist that that's just how our brothers and sisters treat each other, so they've earned slurs and harassment in return. Eye for an eye, but you earn it by even having eyes to see that a blade was swung at all.
I'm begging all of you to learn to recognize this and stop participating in it. It's feeding exactly what the nasty underbelly of this site wants of our community - for it to self cannibalize and fizzle out until there's no one to have your back while they try to drive each and every one of us to detransition or suicide.
Access to gender-affirming care (GAC) varied across gender identity when comparing trans men to AFAB nonbinary individuals (Table 2.5). For example, both groups highly desired top surgery; however, trans men were significantly more likely to have already undergone the procedure (32%) compared to AFAB nonbinary individuals (10%). Both groups also showed interest in hysterectomies, though access again differed, as 10% of trans men had undergone a hysterectomy, while only 2% of AFAB nonbinary individuals had. Overall, this indicates that while transgender men and AFAB nonbinary individuals often seek similar forms of care, nonbinary individuals experience a larger gap between desiring a procedure and receiving it, possibly due to systemic barriers or variations in how medical providers approach nonbinary transition-related care.
When comparing across gender, some similarities exist between transgender women and AMAB nonbinary individuals in their desires for certain procedures (Table 2.7). For instance, both groups wanted laser hair removal at high prevalences (54% of trans women and 58% of AMAB nonbinary individuals). However, transgender women were far more likely to have undergone the procedure (40%) compared to AMAB nonbinary individuals (15%), suggesting a greater gap between desire and access. In contrast, desires for surgical procedures diverge between trans women and AMAB nonbinary respondents. Trans women wanted vaginoplasty at much higher prevalences than AMAB nonbinary individuals (48% vs. 17%), and a substantially larger percentage of trans women already had the procedure (11% vs. 1%). These findings highlight that gender-affirming needs are not uniform across gender identity.
from the USTS 2022 Health & Wellness report, pages 47 & 49
^ also from the 2022 USTS. & from the 2015 USTS:
Seventy-eight percent (78%) of respondents wanted to receive hormone therapy at some point in their life, but only 49% of respondents have ever received it. Ninety-two percent (92%) of those who have ever received hormone therapy were currently still receiving it, representing 44% of all respondents. A large majority of transgender men and women (95%) have wanted hormone therapy, compared to 49% of non-binary respondents. Transgender men and women were about five times more likely to have ever had hormone therapy (71%) than non-binary respondents (13%)
& note that all of this comes from 2022 (& 2015), so does not represent the full impact of more recent anti-trans legal attacks.
the truth is the most discourse poisoned weirdos among us are not even on tumblr at all, they're walking around the physical world acting like normal people until their sleeper activation topic comes up.
when I was in undergrad I had this professor who spontaneously decided in the middle of a class on, as far as I could tell, a completely unrelated topic to go on a bizarre tirade about how human pregnancies are actually 10 months long and saying it's 9 months is a patriarchal attempt to minimise women's suffering. she very confidently justified this by explaining that there are four weeks in a month, so 40 weeks is 10 months.
when someone pointed out that a month (except February) is actually four weeks and two to three days, and that 40 weeks (280 days) is a lot closer to 9 months (275 days) than it is to 10 months (305 days), she told him to stop mansplaining.
then a girl pointed out that the actual length of a typical human pregnancy isn't even 40 weeks, it's 38. I think we all collectively blacked out after that
Hatred of transmasculinity doesn’t just come hand in hand with hatred of masculine women, butches and especially transfems and trans women who don’t conform to rigid normative standards of what they’re supposed to and allowed to look like: it is the second edge of the very same blade.
To transandrophobes the archetypal masculine trans woman, transfem butch or nonbinary person not prioritizing passing over gender identity, expression and comfort in the two is at best seen as an unfortunate creature at the side lines and at worst a harmful caricature that perpetuates transphobic stereotypes.
Butch transfems (like me) are accepted by this crowd only if we verbally and ideologically distance ourselves from the “wrong kind of masculinity” ergo anything that looks an arbitrary amount too much like “manhood”.
Our joyful gender expression is seen as a reminder of their internalized dysphoria and self hatred.
And all of that is ALSO transmisogyny in its entirety; policing and marginalizing trans women and transfems for not being conforming enough to hegemonic stereotypes.
miscellaneous & disorganized thoughts on the "why should feminists care so much about men's issues? why don't men organize themselves?"
feminist is not equivalent to woman. this is for one, because anyone can be a feminist, and two, because "being a feminist" (or rather, doing feminism) is not just being a woman or caring about women. it is a dedicated to a movement that seeks gender liberation and the end of patriarchal oppression; to call yourself a feminist, in my opinion, means holding yourself as a feminist to a higher standard in the pursuit of liberation. while we should of course be vigilant about reproducing patriarchal dynamics, we must not conflate the role of feminist with simply being a woman.
feminism has historically been deeply cissexist in a way which prevents full analysis of men and trans people's position under patriarchy. trans men have been involved with women's liberation forever, yet trans men have also been constantly excluded from feminism because of their manhood, despite being no less materially affected by misogyny.
men's liberation cannot be achieved without women's and trans liberation, and ultimately all gender liberation cannot be achieved while we maintain gender segregation. we must be unafraid to be heterosocial, affiliate with one another, and disregard the boundaries of gender in order to demand true freedom. if gender is a tool of patriarchal control which divides us socially and economically, we must turn gender into a tool of liberation by emphasizing inter-gender solidarity and our intertwined, overlapping experiences. we cannot achieve gender liberation by continuing to maintain the illusion that "men's issues" and "women's issues" are separate, especially when for trans and intersex people, this illusion is itself extremely violent and excludes us from feminism ideologically
going off that; women must take the first step and claim men's issues as a feminist concern, in order to take a sledgehammer to that gender segregation. by insisting that men's issues are women's issues, we can also then demand that men recognize women's issues are men's issues, and trans issues are men and women's issues, and men and women's issues are trans issues. many men have tried to do this themselves, but it is very hard for men who recognize women's issues are men's issues to be given enough recognition and validity amongst cis men. this stance means that feminists are not sitting around and waiting for cis men to collectively realize their position; they are demanding men realize it, and they are doing that through very pointed compassion. "you are with us whether you realize it or not; our doors are open, we are concerned for you, and to turn away from us is to reject yourselves."
to take inspiration from the Black Panthers, we need to heighten the contradictions of gender. we need to make cis men at large realize that it is only through organizing with women and trans people that they can be truly freed from their own gendered struggles - and to realize that their struggles are gendered in such a way. like it or not, feminism is THE anti-patriarchal force in our society; it seems a waste to refuse to use that force, simply because "we shouldn't have to."
Throwback to when I was about 18 and I watched in real time as a trans guy I knew had his PTSD and anxiety manipulated against him by radfems as they groomed him into medically and socially detransitioning. We were in transmed spaces, so really he was only as nice as anyone could be in those cesspools, but I watched this generally funny and charismatic trans man that I looked up to deteriorate and detransition into a woman who was vocally just. bitter, jaded, miserable, constantly angry, constantly lashing out, and regularly relapsing both with self harm and substance abuse because the pain and dissociation that came with detransition was too much.
That was my wakeup call that I was laying with dogs and dangerously close to catching fleas.
There's a reason why you should never trust a radfem and it's because she would rather see you detransition and kill yourself in a hole of desperate dysphoria than let you live wholly as yourself.
Just so we're clear, the last thing that I had heard about this person several years ago was that she had detransitioned, became a TERF, and had attempted to take her life for the first time since before her transition.
I do not share this shit lightly. I'm using she/her here because that was what she was using last time I heard of her, but when this person was on T and surrounded by other trans people she was on several good clean streaks wrt both self harm and substances and was generally doing well. She was still struggling with her mental health but don't we all.
When she started hanging around radfems and detransitioned it triggered her suicidality so badly she tried to follow through for the first time in over a decade.
The situation kind of speaks for itself.
as much as everyone loves "the power of love won't save us, we need the power of incredible violence" i'm sorry to rain on your parade but we've actually tried that about ten million times as a species, and you'll be shocked to hear the power of incredible violence, without the power of love behind it, is just brutality. the power of incredible violence has been ruling (various parts of, and then the entire) world for the past 5,000 years. ours is not that damn special.
like yes use that gun you found but WHY are you using it? on who are you using it? what would make you stop using it? is your goal to live in a world where every problem is solved by violence, or is your goal to do the violence necessary to live in a world where that necessity is unthinkable?
#I'm a pacifist so I don't necessarily believe every word of this post but it actually makes an amazing point#everyone take a moment to think about this /light-hearted
on the subject of pacifism, if you are interested: i consider myself what i would call a preferential pacifist. i think we should always hold peace and non-violence as a moral preference, meaning we should always choose it when it viably leads to a better world, or the least-violent choice that is viable, and when we do choose violence we must make further decisions that allow us to eventually choose peace again.
i think sometimes violence is necessary to uphold greater moral values, including peace, but ultimately it should be something we are forced to do to some extent, and we should only do it while actively looking for other options.
Julie Bindel, long standing Radical Feminist since the late 70's into the 80's and notorious transphobe/transmisogynist, wrote a long think piece about just how transphobic Andrea Dworkin was back in 2024 [ here ] (original publication in 2023).
Bindel writes about how she and Dworkin bonded over making fun of other women at a conference Dworkin was speaking at. Bindel writes:
During that week, we became friends, laughing until we cried at the absurdity of men’s behaviour. As you might imagine, humour among feminists who campaign against rape and femicide tends to be quite dark. Pointing to the rabid identity politics of some women, such as those who began every question from the floor of the conference with, “As a working-class lesbian mother…” and such like, we came up with absurdities such as, “Speaking as a headless woman…”
This is a side note, but the blatant misogyny of "We spent the week laughing about the absurdity of men, here is an example of us making fun of other women" should not go over your heads here.
Bindel goes on to describe the "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach that she and Dworkin shared about trans people, writing:
Dworkin was a friend to the disaffected, the abused, the oppressed, the maligned, and the misunderstood. She hated bullying and would have extended empathy and understanding to any trans person experiencing it. In that respect, she was indeed a “trans ally”—as am I. But let’s be clear about one thing: Every political and intellectual bone in her body would have detested gender ideology.
Bindel continues,
Dworkin had huge empathy with individuals who attempted to step out of the gender cage, which she recognised as a social construct. She said what radical feminists have long understood: that “gender” as a set of externally imposed expectations should be abolished, because it causes harm to women and girls. Dworkin was, though, dead-set against the notion that, as part of the project to abolish gender, men could or should identify as women; and she would have been appalled at unnecessary medical “adjustments” to the body, when it was, to her mind, patriarchy as a whole that cried out for “adjustment”—indeed, abolition.
Bindel then goes on to talk about the quote from Dworkin's first book Woman Hating (1974) that gets passed around to argue that Dworkin supported trans people. In this quote Dworkin extends empathy to transsexual people and says:
"Every transsexual is entitled to a sex-change operation, and it should be provided by the community as one of its functions."
However, Bindel makes it clear that Dworkin's views evolved and changed — beginning with Dworkin's endorsement of the notoriously transmisogynist radfem book The Transsexual Empire: the Making of the She-Male by Janice Raymond in 1979.
Bindel states:
In the earlier Women Hating, where she expressed her less-than-fully-developed views, Dworkin described transsexuality as an “emergency measure for an emergency condition.” I discussed this claim with her at the Brighton conference, because it had always intrigued me. She said, and I am paraphrasing but I recall the conversation very clearly, that until females were liberated as a sex class, and men were no longer required to uphold patriarchal values that harm women, both men and women would seek to escape the system of “gender.”
Meaning, in Dworkin's mind, transsexuality and transgender identity were simply a means of misguided people attempting "to escape the system of gender" — not any legitimate identity. Transsexuals and transgender people were, at best, pitied, NOT accepted by Dworkin.
The only thing I will ever wholeheartedly agree with Julia Bindel on is that we need to stop trying to shape Dworkin's legacy into something trans accepting. Because it's not. Andrea Dworkin was not an ally to trans people. Radical Feminism was never and will never be friendly to trans people.
If you can stomach transphobic shit, I recommend reading the article in full and doing your own research into the history it opens a window into.
You should know Radical Feminist history — not because you agree with the ideology, but so you don't buy into it when someone tries to sell it to you disguised under a false veneer of trans acceptance.
Actually a bedtime reminder that Julie Bindel bonded and became friends with Andrea Dworkin over making fun of the identities of marginalized women. Because that's a super feminist thing to do at feminist conferences where other women are expressing the vulnerabilities of their other marginalized statuses.
It's very striking that these women were bonding this way, making fun of other women's "rabid identity politics" around the same time Audre Lorde was rightfully taking up space as a Black lesbian and vocally asserting that The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master's House.
It paints a pretty clear picture of the way some of the most influential modern radfems thought about women like Lorde. If you look close enough, you can almost see the tools in their hands.
America has a weird relationship with cults where they’re terrified of small cults (or organizations they think are cults) but completely normalized massive cults that hurt many more people (eg: LDS Church, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Amish, Scientology, most Megachurches)
To anybody asking if the Amish are a cult, the answer is yes, very much so.
They’re a high control group that isolate you from society. The cult decides how you dress, how you behave, who you marry and how. They control what you know, blocking all information from the outside world. They control how you feel and what you’re allowed to think with threats of both social and supernatural harm. They’re a cult.
The best method to determine if a group is a cult, in my opinion, is Steven Hassan’s (cult expert and former cult member himself) BITE model.
BITE stands for Behavior Control, Information Control, Thought Control, and Emotional Control.
The more points a group “scores” on the model, the more of a cult it is.
I think this model is the best one for several reasons:
It’s more nuanced than “cult” or “not cult” and doesn’t make false equivalences between groups
It’s versatile, applying to groups big and small, and cults of all kinds, religious, political, financial, etc.
It focuses on what’s important, which is what the cult does to its members, and those members’ experiences, and not on irrelevant details like how uncommon their doctrines are or whether they have a charismatic leader
This is a great example of Thought Control used by cults whenever they’re confronted with criticism.
#you might notice that there are a lot of similarities between cult techniques and those of abusive partners#and that is an important thing to be aware of
yah that goes in the post
The creator of the BITE Model considers abusive relationships to be two-person cults.
It’s important to note that almost every sect of evangelical christianity in the US today fails the BITE Model.
This was the post that lead to breaking my JW mindset. Been a while since I seen it.
I’m glad I could help in your deconstruction, if only a little bit. I wish you all the luck in your journey moving forward.
It’s tricky with parenting, because parents have to control their children’s lives to start with, since newborns are incapable of taking care of themselves.
A healthy parent will gradually relinquish control as their child grows and becomes more capable. And even while they’re in charge, they will treat their child with honesty and transparency and respect. They’ll prepare their child for independence, giving them the tools they need to live their own life.
A culty, abusive parent will go far beyond the level of control that their role requires. They will use manipulation and undue influence, taking advantage of their child’s naivete and malleable mind for the parent’s own benefit and agenda. They will continue to exercise this control well into their child’s adulthood, possibly their whole life.
Release the files, abolish Republicans.
This Dan Piraro comic always makes me cry.
When I lived in London there was a murder of crows that lived near me. I fed them often, they brought me presents (shiny rubbish and cigarette butts they found on the floor to thank me.)
When I moved, I’m certain they understood I was leaving because I had all my stuff and gave them lots of food and compliments.
But, they chased down my friend who lived in the next burrough over. They had recognised that friend with me several times and followed them to their house when they couldn’t find me.
They adopted my friend and it was now my friend’s job to bring them snacks and receive the presents.
This was maybe 6-7 years ago.
I visited London last year. Went to see my friend. The crows all not only recognised me, they tracked me down. We got into my friend’s flat and not twenty minutes later there was chaos on the balcony.
We open the curtains, the entire fucking murder is there shouting because they wanted to see me.
Crows are the very best birds.
NO-BAKE OREO CHEESECAKE
Really nice recipes. Every hour.
Show me what you cooked!