Duodecuple Agent

a backstabbing bitch, 20s

[oneeyedsolidsnake]

reblog my posts boy

[kushblazer666]

[autogynophelia]

Whenever you say something, you are really saying two things:

The thing you're saying.

That that thing is worth saying.

That is, speech/writing has a cost to it, in the form of energy and time expended doing it, in the energy and time taken by others to listen to/read it, and the thing you are communicating is implied to be sufficiently valuable to worth that trade-off.

E.g. if you meet a woman and she says, "Hi, I'm Becky, I was born on a Thursday," it would be an odd experience because even if 1 applies, 2 clearly doesn't (unless you are running some kind of day-of-birth study or something ig). There is a hidden meaning of, "you should be aware of the weekday of my birth because it is important," that seems to make no sense.

And yet people will often defend something they have said on the basis of it being strictly true, which is unsatisfactory because it only justifies half of what was communicated by the act of saying it.

If Becky comes along to a queer event and says "Hi, I'm Becky, I'm AFAB," you have to understand that that is not just a neutral statement of fact, it also communicates something like this: "I am aware that if I looked and sounded the same but my sex assignment was different I would be treated differently. I am informing you of my sex assignment right now so that you treat me appropriately hereafter."

And that is just straight-up transmisogyny, both in displaying uncritical acceptance of how prevalent transmisogyny is in queer groups, and in demanding exemption from it. It sounds absurd on the face of it that a cis woman describing herself using entirely true statements can be doing transmisogyny, even in the absence of any transfeminine person or any mention of transfeminity at all. But it's true all the same.

And if you try telling Becky she shouldn't say that, she and most of the other people at the event will tell you "but it's true!", "she can describe herself how she likes!", "don't police how other people talk about themselves!", and so on. And people will look at you like you've lost your mind if you start claiming that Becky is abusing you by introducing herself in a manner that doesn't reference you at all.

[website-enjoyer]

whether someone uses stalinist as a pejorative or as a badge of notoriety it is seemingly inevitable that they eventually apply the label to a political line that was in fact most prominently voiced by trotsky

[soup-mother]

Girl on girl action. Girl on girl adventure. Girl on girl mystery. Girl on girl crush the castle 2

[princessdraconic]

hits you with the pervert hammer for being into blonde girly guys. hitting you in the stomach in my basement until you're only attracted to black-haired tomboys

[notahorseindisguise]

i never got a chance to smoke darts in a carpark

[notahorseindisguise]

[stephexmachina]

can't read mlm fiction where they cheat on their wives/gfs bc the wanting to bludgeon both men to death gets in the way but i eat it up when lesbians use & betray the men in their lives #mydoublestandard

[street-dog-bread]

[sin0fempathy]

uterine functions are stigmatized and legislated over because their owners are coercively assigned female at birth, thus presumed to be women, and the patriarchy hates women. not the other way around. women’s oppression did not arise out of some “biological disadvantage” it rose because men wanted to seize total power over their societies and instituted the sexgender system after they’d already chosen to oppress all women as a justification after the fact. the sexgender system is not functionally different from race in that respect. they are both social constructs designed to justify the supremacy of one group at the expense of the other. they are not rational reasons for the oppression to have existed in the first place. oppressive structures are built on a foundation of desired supremacy, not facts.

if men were the ones presumed to have uteruses, abortions would be over the counter. whatever happened to feminists saying that and being right about it. oh yeah the rise of transmisogyny how could i forget

[soup-mother]

I can imagine literally any sort of reactionary man in my head through the power of imagination. Because of this I need not waste my time meeting your boyfriend

[sapphling]

really seeing the difference in how tme nonbinary people are treated vs tma nonbinary people demonstrated concisely in the promo material/interviews coming out ahead of teenage sex and death at camp miasma & how comments are needing to be limited or turned off only on videos of jane schoenbrun speaking and not on those of jack haven

[sapphling]

also i somewhat suspect that the smaller scale harassment & smearing calling schoenbrun a pedophile for making a movie with the words "teenage sex" in the title will go a little more mainstream post-release and when you're talking about how stupid this is i need you to recognize that it is specifically happening because the director is transfem and not simply as the result of a nebulous "cultural puritanism"

[ranni-thewitch]

we must make haste in killing every harry potter fan

[boccher]

street photography got a generation of men thinking that the concept of a stranger walking is a inherently compelling photo subject, rather than understanding street photography as a genre of deliberate compositional experiments and cultural snapshots

[boccher]

an instagram photo influencer should ask themselves "are the contents of this photo more meaningful than the act of publishing stranger's faces online?"

[boccher]

and come to face with the fact that no, a stranger walking under cyberpunk neon city lights on a rainy night is so meaningless that it's indistinguishable from a thousand existing AI generated images

[frostops]

If trans men want to define themselves this way I can’t stop them but maybe leave trans women out of it yeah.

[toskarin]

lancer: of course, of course, I get it. you got paid, I got paid. treasure of the modern world and all that. but even if we're loaded right this minute, we shouldn't be buying digital monke-

gilgamesh, suddenly stopping cold mid wineglass swirl: they're apes. non fungible treasures. mine by right.

[jadedpreschooler]

the renegade jiejie gives a striking example of how verbal recognition of yummies gives way in practice to vegetables. endless overtures are made to the principles of yumminess, of the world-historical role which delicious foods play in the struggle of the proletariat. cheap acknowledgements are made to the outward qualities of yummies - the inclusion of garlic, tasty sauces, etc., cleverly glossing over the key ingredient of the dish. and yet, amidst the flagrant sophistry which presents dinner as yummies in form, upon examination of the facts, we discover clearly the actual content of dinner, which is, irreducibly, eggplant. only this question remains: how did such a shameless detractor ever enter into the ranks of th

[jadedpreschooler]

ever the sly opportunist, jiejie has offered an anemic rebuttal to my earlier remarks. let us address each of her points in turn:

1. "insisting that eggplant can never take on the genuine character of yumminess is vulgar materialism"

this claim rests on a premise which i did not in fact put forward. i do not argue that eggplant possesses an immutable, ahistorical tendency towards grossness; only that a real, existing dish containing eggplant, under the current historical circumstances, cannot be considered by any but the ignorant or the wholly unscrupulous to be yummies. on the frontier of scientific development, advances in genetic engineering, or the invention of new quality culinary techniques, may well lead to breakthroughs producing entirely new categories of yummies in the future. but we are not utopians, and so we make a clear distinction between such speculation, and the material conditions of the present. just as the real science of nuclear chemistry had no relevance to the false claims made by pre-modern alchemists of transmuting the elements, we should not allow the invocation of what might be possible under a higher stage of development to misguide us. for by this rhetorical sleight-of-hand, i.e., hinting coyly at a form of eggplant which, by some unknown technological process, takes on the true nature of yummies, jiejie implies thusly that the dish which is right now in front of our eyes may constitute such an instance, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary! whether eggplant could be converted into yummies in theory is entirely beside the point. the dinner of tomorrow, while a compelling topic in its own right, must not blind us to the dinner of today.

2. "it's good for you"

here, jiejie draws upon that loathsome notion of 'the healthy diet', an unscientific sham invented by bourgeois medical professionals in order to give women eating disorders,

[jadedpreschooler]

i think she is angry now